“Love lies”: A content analysis of romantic attachment style in popular music

Abstract

During adolescence, music consumption drastically increases and many adolescents become romantically involved. Popular songs often depict romance, and teens may incorporate tenets of these lyrics into their own romantic experiences. Romantic attachment style is a primary indicator of relationship functioning, and individuals’ attachment style may shift according to romantic experiences they observe in media. This study comprises a content analysis of the romantic attachment style portrayed in popular song lyrics. Findings revealed that more than 86% of songs illustrated an insecure attachment and various song/artist characteristics were associated with specific attachment styles. We assert that parents, teens, and educators should be mindful of the lyrics adolescents listen to, working together to ensure adolescents navigate music’s messages about romance in a positive way.

Keywords

adolescence attachment media music romantic relationships

Romance is a meaningful part of adolescents’ and adults’ lives (e.g., Campbell & Stanton, 2019; Collins et al., 2009) and is prominently reflected in today’s media (e.g., Wright et al., 2019). In the song “Love Lies,” Khalid Robinson and Normani Hamilton sing about two individuals who inquire about their potential lover’s feelings by asking where the other’s “love lies” (Robinson et al., 2018). While they question where a potential partner’s love lies, our question regards whether the songs we listen to tell lies about love.

This question may be especially salient for teens, as music consumption drastically increases during adolescence, with individuals listening to music for over 2 hours a day—more than they engage with any other form of media (Rideout & Robb, 2019). This occurs during the same developmental period individuals typically begin to navigate romance (Christopher et al., 2016; Collins et al., 2009). The majority of popular music contains romantic or sexual lyrics ( Madanikia & Bartholomew, 2014; Wright et al., 2019), bombarding adolescent listeners with romantic content that may influence adolescents’ romantic behaviors and attitudes (Bandura, 1999; Carpentier et al., 2007; Gerbner & Gross, 1976; Vaterlaus et al., 2018).

Adolescent experiences with romance—in both personal and observed relationships—can impact romantic functioning throughout adulthood (Madsen & Collins, 2011; Vasilenko et al., 2016). As romantic relationships are a prominent predictor of individual well-being and family functioning (Kansky, 2018; Pedro et al., 2015), it is thus important to understand what messages music conveys to adolescents. This study will examine the romantic attachment style implicit in popular music via a content analysis of the 100 most popular songs in 2019.

Theoretical foundations for media influence

Uses and gratifications theories contend that individuals listen to music and seek songs that fit their personal uses (e.g., Lonsdale & North, 2011). Adolescents are in the throes of forming their romantic identities, as they experiment with and learn about being romantic partners (Becht et al., 2016; Collins et al., 2009; Erikson, 1968; Forenza et al., 2018). Thus, romantic songs may be especially relevant during adolescence, impelling teens to consume more of such media (Lonsdale & North, 2011). Research supports this notion, suggesting that many adolescents seek out romantic songs to teach them about romance (Bleakley et al., 2011; Chittenden, 2013; Vaterlaus et al., 2018), and romantic media’s impact on attitudes and behaviors is amplified in such cases (Hefner, 2015; Hefner & Wilson, 2013).

Cultivation theory asserts that even when adolescents do not seek romantic music specifically for relationship advice, media can shape an individual’s intrinsic attitudes, beliefs, and expectations (Gerbner et al., 1986; Gerbner & Gross, 1976). In essence, individuals internalize, even unconsciously, the messages conveyed to them through media. Lyrics, especially, may have a strong impact on cognitive schemas (Coyne et al., 2021; Kroff et al., under review; Lennings & Warburton, 2011). This molding of attitudes may be particularly prominent for adolescents, whose developmental capacities make them vulnerable to outside influences (Blakemore & Mills, 2014; Welborn et al., 2016), including media (Crone & Konijn, 2018). Although few studies have explicitly examined music lyrics’ impact on teens’ romantic attitudes, Kistler and colleagues (2010) have noted that romantic music lyrics impact adolescent romantic self-concept. Although our study does not directly examine media’s effects on adolescents’ attachment style, these theories and studies together suggest that the attachment messages sent by music lyrics likely influence adolescents’ romantic schemas. Accordingly, adolescents’ foray into romance during a time individuals may be particularly susceptible to media influences necessitates a thorough examination of the romantic content presented by music.

