Love of one’s musical instrument as a predictor of happiness and satisfaction with musical experience

Abstract

In this study, we performed a first assessment of the construct validity of a theory and measure of love for music students’ musical instruments. In all, 288 undergraduates at a large and selective Northeastern university in the United States completed measures of their love of their musical instrument with respect to intimacy, passion, and commitment, the three components of a triangular theory of love. They also provided information about their affective, motivational, and behavioral outcomes with regard to their instrument. The components of the theory of love significantly predicted all affective, motivational, and behavioral outcomes. Moreover, each component of the theory could be measured in a way that showed high internal-consistency reliability. However, the scales of intimacy, passion, and commitment showed less discriminant validity with respect to each other than we ideally would have hoped for.

Keywords

love of musical instrument triangular theory of love intimacy passion commitment triangular theory of love of musical instruments

When we think of love, we usually think of love for another person, such as a lover, a spouse, or a child. People also may love animals they have as pets, such as dogs or cats. But, of course, people can love objects as well as people. Someone may say they love their house, their car, or a particular kind of food. Musicians also may love their musical instruments. In speaking of “their musical instruments,” we are referring to the specific individual musical instrument or instruments the musicians play, not to generic categories of instruments. It is possible for someone, musician or not, to love violins or violin music without having any special feelings for any particular violin. In this research, we are studying the relationship between the musician and the specific instrument they play, not merely the category, such as violins, clarinets, trumpets, or drums.

It is easy to imagine a professional musician falling in love, at some level, with their musical instrument—certainly if it is a classical violin, such as one created by the likes of Antonio Stradivarius, Nicola Amati, or Francesco Ruggieri. But musicians—professional or amateur—may come to love their musical instruments even if they are not made by the most renowned luthiers of all times. For example, a modern cello by luthiers such as David Caron, Lawrence Wilke, or Guy Rabut can command a great deal of respect, and perhaps love too. The senior author of this article is probably not alone in also having fallen in love with his childhood cello, which cost, at most, a few hundred dollars.

What does it mean to “love” a musical instrument? What are the components of love and how do they combine to form love? There have been speculations in the popular musical literature. For example, one writer suggested, perhaps tongue-in-cheek, that you are in love with your musical instrument when (1) you spend most evenings in each other’s company, (2) your musical instrument makes you feel incredible, (3) you take photos of yourself together with your instrument, (4) you want your friends to see you together with your musical instrument, (5) you share the same dreams and hopes for the future, (6) you travel the world together, (7) you hold each other close, (8) you take photos, (9) when you have a great night, you share it with the instrument, (10) you feel emotionally toward the instrument, (11) you give the instrument a lot of care, (12) you find the instrument to be beautiful, (13) you have fun together, and (14) you have very strong feelings (ClassicFM, 2017, January 6).

One might hope for an analysis of love of musical instruments that attacks the problem in a scholarly way from a psychological theoretical framework. A search of Google Scholar reveals that there appears to be almost a vacuum with respect to scholarly research on the specific topic of love of one’s musical instrument (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=love+of+musical+instruments&btnG=).

There have been scholarly studies that have been indirectly, if not directly, relevant to the questions addressed in this article. For example, Onwubiko (2016) found that musical acoustics play a major role in children’s choice of instrument: Children simply like certain kinds of sounds more than others and are drawn as a result to instruments whose sounds they find more to their liking. Schmidt and Lewis (1988) found that preference for one timbre versus another is a key factor in students’ decisions as to what instrument to play, as well as in their achievement and continuation in playing that instrument.

Lynn (2017) found that children’s gender, the sound and timbre of the instrument, and their family are important factors in instrument choice. Interestingly, although parental influence is important, sometimes sibling influence was more important, whereby children chose instruments either because a sibling chose them, or explicitly because a sibling did not choose them. That is, they wanted to be unique within the family in their choice of instrument. These results were interpreted as consistent with the suggestion of Mills (2009) that children be exposed to the sounds of various musical instruments as early as possible so that they are in an optimal position to make an instrumental choice.

O’Neill and Boultona (1996) found that boys tended to prefer to play guitar, drums, and trumpet, whereas girls showed a preference for flute, violin, and piano. In other words, it was hard to avoid the conclusion that there were sex stereotypes in musical preferences (see also, for related results, Delzell & Leppla, 1992; Fortney et al., 1993; Green, 1993; Porter & Abeles, 1979; Sinsel et al., 1997; Walker, 2004). Finally, Chen and Howard (2007) found that choices of musical instruments were highly complex, involving gender but also instrument availability, needs of the players, and musical history. Sex stereotyping, it might be added, does not apply only to selection of musical instruments but also to the way women historically have been treated in music. At one time, women were required to have a cello placed by their side instead of between their legs to avoid an appearance of supposed “indecency” (Sergeant & Himonides, 2019).

