Quantitative results
To address RQ1, we conducted two repeated-measures ANOVAs: one predicting the overall perceived importance of music across relationship phases, and one predicting the perceived relevance of music to intimacy, passion, and commitment across relationship phases.
In the first ANOVA, the perceived general importance of music did not differ across the relationship phases, F(1.85, 319.2) = 0.77, p = .462, ηp² < 0.01. As shown in Figure 1 (gray boxplots), participants reported similar levels of importance in the attraction (M = 4.03, SD = 1.02), building (M = 4.03, SD = 0.99), and maintenance (M = 3.95, SD = 1.08) phases.

Figure 1. The perceived importance of music across the three phases of romantic relationships.
Note. Boxplots summarise the distribution of the data, while the responses of individual participants are shown as jittered points. Mean values are indicated by larger black circles. Questions regarding the general importance of music, as well as its perceived relevance to the three aspects of love, were measured on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (totally).

Figure 2. Full list of codes and higher order themes.
Note. Negative valence codes are shown in grey. Code descriptions can be found in the extended data (OSF repository).
In the second ANOVA, we examined the perceived relevance of music to the three aspects of love across relationship stages. This analysis revealed significant main effects for both aspect, F(1.39, 240) = 195.75, p < .001, ηp² = 0.53, and phase, F(1.62, 280) = 13.44, p < .001, ηp² = 0.07, and no interaction effect, F(3.56, 616) = 0.87, p = .475, ηp² = 0.01. Regarding aspects of love, pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni correction indicated significant differences between all relationship aspects: music was perceived to be slightly more relevant to intimacy (M = 3.96, SD = 0.97) than passion (M = 3.76, SD = 0.99, t(521) = 5.95, p < .001, d = 0.26), and less relevant to commitment (M = 2.79, SD = 1.18) than to both intimacy (t(521) = 22.1, p < .001, d = 0.97) and passion (t(521) = 18.8, p < .001, d = 0.83). Regarding relationship phases, there were no significant differences in perceived relevance to the three love aspects between the attraction (M = 3.61, SD = 1.08) and building phases (M = 3.59, SD = 1.02; t(522) = 0.51, p = 1.00, d = 0.01 ), but music’s relevance was rated as lower for the maintenance phase (M = 3.31, SD = 1.05) compared to both the attraction (t(522) = 5.42, p < .001, d = 0.24) and building phases (t(522) = 6.26, p < .001, d = 0.27). Figure 1 (coloured boxplots) shows the distribution of relevance ratings separately for each love aspect and relationship phase.
To test whether music-related individual traits moderate the role of music in romantic relationships (RQ2), we correlated musical expertise and sensitivity to music-related reward with the overall perceived importance of music and its relevance to the three aspects of love (aggregated across phases). As an exploratory analysis, we also included demographics (gender, age, and education) in the correlations. As detailed in Table 2, sensitivity to musical reward was positively associated with all outcomes except commitment. Most correlations had moderate effect size, with a small effect size for music's relevance to commitment (Cohen, 2013). Musical expertise showed only a weak correlation with the overall importance of music. Table S1 in the supplementary materials (OSF repository) shows the same correlations for all BMRQ subscales. The strongest correlations with overall importance and relevance to the three aspects of love were observed for the social reward subscale, while the weakest correlations were found for the sensory-motor subscale.
Table 2. Correlations between the perceived importance of music overall and its relevance to the three aspects of love (intimacy, passion, commitment) and personal characteristics, including means and standard deviations.
| Variables assessing personal characteristics |
|---|
| Variables assessing the role of music | Musical expertise (M = 0.00, SD = 0.83) | BMRQ Total Score (M = 4.04, SD = 0.46) | Gender::female | Age (M = 27.18, SD = 9.27) | Education (M = 4.77, SD = 1.17) |
|---|
Overall importance of music | .22* | .47*** | .02 | .07 | -.01 |
Music’s relevance to passion | .09 | .38*** | -.06 | .04 | -.06 |
Music’s relevance to intimacy | .03 | .34*** | .03 | .03 | -.05 |
Music’s relevance to commitment | .14 | .25** | -.04 | .18 | .06 |
[i] Note. Education was measured as the highest level of education achieved (1 = compulsory education without vocational training; 7 = doctorate/PhD; see the Methods section for all answer options). Musical expertise is a composite score based on multiple items that were z-transformed before computing the composite score (see Methods section), therefore the mean is 0. BMRQ = Barcelona Music Reward Questionnaire. *p < .05, ** p < .01, ***p < .001, with all p-values corrected using the Benjamini-Hochberg method.