Romantic attachment

Attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969) provides an empirically supported framework for evaluating individuals’ cognitive models of romantic relationships. Bowlby asserts that humans have an inherent need to attach to others, which is filled by a primary attachment figure—usually a romantic partner during adulthood (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Scholars explain that if these needs are unmet, romantic partners may form an insecure attachment (Ainsworth, 1989; Bowlby, 1969; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). This is often manifested through clingy behavior with frequent bids for attention (anxious attachment), distancing from the attachment figure (avoidant attachment), or demanding attention but running away when it is provided (fearful/anxious-avoidant attachment). Insecure attachments are related to a myriad of negative outcomes, including poor relationship satisfaction (Banse, 2004; Stackert & Bursik, 2003), low sexual satisfaction (Butzer & Campbell, 2008; Stefanou & Mccabe, 2012), and unhealthy conflict resolution strategies (Paquette et al., 2020).

Attachment security is not based solely on individuals’ current romantic relationship; rather, one’s attachment template is formed by the summation of all major relationship experiences from infancy onward—a construct referred to as the internal working model (Bowlby, 1969). This model becomes the individual’s schema for how all future relationships will function (Bowlby, 1969; Fivush, 2006). For example, insecure individuals often engage in avoidant or clingy behaviors, unintentionally pushing their partner away, which then reinforces the target’s fear of abandonment and increases attachment insecurity (Bowlby, 1969). Conversely, if one’s partner responds favorably and fulfills the target’s emotional needs, their fear of abandonment may fade, diminishing insecurity (Bowlby, 1969). Thus, the internal working model shifts with every major relationship.

Intersection of music and attachment

This shifting internal working model may also apply to music. Scholars have noted that media can influence adolescents’ cognitive schemas regarding romance (Gerbner & Gross 1976; Gerbner et al., 1986; Kistler et al., 2010; Kulkarni et al., 2019). Thus, the attachment styles and behaviors demonstrated in popular music may influence adolescents’ internal working model, reinforcing or altering beliefs and expectations regarding romance. Accordingly, a thorough examination of romantic attachment styles in music is warranted.

While romantic attachment styles within music have not been studied to our knowledge, the literature discusses characteristics of artists or songs that may be related to attachment. Gender discrepancies in attachment have been studied for decades (e.g., del Giudice, 2011; Kirkpatrick & Davis, 1994), with scholars noting that generally women are more anxious and men more avoidant (del Giudice, 2019). As lyrics may reflect artists’ personal attachment, and scholars have found gender differences in other lyrical themes (Anglada-Tort et al., 2021), songs may portray varying attachment styles according to artist gender. In addition, attachment can vary at different points in relationships (Collins & Gillath, 2012). For example, artists who have experienced many broken relationships may be more prone to feelings of insecurity, while artists in a committed long-term relationship may be more secure (Arriaga et al., 2018; Stanley et al., 2010).

Another major influence on songs’ attachment-related messages could be the song’s genre. Music scholars assert that genres have unique “personalities,” with lyrical styles varying as much as the melody (Neuman et al., 2016). Such differences may result in incongruent portrayals of romantic relationships. Other potential influences may include whether and how songs incorporate sexuality. While romantic relationships are generally somewhat sexual in nature, romantic attachment comprises a sense of security regarding the whole relationship (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). An over-emphasis on sex without also focusing on other relational aspects may thus influence the attachment style portrayed by the song’s lyrics (Hazan & Zeifman, 1999).

The current study

Because theory and empirical research suggest that media may influence adolescents’ romantic beliefs and expectations, we seek to understand how popular music portrays romantic relationships. In the current study, we performed a content analysis of popular songs, examining the romantic attachment styles implicit in the songs’ lyrics. We proposed two research questions:

Research Question 1: What proportion of popular songs portray an insecure attachment?

Research Question 2: Do attachment styles vary according to artist gender, relationship timeline, relationship status of artist, genre, romantic focus of the song, or sexualization?

Methods

Sample

As the vast majority of popular songs are romantic in nature (Madanikia & Bartholomew, 2014; Wright et al., 2019) and adolescent listeners constitute a large proportion of popular music consumers (Delmonte, 2017; Statista, 2020), we sought a selection of current popular songs in the United States. Accordingly, we utilized Billboard’s “Top Year End Chart Hot 100 Songs of 2019” (Billboard, 2019). The music industry relies upon Billboard to track song rankings within the United States, and the company’s Top Year End 100 list has been used for many content analyses spanning decades (e.g., Cole, 1971; Madanikia & Bartholomew, 2014; Pettijohn & Sacco, 2009). Thirteen of the songs on this list were not about romance (e.g., “Baby Shark”) and were dropped from the analysis for a total of 87 songs (see the Appendix).