One theoretical framework that can be and has been applied directly to addressing the question of love of one’s musical instrument, however, is a triangular theory of love (Sternberg, 1986) as applied to musical instruments (Sternberg, 2021a). This theory specifies both the components of love and how they combine. The theory has been construct-validated for love of people for each other (Sternberg, 1997) and has been shown to be valid in more than two dozen countries (Sorokowski et al., 2021).

Theoretical basis for the study: the triangular theory of love

The triangular theory comprises three components: intimacy, passion, and commitment, as reviewed in Sternberg (2021a). Each of the components contributes in a different way toward feelings of love.

Intimacy is primarily emotional. It involves feelings of connection, deep understanding, mutual emotional support, attachment, and communication (Berscheid & Hatfield, 1969; Sternberg, 1986). Intimacy is the basis for friendship and for feelings of companionship in one’s relations with a loved one (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2019). Intimacy can involve one’s growing through a relationship and becoming whomever one wishes to be (Aron & Tomlinson, 2019).

When musicians feel intimacy toward a musical instrument, they feel a sense of connection and closeness with the instrument. They feel that, say, violins or flutes or trumpets, even of the same or perhaps better quality, are not interchangeable—that they have a special relationship with their own instrument. They know the instrument—its quirks, its peculiarities, what works with it and what does not work. They feel that they are in a relationship of some kind with it. They are connected to it in a way that they feel toward no other instrument, and possibly even toward no other person or thing.

Passion is largely motivational. It is a state of intense arousal. The person experiencing it is drawn toward someone or something that seems magnetic in its influence. The draw even may feel irresistible (Feybesse & Hatfield, 2019; Hallam, 2015). Passion often does not feel “optional.” When one feels passion toward someone or something, one feels that one simply must connect with the object of the passion.

Those who are intensely musical may easily feel a sense of passion toward the musical instrument. The instrument is an integral part of one’s life. It may even be something one feels one “needs.” If one is separated too long from it, one may miss it. One may think about it at odd times, and if one travels away from home without the instrument, one may feel a sense of loss due to the separation. The instrument feels truly essential to one’s life. One may even idealize the instrument, viewing it as being just exactly all one ever would hope for in that particular kind of musical instrument.

Commitment is the most cognitive component in love. It is both a decision that one loves a person or object and the expectation that, if possible, one will be with the object as long as possible (Chapman, 1994; Peck, 2003; Sternberg, 1986). With a musical instrument, one has decided on a long-term, possibly lifetime relationship. Even when one’s musical career possibly is not going as one would hope, one stays with that instrument and seeks to deepen one’s relationship with it.

The triangular theory of love for a musical instrument was proposed in a theoretical paper (Sternberg, 2021a), but has not yet been tested. Thus, as of now, there is a potential need for empirical evidence that the components of the triangular theory actually predict meaningful criteria, such as happiness or satisfaction with one’s musical instrument, or the importance of that musical instrument in one’s life. That is the question addressed by this study.

Why should love of one’s musical instrument even matter to the player or to the teacher of music? We believe that there are at least three reasons.

The first reason is the basic-research issue of whether one’s love of a musical instrument predicts happiness and satisfaction with it. Does a particular instrument matter, or is any love a student or practitioner feels more of a feeling toward music in general, or a kind of instrument, in general, rather than toward a particular musical instrument?

The second reason is the applied research issue of whether helping a student to find a musical instrument that they really love will increase both retention with the instrument and amount of practice time with that instrument. When parents rent or buy musical instruments, they often simply follow a teacher’s recommendation or look at what instrument they can afford that seems to be of at least satisfactory quality. But if love of a musical instrument matters for longevity with music and practice time, perhaps parents and teachers alike ought to consider investing more time and effort, and perhaps more financial resources, in finding a suitable musical instrument.

Love of a musical instrument actually was an issue with the senior author’s triplet son and his playing of the cello. The coauthor originally rented an instrument that he found to be barely satisfactory, but that was recommended by a dealer as a suitable first instrument. However, the coauthor’s son—who is far from a professional musician in the making—did not seem to want to practice it, and the coauthor reached the conclusion that if he did not particularly like listening to it, there was no reason that his son would. The parents invested a few hundred dollars more in a better cello, and it made a large difference in the son’s willingness to practice and in his engagement with the instrument. It was clear to the coauthor that beyond just the sound, his son had formed some kind of close relationship with the second instrument that he did not have with the first instrument.

The third reason love of one’s instrument should matter is the applied research question of whether there are things music teachers and perhaps parents can do to increase love of a musical instrument to motivate a student to invest more of him or herself in studying the instrument. Is it worth trying to nurture love of some kind toward a particular instrument? It might be if a student’s love of that instrument predicted their happiness and satisfaction in playing it!