As the BMRQ showed moderate correlations with all outcomes, we conducted an additional analysis to examine whether music-related reward sensitivity influenced the relative importance attached to music across relationship phases and love aspects. Specifically, we ran a repeated-measures ANOVA including the BMRQ group (low versus high, based on a median split) as the between-subjects factor. The analysis revealed significant main effects of love aspect (F(1.38, 238) = 197.17, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.53) and phase (F(1.62, 279) = 13.35, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.07), as well as a main effect of BMRQ (F(1.00, 172) = 23.21, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.12). This indicates that individuals with higher BMRQ scores consistently rated music as more important than those with lower scores, across all phases and aspects of love. There were no significant interactions between the BMRQ and phase (F(1.62, 279) = 0.01, p = .991, ηp2 < 0.01) or aspect (F(1.38, 238) = 1.76, p = .184, ηp2 = 0.01), suggesting that the relative pattern of music's perceived relevance across phases and love aspects was unaffected by the BMRQ. Figure S1 (OSF repository) illustrates these results, showing the importance of music across phases and love aspects separately for low and high BMRQ groups.
In response to additional 5-point scale questions, participants reported that they typically discussed musical preferences with their (potential) partners (M = 4.28, SD = 0.86), place moderate importance on their partner's musical taste (M = 3.52, SD = 1.06), but less importance on their partner's musical ability (M = 2.19, SD = 1.14). On average, participants tended to have songs they associate with their relationships (M = 3.70, SD = 1.37). Overall, participants did not perceive musical compatibility as more important than compatibility in other leisure activities (M = 2.54, SD = 1.05). Consistent with findings on the role of music in romantic relationships, musical expertise was positively correlated with talking about preferences and valuing a partner’s musical ability, while musical reward was positively associated with all five additional questions (see Table S2 in the OSF repository).
Qualitative results
Of the 174 participants, 147 answered to at least one of the three open-ended questions. Responses were provided by 129 participants for the attraction phase, 119 for the building phase, and 103 for the maintenance phase, resulting in 351 coded responses. The length of participant responses ranged from 1 to 544 words (M = 13.6 words). Template analysis, as described in the Methods section, yielded 55 distinct codes grouped into nine higher-order themes (making and recalling memories, listening to music, sharing and discussing music, active musical activities, attraction, compatibility, self-disclosure and communication, bonding and (re)connecting, emotion/affect, and regulation) and two aggregate dimensions (action and outcome), as shown in Figure 2. A detailed description of all the themes is provided in Table S3 (OSF repository). We recognise that readers may be surprised to see 'memories' categorised as an action rather than an outcome code. Unlike our outcome codes, which reflect emotional or relationship-related processes, the theme 'memories' occupies an intermediate position. We placed it in the action dimension because it primarily refers to the active process of creating and recalling memories, which can then lead to emotional or relational outcomes.
Inter-coder reliability was substantial, with κ = 0.62, z = 104, p < .001 across all codes and phases. Agreement was similarly high for the attraction (κ = 0.62, z = 60.27, p < .001), building (κ = 0.60, z = 58.65, p < .001), and maintenance (κ = 0.63, z = 61.65, p < .001) phases. Tables S4 and S5 (see OSF repository) show that all Kappas for second-order themes were consistently above 0.40, indicating at least moderate agreement (M = 0.57, SD = 0.12, range = 0.40 - 0.65). Of the 55 first-order codes, 76% showed at least moderate agreement (> 0.40), and 96% achieved at least fair agreement (> 0.20) (M = 0.58, SD = 0.21, range = 0.12 - 1.00). The code with the lowest agreement was 5C ('Attracted by shared musical experiences', κ = 0.12), followed by 6C ('Extra-musical compatibility', κ = 0.19).
To increase the robustness of the findings, only codes identified by both coders will be included in the qualitative analysis, given the high level of agreement between the coders. Frequencies are reported as the percentage of participants who mentioned each code/theme/dimension at least once, either across all three open-ended questions, or within a given phase.
Aggregate dimensions: Action and Outcome. Regarding the two aggregate dimensions of action and outcome (the latter subdivided into bonding, signalling, and emotions), 72.4% of participants mentioned musical actions in at least one response, including activities such as listening to music, sharing music, and creating music. Bonding as an outcome, involving connection/reconnection and self-disclosure, was mentioned by 39.7% of participants. Signalling appeared in 40.2% of participants’ responses, referring to indications of attraction (e.g., being attracted by the musical ability of a potential partner) or compatibility (e.g., finding out about shared musical tastes or extra-musical compatibility). Emotion as an outcome appeared in 13.2% of responses and involved (co)regulation of emotions, such as setting the mood or processing emotional experiences.