Procedures

The first and second authors determined the coding scheme collaboratively, whereupon the third author received training. The first and third authors coded each song independently and then reconciled discrepancies. While many content analyses single-code each source and calculate inter-rater reliability via a small proportion of items coded by all coders, the researchers for this analysis double-coded each song and then reached a consensus to increase accuracy and reduce potential for bias. However, as inter-rater reliability statistics can also reflect the quality of the coding scheme, we included Cohen’s kappa for the variables as outlined below. Interpretation of the inter-rater reliability coefficient is based on McHugh’s (2012) guidelines.

Measures

Attachment style

Attachment style was coded by recording behaviors and attitudes indicative of attachment anxiety or avoidance. Lyrics regarding “what if” statements, chasing behaviors, distrust of self, or being unable to live or function without their partner were considered anxious. Examples statements include “I won’t let you forget me,” “I don’t wanna be somebody without your body/Close to me,” “I need somebody who can take control,” and “Spent twenty-four hours/I need more hours with you.” Lyrics regarding a desire to be alone, telling partners to go away, running away from a partner, or distrust of partner were considered avoidant. Sample phrases included “Don’t stand too close,” “Baby girl you just a fling,” “Nah, love, I’m good, go away,” and “My heart so cold I could put it in my cup.”

Coders then compared the ratio of anxious to avoidant behaviors to determine the song’s overall attachment style. Songs with at least 1.5 times more anxious than avoidant phrases were deemed anxious, songs with at least 1.5 times more avoidant than anxious phrases were considered avoidant, and songs with multiple anxious and avoidant phrases were coded as fearful. Songs with few to no anxious or avoidant phrases in addition to healthy romantic attitudes or behaviors (e.g., “We can do anything if we put our minds to it/My love is yours if you’re willing to take it,” “Girl, you’re more than just the surface,” “Can’t we just talk?/Figure out where we’re goin’/Can’t get what we want without knowin’”) were coded as secure, and songs that were about romance but did not provide enough context to determine attachment style were coded as neutral. Prior to reconciliation, inter-rater reliability for attachment style coding was moderate (κ = .71, p < .001).

Gender of artist(s)

Artist’s gender was coded as male, female, both (for songs with multiple artists), or other (i.e., non-binary), according to how the artists themselves reportedly self-identified. Prior to reconciliation, inter-rater reliability for gender was almost perfect (κ = .93, p < .001).

Relationship timeline

Coders also examined the timepoint of the relationship discussed in the song. Timeline was coded as being before the relationship (e.g., desiring a relationship with someone), during the relationship, during a breakup (e.g., explaining why they are leaving), or after the relationship’s dissolution (e.g., discussing the relationship/breakup retrospectively). Prior to reconciliation, inter-rater reliability for relationship timeline was relatively weak (κ = .57, p < .001).

Actual relationship status of artist

Researchers also coded for the primary artist’s relationship status at the time the song was released. This was accomplished through coders together conducting an internet search for at least two or three agreeing sources. As media can over-speculate celebrity romance, artists for whom we could not find reliable relationship information were coded as single.

Genre of song

The song’s genre (as reported by Billboard) was coded as pop, country, rap/hip hop/R&B, electric/dance, soundtrack, or other. As very few songs were electric/dance, soundtrack, or other (see Table 1), those genres were combined into the “other” category. Prior to reconciliation, inter-rater reliability for genre was strong (κ = .85, p < .001).

Table 1.
Frequency of Each Construct Within the Songs Analyzed.