There are many reasons students quit musical instruments, of course: the feeling that one lacks talent, the press of competing commitments, the absence of sufficient feeling of reward, a feeling that one’s music teacher is not a good match to oneself, or feeling too pressured by competition (Murimi, 2016; The Music Parents’ Guide, 2015). Four factors that consistently seem to be involved in dropout are lack of access or opportunity, a less than positive experience with music lessons, other obligations, and challenges in practicing (Krause et al., 2020). On the whole, the environment just may not be right for continuation with music (Gerelus et al., 2017). Sometimes, parental support may be insufficient (King, 2016). And sometimes, one just feels one does not have the skills or desire to go on (Zarza-Alzugaray et al., 2020). Ilinykh et al. (2015) provide various suggestions to motivate students to continue. But what we suggest here is a further reason a student may quit—lack of love for the musical instrument one plays!

Some musicians, in order to find their love of a musical instrument, fashion their own instruments (e.g., Bellears, 2014; Parsons, 2016; Randles, 2015). And then, some create their own idiosyncratic new instruments to accomplish a musical goal. A particularly interesting example is the octet of stringed instruments originally proposed by composer Henry Brant in 1957. The idea was that the main string instruments—the violin, viola, cello, and contrabass—cover only what seemed to Brant to be an arbitrary range of the tones that string instruments could cover. He created the concept of an “octet” of string instruments—including the treble, soprano, mezzo, alto, tenor, baritone, small bass, and contrabass violins. These instruments are evenly divided across the range of notes played in the normal 8-note scale, ranging from E₆ (an octave above the high string on the violin) to either E₁ or C₁ (as on the contrabass or extended contrabass, respectively). Luthier Carleen Hutchins in Montclair, NJ, and then Wolfeboro, NH, constructed these instruments and Robert Spear, a luthier in Ithaca, New York, made a career constructing each of these instruments and working with others to form octets with all eight of the instruments (see https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/767055).

In this study, we sought to study the bases of love of musical instruments in terms of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love as applied to love for musical instruments (Sternberg, 2021a). We presented participants with our scale of intimacy, passion, and commitment toward a musical instrument. All participants played or had played a musical instrument. Participants were asked questions about their intimacy, passion, and commitment toward the instrument, as well as about their longevity with the instrument and practice time. They further were asked about their motivation for playing. In particular, we looked at transactional and transformational motivation (Sternberg, 2021b). Transactional motivation occurs when one feels that one gives something in exchange for something in return for one’s efforts. Transformational motivation occurs when one desires to affect a meaningful change in oneself, others, or the world through one’s efforts—it does not involve tit-for-tat, or getting something in exchange for giving something. We were curious as to whether the components of the theory of love would predict either kind of motivation.

We predicted that higher levels of intimacy, passion, and commitment would be associated with higher levels of positive affect, in particular, the importance of the instrument to oneself, as well as happiness and satisfaction in playing the instrument. We further predicted that these three components of love of a musical instrument would be associated with higher levels of transactional and transformational motivation, as well as a self-reported behavioral measure, hours of practice per week.

Method

Participants

In all, 288 participants at a large, selective Northeastern university responded to a call for a survey about “Love of Musical Instruments.” Of these participants, 273 consented to participating in the study and completed it, and 269 consented upon completion to having their data used in the study. One participant was removed due to failure to read instructions and complete the survey properly, and two more were removed because they had never played an instrument. This left us with a final subject pool of 266 participants (68 men, 198 women, mean age = 19.7, range = 18–23). Of these, 38.3% were Asian, 30.5% were Caucasian, 12.4% were Hispanic, 9.4% were Black or African American, 8.6% were multiple races, and 0.8% were other ethnicities.

Materials

A Qualtrics-administered survey (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) was designed to collect participant attitudes toward their musical instruments. The sections were as follows. The complete list of questions can be found in the Appendix.

1. Consent form

Participants read about the purpose of this study and gave written informed consent.

2. Practices concerning the musical instrument

This section included open-ended questions about how participants engaged with their musical instruments. Questions asked if participants currently or formerly played a musical instrument, and if so, which instrument; how many years they played this instrument; how many hours they practiced each week; why they chose this instrument; if they thought they would go professional; what ensembles and sections they played in; favorite music; least favorite music; and why they quit (if they had quit). Participants were also asked to select their level of advancement, as well as what type of ensemble they played in or had played in.

3. Affective relationship with the musical instrument

This section asked participants about their affects and attitudes toward their musical instrument, including how connected they feel to their instrument, how important the instrument is to their identity, how important playing this instrument is to them, how central to their identity the instrument is, how meaningful in their life the instrument is, if they have any regrets playing the instrument, how happy they feel playing the instrument, and how satisfied they are playing the instrument. Participants responded to these questions on a 1 (low) to 5 (high) scale, such that higher scores indicated a more positive relationship with their musical instrument.

4. Self-reported behavioral relationship with the musical instrument

Participants indicated how many hours per week they practiced the instrument and how many years they had played the instrument.