Across all relationship phases, musical actions were consistently present, appearing in 58.0%, 56.9%, and 44.8% of participants’ responses in the attraction, building, and maintenance phases, respectively. Similarly, bonding was observed in 18.4%, 19.0%, and 19.5% of responses across attraction, building and maintenance phases. Signalling was most pronounced in the attraction phase (27.0%), followed by the building phase (14.4%), and maintenance phase (13.2%). Emotional outcomes were less pronounced, appearing in 7.5%, 5.2%, and 2.9% of responses in the attraction, building, and maintenance phases, respectively.
Second-order themes. The heatmap in Figure 3 provides an overview of theme frequencies, based on the percentage of participants who mentioned codes belonging to each theme, both overall and across phases. Overall, the most frequent theme was listening to music in public and private contexts (Theme 2), followed by sharing and discussing music (Theme 3) and engaging in active musical activities (Theme 4). We also observed variations in the prominence of themes across phases. For example, 'listening to music' increased in frequency from the attraction to the maintenance phase, while 'sharing and discussing music' was more common in the attraction and building phases and decreased in the maintenance phase. The theme 'making and recalling memories' (Theme 1) was most prevalent in the attraction and, to a lesser extent, maintenance phases, where participants referred to creating shared memories early on and recalling them later. Representative responses include: “Having that song as a reminder of all the good in the relationship and why you love the other person, having positive memories tied to that and other songs that are brought up when you listen to them[...]” (Participant 116), and

Figure 3. Frequencies of second-order themes across relationship phases, shown as percentages of participants (color) and absolute participant counts (numbers).
“Certain songs discovered and consumed during that period (especially when they were relationship pop [songs]) connect with that time and reinforce the feeling of attraction. I've always felt that the songs I've consumed a lot tie in with important events in my life during the listening period, as well as the seasons.” (Participant 168)
Feelings of attraction through music (Theme 5) were most prevalent in the attraction phase, whereas references to compatibility through music (Theme 6) occurred across all phases, but were again most common in the attraction phase. The themes 'Self-disclosure and communication' (Theme 7) and 'Emotion/affect & regulation' (Theme 9) were more prominent in the early phases of relationships. Regarding self-disclosure, participants described moments in which they revealed personal information to their partners, including their musical preferences and experiences, and used songs or song lyrics to express feelings and intentions. Quotes exemplifying this theme include, “we shared playlists of music that we like. Also we exchanged playlists with music in our native languages, as we are an international couple (finnish and spanish).” (Participant 17), “You can also ask which songs you listened to as a child and find out something about your family environment.” (Participant 326). Regarding emotion/affect & regulation, participants described using music was used either intentionally or unintentionally to set the mood or affective tone while together or independently. An examples of this theme in participants’ responses is:
Many participant responses in this theme discussed the importance of music before, during, and/or after sex. For instance:
“I think that the choice of music is extremely important during sex. In my experience, the type of music has a significant effect on sex and therefore also determines whether it vibes. What I've also noticed personally in this context is that "more relaxed" and "romantic" music only feels good with people you really like. So music can also be an indicator of how comfortable I feel with a person and how vulnerable I can be.” (participant 238)
First-order codes. In the action dimension, three of the most frequent codes were related to listening to music: listening to music together (2F, n = 88, 15.6%), listening to music in public (2A, n = 52, 29.9%) and listening to music in private (2B, n = 37, 21.3%). In addition, 28.2% of the participants mentioned sharing and talking about music (3A, n = 49), and 19.5% mentioned making music together (4A, n = 34). In the outcome dimension, the most prevalent codes were compatible musical tastes (6A, n = 37, 21.3%) and strengthening bonds/deepening connections (8A, n = 33, 19.0%), followed by realising incompatibility through music (6E, n = 16, 9.2%).
Table 3 summarises the top three codes for each phase for both action and outcome dimensions. Across all phases, the most common action codes consistently involve listening to music (together, in public, and in private; 2F, 2A, 2B). In contrast, the outcomes of musical activities differed by relationship phase. In the attraction and building phases, participants primarily mentioned compatibility (e.g., having compatible tastes or musical abilities, 6A) and to a smaller extent incompatibility (e.g., finding out to have different tastes, 6E), followed by deepening bonds (8A). In the maintenance phase, coping with differences becomes more prominent (e.g., finding a way to deal with differences in musical preferences, 6D), as do topics such as incorporating music into future plans and commitments (e.g., planning dance lessons or choosing music for a wedding, 8D).