Construct Count Percentage

Attachment style

Anxious 24 27.59

Avoidant 29 33.33

Fearful 22 25.29

Secure 7 8.05

Neutral 5 5.75

Relationship timeline

Pre-relationship 7 8.05

During relationship 54 62.07

Breakup 6 6.90

Post-relationship 20 22.99

Artist’s gender

Female 13 14.94

Male 55 63.22

Both 17 19.54

Other 2 2.30

Song’s genre

Pop 29 33.33

Country 13 14.94

Hip hop/rap/R&B 38 43.68

Electric/dance 4 4.60

Soundtrack 1 1.15

Other 2 2.30

Love or sex

Love 34 39.08

Sex 42 48.28

Both 11 12.64

Sexualization

Yes 47 54.02

No 40 45.98

Artist’s relationship status

Single 27 31.03

Dating/cohabiting 39 44.83

Married 21 24.14

Romantic focus: love or sex

Coders also recorded whether each song was primarily about love, sex, or both. This was coded by how often the artist mentioned making out, the sexual appeal of the other’s body, a desire (or lack thereof) for sexual interactions, or other sexually explicit language related to romantic relationships (i.e., sexual content), in contrast to lyrics surrounding desire to spend time together, feelings of emotional closeness, non-sexual exchanges of physical affection (e.g., holding hands), or other like constructs surrounding romantic relationships (i.e., non-sexual love content). Songs high in sexual content and low in non-sexual love content were coded as primarily discussing sex, while songs low in sexual content and high in non-sexual love content were coded as primarily discussing love. Songs with relatively equal measures of each were coded as being about both. Prior to reconciliation, inter-rater reliability for romantic focus was relatively weak (κ = .59, p < .001).

Sexualization

Finally, coders recorded whether any romantic figure (target individual, potential partner, current partner, ex-partner) was sexualized in the song. Examples of sexualization include discussing sexual regions of the body, describing the person’s sexual appeal (e.g., objectification), fantasizing about sexual interactions with that person, and reminiscing on past sexual interactions with that person. Songs with at least one instance were coded as containing sexualization. Prior to reconciliation, inter-rater reliability for sexualization was moderate (κ = .79, p < .001).

Plan of analysis

All analyses were run via the base stats (R Core Team, 2013) and chisq.posthoc.test (Ebbert, 2019) packages in R. First, frequencies for all variables were run (see Table 1). Then, chi-square statistics were calculated to examine the relation between attachment style and various other constructs. Due to the limited counts in multiple cells of the contingency tables which can influence chi-square results (Kim, 2017), all chi-square p-values were simulated through 2,000 replications. Data and analyses are available upon request from the first author.

Results

Attachment styles

In accordance with our research questions, we first examined the prevalence of different attachment styles. Analysis revealed that a vast majority of the songs in our sample depicted an insecure attachment style (86.21%). Specifically, songs were predominantly avoidant (33.33%), followed by anxious (27.59%) and fearful (25.29%), while a minor proportion (8.05%) portrayed a secure attachment style. Five songs were coded as neutral (5.75%).

Relations between attachment style and song characteristics

We also looked for patterns between attachment style and characteristics of the song/artist. Chi-square analyses provided evidence of a relation between attachment style and genre, χ²(20, n = 87) = 49.45, p < .001. We then conducted post hoc analyses (using the Bonferroni adjustment) and found a negative relationship between rap/hip hop/R&B and anxious attachment (studentized residual = −3.62, p < .01) and pop and avoidant attachment (studentized residual = −3.70, p < .01), as well as a positive relationship between rap/hip hop/R&B and avoidant attachment (studentized residual = 6.11, p < .001).

The results of the chi-square analysis of attachment style and sexualization provided evidence of a relation between the two variables, χ²(4, n = 87) = 23.70, p < .001. We further examined the association between sexualization and each attachment style utilizing chi-square post hoc methods. This analysis revealed a positive relation between sexualization and avoidant attachment (studentized residual = 4.26, p < .001) and a negative relation between sexualization and secure attachment (studentized residual = −2.99, p < .03).

Finally, we examined the link between attachment style and whether the primary romantic focus of the song was love or sex, finding evidence that these variables were related, χ²(4, n = 87) = 35.81, p < .001. Post hoc analyses revealed a negative relation between sex and anxious attachment (studentized residual = −3.16, p < .03) and love and avoidant attachment (studentized residual = −3.88, p < .002). The results also indicated a positive association between sex and avoidant attachment (studentized residual = 5.01, p < .001) and love and secure attachment (studentized residual = 3.44, p < .009).