5. Triangular Love Scale for musical instruments

This section was expanded from the questions in Sternberg (2021a) and asked questions about participants’ intimacy, passion, and commitment to their instrument. The questions include all questions of those included in that appendix, plus two additional questions at the end of each panel. All questions were positively scored so that higher ratings indicated more love for a musical instrument. Items were on a 1–5 scale. The complete assessment instruments can be found in the Appendix.

6. Transformational versus Transactional Motivations

This section asked participants about their transformational and transactional motivations toward their musical instrument, based on the definitions of transformational and transactional giftedness from Sternberg (2021b). Items 1–6 asked about transactional attitudes toward music such that a higher score on these items indicated a more transactional attitude toward musical participation, and Items 7–12 asked about transformational attitudes such that a higher score indicated a more transformational attitude toward musical participation. Items were on a 1–7 scale.

7. Demographics

Participants reported demographic information including age, gender, ethnicity, and major.

8. Debriefing form

Participants were informed about the purposes and motivations for this study and gave consent for their data to be used in the study.

Design

Our key set of dependent variables was with respect to the relationship the participants had with their musical instrument. We were especially interested in the participants’ emotions when playing the instrument. Were they happy and satisfied with their experience in playing their instrument? Our main independent variables for such an analysis were scores on the triangular scale of love: intimacy, passion, and commitment, with respect to their feelings toward the instrument. A supplementary set of dependent variables was with regard to their transactional and transformational attitudes toward the instrument. To what extent were participants transactional or transformational in their attitude toward playing the instrument?

Procedure

This study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board. All participants completed all sections of this survey in the following order: (1) consent form; (2) practices of musical instrument; (3) relationship with musical instrument; (4) triangular Love Scale for musical instruments; (5) transformational versus transactional attitudes; (6) demographics; and (7) debriefing form. No sections were timed. After completing the survey, participants were awarded with extra course credit for psychology/human behavior courses.

Results

Descriptive statistics

Reasons for choosing and quitting instruments

Participants were asked their reason for choosing their instrument. The three junior authors of this article developed a coding scheme for cohesive themes from the participants’ responses.¹ The results are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Distribution of Reasons for Choosing Instrument.

Reason for choosing	Percentage of participants
Instrument	46.30
Active social	22.18
Passive social	29.82
Love music	6.89
Convenience	7.14
Others	12.72

Inter-rater consistency = 0.68, F = 7.31, p < .001.

A plurality of participants (46%) chose their instrument because they were excited about the instrument—they themselves chose the instrument they wanted to play. The second most popular reason (30%) for choosing an instrument was passive social factors, such as that parents sent a child to piano lessons or lessons on some other instrument. The participant was not a key player in the decision to select an instrument, but rather the decision was made for them. The third most popular reason was active social reasons (22%), which would include picking up an instrument because of the people around them—for example, to make a parent or other family member happy. In these cases, the choice was the participant’s rather than someone else’s.

Many of the participants had quit their instrument before they participated in the study. The reasons for quitting were diverse, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Distribution of Reasons for Quitting.

Reason for quitting	Percentage of participants
Performance	8.21
Time	39.04
New interests	17.48
Passion	19.67
Environment	16.17
Others	21.12

Inter-rater consistency = 0.72, F = 8.84, p < .001.

Note: Some participants listed multiple reasons for quitting.

The primary reason for quitting was lack of time (39%). The participants simply could not fit practicing or other instrumental responsibilities into their schedules. The second most common reason was lack (or loss) of passion (20%). Third and fourth were the acquisition of new interests (17%) and environmental factors of diverse kinds (16%).

Basic descriptive statistics

Table 3 shows basic descriptive statistics for the main variables in the study. Scores on the intimacy, passion, and commitment scales generally ranged from a minimum of 1 (lowest possible) to 5 or close to 5 (highest possible) in the case of passion. Transactional and transformational scale scores also ranged across the full possible range of 1–7. The average number of years playing the instrument was 7.05 and the average number of hours played per week was 5.49.

Table 3.

Basic Statistics.

Variables	M	SD	n	Min.	Max.
Intimacy	2.64	1.07	266	1.00	5.00
Passion	2.11	0.85	266	1.00	4.80
Commitment	2.24	0.94	265	1.00	5.00
Triangular Scale	2.33	0.90	266	1.00	4.93
Transactional	2.37	1.07	266	1.00	7.00
Transformational	2.95	1.44	266	1.00	7.00
Instrument Importance	3.59	1.78	266	1.00	7.00
Instrument Happiness	5.12	1.27	265	1.00	7.00
Instrument Satisfaction	4.88	1.36	266	1.00	7.00
Years Played	7.05	3.72	264	0.50	17.00
Hours Played Per Week	5.49	4.73	266	0.00	46.00

Internal-consistency reliabilities

Table 4 shows internal-consistency reliabilities (coefficient alpha) for the various instruments. The overall internal-consistency reliability for the Triangular Love Scale was .97, with subscale reliabilities of .96, .90, and .93 for intimacy, passion, and commitment, respectively. All measuring instruments in the study had internal-consistency reliabilities over .80.