Table 3. Most prevalent (top three) first-order codes across relationship phases.
| Code | Frequency | Percentage (by phase) |
|---|
| Attraction Phase | | |
| Action | | |
| 2F - Together (music listening) | 40 | 23.0 |
| 3A - Sharing or talking about music | 38 | 21.8 |
| 2A - Public (music listening) | 17 | 9.8 |
| Outcome | | |
| 6A - Compatible musical tastes | 25 | 14.4 |
| 8A - Strengthening bonds / deepening connection | 17 | 9.8 |
5A - Attracted by musical ability & 5B - Attracted by shared taste | 8 | 4.6 |
| Building Phase | | |
| Action | | |
| 2F - Together (music listening) | 46 | 26.4 |
| 3A - Sharing or talking about music | 20 | 11.5 |
| 2A - Public (music listening) & 4A - Making music | 19 | 10.9 |
| Outcome | | |
| 8A - Strengthening bonds/deepening connection | 17 | 9.8 |
| 6A - Compatible musical tastes | 14 | 8.1 |
| 6E - Incompatibility | 8 | 4.6 |
| Maintaining Phase | | |
| Action | | |
| 2F - Together (music listening) | 53 | 30.5 |
| 2A - Public (music listening) | 35 | 20.1 |
| 2B - Private (music listening) | 22 | 12.6 |
| Outcome | | |
| 6D - Coping with differences | 12 | 6.9 |
| 8A - Strengthening bonds/deepening connection | 8 | 4.6 |
6E - Incompatibility, 8D - Future plans & commitment, & 8H - Losing connection | 7 | 4.0 |
A more detailed heat map of the frequencies of all 55 first-order codes across the relationship phases is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Frequencies of first-order codes across relationship phases, shown as percentages of participants (color) and absolute participant counts (numbers).
Note. The text colors of the codes indicate the nine higher order themes to which the codes were assigned: 1 = making and recalling memories, 2 = listening to music (public and private), 3 = sharing and discussing music, 4 = active musical activities, 5 = attraction, 6 = compatibility, 7 = self-disclosure and communication, 8 = bonding and (re)connecting, 9 = emotion/affect and regulation.
Negative experiences. Overall, most participants (n = 139, 79.9%) described positive experiences with music, whereas a smaller proportion (n = 36, 20.7%) reported negative experiences. Negative experiences were most frequently mentioned in the maintenance phase (11.5% of the sample), followed by the building (9.2%) and the attraction (4.0%) phases. In the maintenance phase, these negative experiences most often involved realising incompatibilities (4.0%, 6E; e.g., discovering differing musical tastes) and a loss of connection (4.0%, 8H; e.g., spending less time together because one partner was too absorbed in music). Quotes from participants' responses exemplifying these negative experiences shared ideas such as,
“Different music preferences led to us growing apart (he never really wanted to listen to music, but it was important to me) - even with the songs we listened to, when we listened to music we became estranged (I think) because we only ever listened to his songs.” (Participant 370).
Similarly, in both the building phase and attraction phases, the most mentioned negative code was realizing incompatibility (6E), with 4.2% of participants mentioning the code in the building phase, and 1.7% of participants mentioning it in the attraction phase.
Co-occurrence of codes. To explore whether certain action and outcome codes were frequently mentioned together, we conducted a thematic co-occurrence analysis following the method outlined by Scharp (2021). As shown in Figure 5, outcome codes belonging to compatibility (Theme 6) and bonding (Theme 8) mostly co-occurred with action codes. Among the compatibility codes, compatible tastes (6A) showed the most co-occurrences, particularly with listening to music (2F together, n = 19; 2C active, n = 7; 2A in public, n = 7), sharing music (3A, n = 15), and actively making music (4A, n = 5). Participant responses illustrating these co-occurrences included descriptions of actions such as, “Discussing musical preferences, and finding common interests, setting up a date location based on mutual musical interests (e.g. jazz bar), meeting up at a festival.” (Participant 110). Codes belonging to bonding (Theme 8), specifically strengthening bonds (8A), mostly co-occurred with listening to music (2F, n = 8) and sharing music (3A, n = 8). Responses such as, “Going to concerts together and generally listening to songs that both partners like was a nice experience. I feel more connected to my partner when he has at least some idea of what music I like [...].” (Participant 245- 8A and 2F) demonstrate the co-occurrence of these codes.

Figure 5. Co-occurrences of action and outcome codes across all relationship phases.
Circle sizes indicate the frequency of individual codes, and line thicknesses indicate how often the two codes (absolute numbers) were mentioned in the same responses.
A full matrix of co-occurrences overall and separately by relationship phase can be found in the Extended Data (see OSF repository).