We then conducted a follow-up chi-square test between romantic focus and genre, finding evidence of an association, χ²(3, n = 87) = 32.41, p < .001. Post hoc analyses revealed a negative relation between pop and sex (studentized residual = −3.61, p < .004) and rap/hip hop/R&B and love (studentized residual = −4.81, p < .001), as well as a positive relation between pop and love (studentized residual = 3.11, p < .03) and rap/hip hop/R&B and sex (studentized residual = 5.47, p < .001).

There was no evidence that attachment style differed by artist gender, χ²(8, n = 87) = 4.49, p = .84, song’s relationship timeline, χ²(12, n = 87) = 14.27, p = .27, or the artist’s relationship status, χ²(8, n = 87) = 13.67, p = .09.

Discussion

This study identified music’s romantic messages through conducting a content analysis of attachment styles depicted in the lyrics of 2019’s 100 most popular songs. Our research questions concerned which attachment styles were commonly portrayed in romantic song lyrics and which characteristics of the song or artist were associated with songs’ attachment style. We found that illustrations of insecure attachment styles were dominant in popular songs and attachment style was associated with multiple characteristics of the song and artist.

Attachment style

Over one fourth (27.59%) of the popular songs included in our analysis portrayed an anxious attachment style, with a third characterizing avoidant (33.33%) and another quarter fearful (25.29%). Taken together, this means that the majority (86.21%) of the songs in our analysis depicted an insecure attachment style. Cultivation theory posits that these portrayals of insecure attachment in popular music may influence adolescents’ romantic expectations and attitudes (Gerbner et al., 1986), as confirmed by multiple empirical studies (Carpentier et al., 2007; Erickson & Cin, 2018; Fuld et al., 2009; Vaterlaus et al., 2018).

Examined in light of previous theoretical and empirical work, our findings insinuate that romantic messages presented by popular music may not depict healthy romantic relationships. To help young individuals develop positive models of romantic relationships, we should help teens process the negative messages they hear and emphasize the positive messages they do receive from media. Parents and mentors should actively help youth find good resources for learning about romance rather than leaving youth to turn alone to romantic media.

Song characteristics

Genres

Our analyses revealed that attachment style is related to various song characteristics, including genre. The two most common genres in our sample were rap/hip hop/R&B and pop (see Table 1 for percentages). Pop songs were less likely to be avoidant, although there was no evidence they were more often secure. Rap/hip hop/R&B songs were less likely to be anxious and very likely to be avoidant. These songs often noted that the subject did not need emotional closeness and thrived on being alone. This lack of attachment security content and (in the case of rap/hip hop/R&B) over-abundance of attachment avoidant messages are particularly salient as pop and rap/hip hop/R&B are the most well-liked music genres for youth and young adults (Delmonte, 2017, 2018; Statista, 2020). Future research should identify characteristics that may influence adolescents’ music genre of choice. This information may have important implications for adolescent dating as well as relationship education and media literacy programs within schools and communities.

Romantic focus

This study also explored the potential relationship between the song’s romantic focus (i.e., love or sex) and attachment style. In our sample, more songs focused primarily on sex than love or both. Songs with a love focus were often secure and rarely avoidant, whereas songs with a sex focus were often avoidant and rarely secure. Prominent theorists suggest that while sexuality is a notable part of romantic relationships, attachment security involves the whole relationship (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Thus, an over-emphasis on sexual interactions may detract from other vital relational processes involving mutual trust, emotional connection, and shared activities, thereby contributing to an insecure attachment. Indeed, in our analysis, songs focused on sex tended to describe relationships where the artist avoided emotional closeness with their partner. While adolescents often experiment with sex and hookups (Manning et al., 2006), youth need to understand that holistic romantic relationships involve more than just sex (e.g., Manning et al., 2006; Williams & Adams, 2013). With music considered by adolescents to be a relatively normative source for relationship information, it is alarming that a near majority of popular songs focused almost solely on sex.

However, it is encouraging that a sizable portion of songs focused on love, which were more likely to illustrate attachment security. Such songs could have a significant positive impact on adolescent behaviors and attitudes (Bandura, 1999; Gerbner et al., 1986), helping adolescents move toward a secure-attachment-based cognitive model. Teenagers and parents would be wise to seek songs focused on love, noting that some genres (e.g., pop) are more likely to focus on love while others focus on sex (e.g., rap/hip hop/R&B). Listeners could also critically examine the lyrics before adding a song to their daily repertoire to build a media library that aids rather than hinders positive romantic development.