Table 4.

Internal-Consistency Reliabilities.

Variables		Number of items	Cronbach’s α
Triangular Love Scale	Total	30	.97
	Intimacy	10	.96
	Passion	10	.90
	Commitment	10	.93
Motivational Scale	Total	12	.90
	Transactional	6	.82
	Transformational	6	.91
Importance of playing a musical instrument	Total	5	.96
Emotions while playing instrument	Total	2	.87

Analysis of variance

Table 5 shows an analysis of variance for sex of participants. The main independent variable of interest in the design was sex of participant.

Table 5.

Analysis of Variance for Sex.

Variables		Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	p
Intimacy	Between groups	0.03	1	0.03	0.02	.88
	Within groups	294.40	257	1.15
	Total	294.43	258
Passion	Between groups	0.53	1	0.53	0.75	.39
	Within groups	183.58	257	0.71
	Total	184.11	258
Commitment	Between groups	0.01	1	0.01	0.01	.97
	Within groups	227.70	256	0.89
	Total	227.70	257

Analysis of Variance for Sex: On Happiness and Satisfaction.

	Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	p
Between groups	0.47	1	0.47	0.29	.59
Within groups	417.70	256	1.63
Total	418.17	257
Between groups	2.82	1	2.82	1.52	.22
Within groups	475.98	257	1.85
Total	478.80	258

Analysis of Variance for Sex: On Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment.

Variables		Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	p
Transactional Motivation	Between groups	1.02	1	1.02	0.89	.35
	Within groups	292.92	257	1.14
	Total	293.94	258
Transformational Motivation	Between groups	10.22	1	10.22	4.97	.03
	Within groups	528.23	257	2.06
	Total	538.45	258

The only variable that showed a statistically significant effect was transformational motivation. Men had a higher average score (M = 3.28, SD = 1.37) than women (M = 2.82, SD = 1.46).

Intercorrelations

Table 6 shows intercorrelations between all possible pairs of variables.

Table 6.

Intercorrelations.

	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.	7.	8.	9.	10.	11.	12.
1. Triangular Love Scale (all items)	1.00	.94**	.94**	.95**	.69**	.46**	.73**	.83**	.69**	.55**	.18**	.10
2. Intimacy	.94**	1.00	.83**	.83**	.65**	.41**	.70**	.86**	.74**	.59**	.18**	.09
3. Passion	.94**	.83**	1.00	.86**	.68**	.48**	.69**	.71**	.60**	.47**	.16**	.13*
4. Commitment	.95**	.83**	.86**	1.00	.64**	.43**	.67**	.74**	.61**	.47**	.16*	.06
5. Motivation (all items)	.69**	.65**	.68**	.64**	1.00	.84**	.92**	.65**	.41**	.32**	.10	.11
6. Transactional Motivation	.46**	.41**	.48**	.43**	.84**	1.00	.56**	.43**	.20**	.18**	.03	.04
7. Transformational Motivation	.73**	.70**	.69**	.67**	.92**	.56**	1.00	.68**	.49**	.36**	.13*	.14*
8. Importance of the Instrument	.83**	.86**	.71**	.74**	.65**	.43**	.68**	1.00	.71**	.57**	.22**	.13*
9. Happiness when Playing the Instrument	.69**	.74**	.60**	.61**	.41**	.20**	.49**	.71**	1.00	.77**	.14*	.08
10. Satisfaction when Playing the Instrument	.55**	.59**	.47**	.47**	.32**	.18**	.36**	.57**	.77**	1.00	.11	−.01
11. Hours Playing the Instrument per Week	.18**	.18**	.16**	.16*	.10	.03	.13*	.22**	.14*	.11	1.00	.53**
12. Years Playing the Instrument	.10	.09	.13*	.06	.11	.04	.14*	.13*	.08	−.01	.53**	1.00

Correlation is significant at the .01 level (two-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (two-tailed).

The table shows, for musical instruments, high correlations for the Triangular Love Scale. The correlation between Intimacy and Passion was .83 (p < .01), between Intimacy and Commitment was .83 (p < .01), and between Passion and Commitment was .86 (p < .01).

Correlations of Transactional Motivation with Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment, respectively, were .41, .48, and .43, respectively (all ps < .01), whereas for Transformational Motivation the respective correlations were .70, .69, and .67 (all ps < .01). Thus, love of a musical instrument appears to be more highly associated with transformational than with transactional motivation.

The Importance of the Instrument to the participant was also highly correlated with Triangular Love scores: .86, .71, and .74 for Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment, respectively. Significant correlations were also obtained between Importance and both Transactional (.43) and Transformational (.68) Motivation (both ps < .01), with, again, Transformational Motivation showing a stronger relationship.

Happiness and Satisfaction when playing the instrument both showed significant correlations with the Intimacy, Passion, and Components, with respective correlations of .74, .60, and .61 for Happiness and .59, .47, and .47 for Satisfaction (all ps < .01). Significant correlations were also obtained with Transactional and Transformational Motivation—respectively, .20 and .49 for Happiness and .18 and .36 (all ps < .01).

Hours playing the instrument were significantly correlated with Intimacy, Passion, and Commitment, with rs of .18, .16, and .16 respectively (the first two significant at the .01 level, the last at the .05 level). The correlation of Hours with Transactional Motivation was not significant, .03, but with Transformational Motivation was significant at the .05 level, .13.

Factor analyses

Table 7 shows both varimax-rotated (orthogonal) and promax-rotated (oblique) principal component analysis of the Triangular Love Scale. The analysis yielded three interpretable factors: (1) Intimacy, (2) Passion, and (3) Commitment, our primary criterion for extracting factors, as we were examining the utility of the triangular theory. However, only the first factor had an eigenvalue greater than 1.

Table 7.

Principal Components Analysis.

PCA With Varimax Rotation.

	Rotated component Matrix
	Component 1Eigen value = 2.68% of variance = 89.34	Component 2Eigen value = 0.18% of variance = 6.09	Component 3Eigen value = 0.13% of variance = 4.57
Intimacy	0.83	0.39	0.39
Passion	0.42	0.80	0.43
Commitment	0.42	0.43	0.80

Rotated factors converged in four iterations.

PCA With Promax Rotation.

	Rotated component matrix
	Component 1Eigen value = 2.68% of variance = 89.34	Component 2Eigen value = 0.18% of variance = 6.09	Component 3Eigen value = 0.14% of variance = 4.56
Intimacy	0.92	0.05	0.05
Passion	0.06	0.90	0.07
Commitment	0.06	0.08	0.89

Rotated factors converged in four iterations.

Discussion

Our goal was to determine whether a triangular theory of love as applied to musical instruments had construct and especially predictive validity with regard to people’s responses to their relationships with their musical instruments. The results of our study suggest that the theory has good although not perfect construct validity. First, each of intimacy, passion, and commitment can be measured with high internal-consistency reliability. Second, ratings of each of intimacy, passion, and commitment, the three elements of the theory, significantly predict the importance of the instrument to the individual. Third, ratings of each significantly predict happiness and satisfaction in playing one’s instrument. Fourth, each significantly predicts both transactional and transformational motivation for playing the instrument. Fifth, each significantly predicts hours of practice per week. They do not substantially predict years playing the instrument, but longevity with an instrument can be influenced by many contextual factors beyond love of the instrument. However, sixth, measures of intimacy, passion, and commitment showed higher intercorrelations than would have been ideal if one wished to show discriminant validity for the separate components. This was true as well in earlier construct validations of the theory as applied to people (Sternberg, 1997), suggesting that the three components simply tend, in typical situations, to be highly correlated in relationships, whether toward significant others or toward musical instruments.

We did not find much in the way of sex differences, although men showed higher transformational motivation than did women. It is not clear why this finding would have been obtained. It was not predicted. Given that several comparisons were performed, and that the significance level was .05, we would view this finding simply as one that would need follow-up.

We believe that the results have three practical implications. First, learners will be more motivated—both transactionally and transformationally—to learn their instrument if they love that instrument in the sense of feeling intimacy, passion, and commitment toward the instrument. Second, individuals will be happier and more satisfied if they love their instrument. Third, it appears that learners will also practice more if they love their instrument—that is, love shows its influence not only in affect (happiness and satisfaction) and motivation (transactional and transformational) but also in behavior (hours per week practiced).

Theory and research on love has generally focused on love of one person for another (see, for example, essays in Sternberg & Barnes, 1988; Sternberg & Weis, 2006; Sternberg & Sternberg, 2019). The main theories, such as the triangular theory of Sternberg (1986), the attachment theory of Hazan and Shaver (1987), the theory of passionate and companionate love of Hatfield and Walster (1981), and the theory of colors of love (Lee, 1977), all have been oriented toward the love of one individual for another. This article represents what we believe is a relatively new direction of research for the application of theories of love—love of an individual for a thing in their life that seems to be much more than just a “thing,” and indeed, perhaps not a “thing” at all. The senior author has even had a violin teacher who described her violin as “the love of her life.” Thus, perhaps it is time for psychological theories of love to be extended beyond the love of one person for another.