Sexualization

We also noted whether the artist sexualized their own or another’s body at any point in the song. While many of the songs containing sexualization also focused on sex rather than love, others did not, warranting separate analyses for these constructs. The majority of songs contained at least one instance of sexualization, and analysis revealed that these songs were more likely to be avoidant and less likely to be secure. As sexualization was a dichotomous factor, songs without any sexualization had the inverse result (more likely secure, less likely avoidant). One potential reason for this association is that avoidant individuals may objectify their romantic partner to diminish the other’s humanity (Ward, 2016), decreasing the objectifier’s perceived responsibility to elicit connection. Regardless, it is important to recognize that songs with sexualizing lyrics may send the message that it is normative to prioritize sexual appeal over other attributes that contribute to a secure, healthy relationship.

Implications

The results of this study have important implications for adolescent romantic socialization and are thus salient for adolescents, parents, practitioners, and researchers. The vast majority of songs in our sample exemplified an insecure attachment, indicating that popular music likely presents adolescents with unhealthy messages about romantic relationships. Theory suggests these messages may have the potential to impact romantic relationships in both adolescence and adulthood (Kulkarni et al., 2019; Madsen & Collins, 2011), although effects research is needed to verify these influences. The large proportion of songs illustrating unhealthy, insecure romantic relationships is therefore concerning. Teens may not intentionally contemplate the lyrics they hear and could accept media’s messages without examining the implications (Wright et al., 2019). If adolescents are to instead develop a healthy mental model of romance, which may be the best way to help teens create healthy romantic relationships both now and in the future (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), they need to think critically about music lyrics and decipher between the relationally helpful and harmful notions put forth by many popular songs. Parents and educators should increase their focus on media literacy, including teaching adolescents how to evaluate the messages portrayed through lyrics. Regardless of adolescents’ music consumption habits and the content of songs they listen to, we can help adolescents contemplate the lyrics they frequently hear, discuss the messages those lyrics convey, and identify which notions promote secure attachment. Helping adolescents think critically about these messages may help mitigate potential negative effects (Vahedi et al., 2018; Wright et al., 2019).

Future research should expand on this study by examining a larger variety of songs, including those that are less popular or of a wider variety of genres (e.g., K-pop, rock, indie/folk). Media and relationship scholars alike would benefit from effects research analyzing how romantic music lyrics influence adolescent romantic behaviors and attitudes longitudinally. Similar content analyses of other media sources that teach adolescents about romance (e.g., teen movies, novels) would also expand our collective understanding of how individuals’ internal working models of romance are shaped during adolescence

Limitations

Despite thorough coding and analysis, this study has limitations. Most notably, we were unable to code all popular songs with romantic lyrics, instead analyzing those included in Billboard’s 2019 Hot 100 list. This list consisted primarily of pop, rap/hip hop/R&B, and country, preventing us from examining the music lyrics in other relevant genres. It is possible that less popular music may portray romance differently. It is also possible (and even likely) that the way music portrays romantic relationships may differ over time as gender expectations and norms change. We hope future research examines this possibility through a comparative content analysis across decades. Furthermore, we did not determine whether each song listed had adolescent listeners, assuming that youth and young adults listen to much more of the current popular music than other age groups (e.g., Delmonte, 2018; Statista, 2020). Finally, coders functioned as authors for the empirical report, which may have introduced researcher bias into the coding. Future research should build upon this study by addressing these methodological issues.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the messages adolescents receive regarding romance have an important influence on how they expect relationships to function moving forward. Music is one of the most prominent forms of media content for teenagers, and many songs discuss romance. This study examined the romantic content of popular song lyrics, finding that many depict insecure attachment attitudes and behaviors. Scholars, practitioners, and parents should do their part in aiding positive romantic development by helping teens identify and navigate songs’ frequent lies about love.

Construct	Count	Percentage
Attachment style
Anxious	24	27.59
Avoidant	29	33.33
Fearful	22	25.29
Secure	7	8.05
Neutral	5	5.75
Relationship timeline
Pre-relationship	7	8.05
During relationship	54	62.07
Breakup	6	6.90
Post-relationship	20	22.99
Artist’s gender
Female	13	14.94
Male	55	63.22
Both	17	19.54
Other	2	2.30
Song’s genre
Pop	29	33.33
Country	13	14.94
Hip hop/rap/R&B	38	43.68
Electric/dance	4	4.60
Soundtrack	1	1.15
Other	2	2.30
Love or sex
Love	34	39.08
Sex	42	48.28
Both	11	12.64
Sexualization
Yes	47	54.02
No	40	45.98
Artist’s relationship status
Single	27	31.03
Dating/cohabiting	39	44.83
Married	21	24.14

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix.