The study, of course, had its limitations. First, it was only a single study. Second, the participants were all undergraduates at a single selective university. Third, the behavioral measures were self-reported. There is no guarantee, for example, that self-reported hours of practice per week or number of years playing the instrument is accurate (although because the study was anonymous, participants had no obvious motivation to lie). Fourth, we did not compare the triangular theory with any alternative theory of love of musical instruments, as we are not aware of any such theory. Finally, high correlations among the three love subscales made it hard to discriminate the meanings of the three scores. We make no claim that this study represents a complete construct validation. Rather, it represents a first-pass attempt to validate the triangular theory of love applied to musical instruments.

Several directions for future research can be inferred from limitations of the current study.

First, there is a need for a broader sample, especially one that compares advanced and professional musicians to beginners, and those who have played a particular musical instrument for a longer versus a shorter period of time, holding constant expertise. At a given time, do beginners show a different pattern of love from experts or from musicians who have played for a long time, regardless of level of expertise?

Second, is love of a musical instrument something that develops with expertise, or perhaps simply with time playing an instrument (more like the trajectory of the commitment component), or is it something that develops quickly and then levels off or even fades (more like the passion component)? How does it develop over time, and why does it show the pattern it does?

Third is the pattern of development, the same for different musical instruments (e.g., violins vs clarinets vs trumpets), or for different exemplars within a given category (e.g., different violins or different clarinets), and perhaps even for different musicians? For example, the great Russian cellist Daniil Shafran played the same instrument for his entire career (https://www.norpete.com/s0093.html?viewfullsite=1). In contrast, the great Russian cellist Mstislav Rostropovich played a succession of cellos of stellar quality (https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/instruments/cello/sheku-kanneh-mason-plays-rostropovich-cello/).

Fourth, there are other theories of love that could be applied to musical instruments, such as an attachment-based theory, which specifies different kinds of attachment, including secure, anxious-ambivalent, avoidant, and in some versions, disorganized (see, for example, Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2019). How well would attachment theory, or any other theory of love, account for love of musical instruments?

The results of this study have potential implications for parents as they help their child or children choose both the type of musical instrument to play and the particular instrument. There is a two-step process, essentially. The first is choosing the type of musical instrument. It makes sense for parents to have children try out as many types of instruments as is possible to assess whether their children have an affinity for any one particular type. Some children just gravitate to one—others are not sure. Parents (and teachers) can play an important role in steering the children. The second step is choosing a particular instrument for the children to play. Many parents simply rent a generic instrument from a local music shop. Again, it might make sense, where possible, for children to try out several instruments of a given type, to see whether they have an affinity for one particular exemplar. In the case of the senior author, he found a cello he loved and he stayed with it through the end of his high school years. When he was eventually separated from it through an inadvertent decision on someone else’s part, he felt a sense of loss that continues to this day, even though it was not an expensive cello and was of no particularly notable quality. He had felt an intimacy, passion, and commitment that never left.

The study of a musical instrument is a demanding undertaking and one that requires much dedication and practice. We believe that understanding factors that might lead to greater or lesser success in generating positive affect, motivation, and behavior with regard to the study of a musical instrument may help us understand better what leads some students of musical instruments, more than others, to thrive and succeed in their challenging undertaking.

Footnotes

Appendix

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Robert J Sternberg

Notes

References

Aron

Tomlinson

J. M.

(2019). Love as expansion of the self. In Sternberg

R. J.

Sternberg

(Eds.), The new psychology of love (2nd ed., pp. 1–24). Cambridge University Press.

Bellears

(2014, Winter). Music in the wood. Tasmania 40 Degrees South, 73, 24–30.

Berscheid

Hatfield

(1969). Interpersonal attraction. Addison-Wesley.

Chapman

(1994). The five love languages: How to express heartfelt commitment to your mate (2nd ed.). Moody.

Chen

S. M. Y.

Howard

R. W.

(2007). Musical instrument choice and playing history in post-secondary level music students: Some descriptive data, some causes and some background factors. Music Education Research, 6(2), 217–230.

ClassicFM.com. (2017, January 6). The awkward moment you realise you’re in love, with your musical instrument. https://www.classicfm.com/discover-music/latest/relationship-instruments/

Delzell

J. K.

Leppla

D. A.

(1992). Gender association of musical instruments and preferences of fourth-grade students for selected instruments. Journal of Research in Music Education, 40, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345559

Feybesse

Hatfield

(2019). Passionate love. In Sternberg

R. J.

Sternberg

(Eds.), The new psychology of love (2nd ed., pp. 183–207). Cambridge University Press.

Fortney

P. M.

Malele

J. D.

DeCarbo

N. J.

(1993). A study of middle school band students’ instrument choices. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(1), 28–39.

10.

Green

(1993). Music, gender and education. British Journal of Music Education, 10(3), 219–253.

11.

Gerelus

Comeau

Swirp

(2017). Predictors of piano student dropouts. Intersections, 37(2), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.7202/1066616arCremaschi

12.

Hallam

(2015). The power of music. International Music Education Research Centre (iMERC) Press.

13.

Hatfield

Walster

G. W.

(1981). A new look at love. Addison-Wesley.

14.

Hazan

Shaver

P. R.

(1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

15.

Ilinykh

Leger

Smith

(2015). Students who quit music lessons: Recent research and recommendations for teachers. MTNA e-Journal, 6(3), 15–26.

16.

King

(2016). Parting ways with piano lessons: Predictors, invoked reasons, and motivation related to piano student dropouts [Master’s thesis, University of Ottawa]. https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/35033

17.

Krause

A. E.

Kirby

M. L.

Dieckmann

Davidson

J. W.

(2020). From dropping out to dropping in: Exploring why individuals cease participation in musical activities and the support needed to reengage them. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(4), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000268

18.

Lee

J. A.

(1977). A topology of styles of loving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 173–182.

19.

Lynn

(2017). What influences children’s choice of musical instrument?. The STeP Journal (Student Teacher Perspectives), 4, 42–51. http://insight.cumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/3395/

20.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2019). A behavioral systems approach to romantic love relationships: Attachment, caregiving, and sex. In Sternberg

R. J.

Sternberg

(Eds.), The new psychology of love (2nd ed., pp. 259–279). Cambridge University Press.

21.

Mills

(2009). Music in the primary school (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

22.

Murimi

(2016, February 26). 8 reasons why students really quit their instruments and how to prevent it. Merriam School of Music, Music Education. https://www.merriammusic.com/school-of-music/why-kids-quit-instruments/

23.

O’Neill

S. A.

Boultona

M. J

. (1996). Boys’ and girls’ preferences for musical instruments: A function of gender?. Psychology of Music, 24(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735696242009

24.

Onwubiko

S. G.

(2016). Factors influencing students’ choice of musical instruments: A case study of Tertiary Institutions in south-eastern Nigeria. Proceedings of the 172nd Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America, 29, Article 025003. https://doi.org/10.1121/2.0000793

25.

Parsons

M. S.

(2016, March). A creative man in creative ways: Songs and stories of the Appalachian male [Conference]. Appalachian Studies Association Annual Conference. Shepherdstown. https://mds.marshall.edu/asa_conference/2016/accepted_proposals/144/

26.

Peck

M. S.

(2003). The road less traveled (timeless edition): A new psychology of love, traditional values, and spiritual growth. Touchstone.

27.

Porter

S. Y.

Abeles

H. F.

(1979). So your daughter wants to be a drummer? Music Educators Journal, 65(5), 47–49.

28.

Randles

(2015). A quest for the perfect tone: Luthiering, pedal boards and curriculum expansion. Journal of Music, Technology, & Education, 8(2), 183–197.

29.

Schmidt

C. P.

Lewis

B. E.

(1988). A validation study of the instrument timbre preference test. Psychology of Music, 16(2), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735688162004

30.

Sergeant

D. C.

Himonides

(2019, August 16). Orchestrated sex: The representation of male and female musicians in world-class symphony orchestras. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1760. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01760/full

31.

Sinsel

T. J.

Dixon

W. E.

Blades-Zeller

(1997). Psychological sex type and preferences for musical instruments in fourth and fifth graders. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 390–401.

32.

Sorokowski

Sorokowska

Karwowski

Groyecka

Aavik

. . .Sternberg

R. J.

(2021). Universality of the triangular theory of love: Adaptation and psychometric properties of the Triangular Love Scale in 25 countries. Journal of Sex Research, 58, 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2020.1787318

33.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119–135.

34.

Sternberg

R. J.

(1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(3), 313–335.

35.

Sternberg

R. J.

(2021a). Toward a triangular theory of love for one’s musical instruments. Psychology of Music, 49, 1747–1757. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735620961143

36.

Sternberg

R. J.

(2021b). Transformational vs. transactional deployment of intelligence. Journal of Intelligence, 9, Article 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9010015

37.

Sternberg

R. J.

Barnes

(Eds.). (1988). The psychology of love. Yale University Press.

38.

Sternberg

R. J.

Weis

(Eds.). (2006). The new psychology of love. Yale University Press.

39.

Sternberg

R. J.

Sternberg

(Eds.). (2019). The new psychology of love (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

40.

The Music Parents’ Guide. (2015, February 17). Why students really quit their musical instrument (and how parents can prevent it). http://www.musicparentsguide.com/2015/02/17/students-really-quit-musical-instrument-parents-can-prevent/

41.

Walker

M. J.

(2004). Influences of gender and sex-stereotyping of middle school students’ perception and selection of musical instruments: A review of the literature. Visions of Research in Music Education, 4, Article 2. http://www-usr.rider.edu/~vrme

42.

Zarza-Alzugaray

F. J.

Casanova

McPherson

G. E.

Orejudo

(2020). Music self-efficacy for performance: An explanatory model based on social support. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1249. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01249