Billboard’s Top Year End Chart Hot 100 Songs of 2019.

Song Rating	Title	Artist	Included in Analysis
1	“Old Town Road”	Lil Nas X (featuring Billy Ray Cyrus)	Yes
2	“Sunflower”	Post Malone & Swae Lee	Yes
3	“Without Me”	Halsey	Yes
4	“Bad Guy”	Billie Ellish	Yes
5	“Wow.”	Post Malone	No
6	“Happier”	Marshmello & Bastille	Yes
7	“7 Rings”	Ariana Grande	No
8	“Talk”	Khalid	Yes
9	“Sicko Mode”	Travis Scott	Yes
10	“Sucker”	Jonas Brothers	Yes
11	“High Hopes”	Panic! At the Disco	No
12	“Thank U, Next”	Ariana Grande	Yes
13	“Truth Hurts”	Lizzo	Yes
14	“Dancing with a Stranger”	Sam Smith & Normani	Yes
15	“Senorita”	Shawn Mendes & Camila Cabello	Yes
16	“I Don’t Care”	Ed Sheeran & Justin Bieber	Yes
17	“Eastside”	benny blanco, Halsey, & Khalid	Yes
18	“Going Bad”	Meek Mill (featuring Drake)	Yes
19	“Shallow”	Lady Gaga & Bradley Cooper	Yes
20	“Better”	Khalid	Yes
21	“No Guidance”	Chris Brown (featuring Drake)	Yes
22	“Girls Like You”	Maroon 5 (featuring Cardi B)	Yes
23	“Sweet but Psycho”	Ava Max	Yes
24	“Suge”	DaBaby	Yes
25	“Middle Child”	J. Cole	No
26	“Drip Too Hard”	Lil Baby & Gunna	Yes
27	“Someone You Loved”	Lewis Capaldi	Yes
28	“Ran$om”	Lil Tecca	Yes
29	“If I Can’t Have You”	Shawn Mendes	Yes
30	“Goodbyes”	Post Malone (featuring Young Thug)	Yes
31	“Zeze”	Kodack Black (featuring Tracis Scott & Offset	Yes
32	“Better Now”	Post Malone	Yes
33	“Youngblood”	5 Seconds of Summer	Yes
34	“Money in the Grave”	Drake (featuring Rick Ross)	Yes
35	“Speechless”	Dan + Shay	Yes
36	“Break Up with Your Girlfriend, I’m Bored”	Ariana Grande	Yes
37	“Please Me”	Cardi B & Bruno Mars	Yes
38	“Money”	Cardi B	Yes
39	“You Need to Calm Down”	Taylor Swift	No
40	“Panini”	Lil Nas X	Yes
41	“Look Back at It”	A Boogie Wit da Hoodie	Yes
42	“A Lot”	21 Savage	Yes
43	“ME!”	Taylor Swift (featuring Brendon Urie)	Yes
44	“MIA”	Bad Bunny (featuring Drake)	Yes
45	“Pop Out”	Polo G (featuring Lil Tjay)	Yes
46	“Beautiful Crazy”	Luke Combs	Yes
47	“Thotiana”	Blueface	Yes
48	“Lucid Dreams”	Juice WRLD	Yes
49	“Mo Bamba”	Sheck Wes	Yes
50	Beautiful People	Ed Sheeran (featuring Khalid)	Yes
51	“Wake Up in the Sky”	Gucci Mane X Bruno Mars X Kodak Black	Yes
52	“Whiskey Glasses”	Morgan Wallen	Yes
53	“God’s Country”	Blake Shelton	No
54	“Be Alright”	Dean Lewis	Yes
55	“Pure Water”	Mustard & Migos	Yes
56	“The Git Up”	Blanco Brown	No
57	“Taki Taki”	DJ Snake (featuring Selena Gomez, Ozuna, & Cardi B)	Yes
58	“Close to Me”	Ellie Goulding X Diplo (featuring Swae Lee)	Yes
59	“Envy Me”	Calboy	No
60	“You Say”	Lauren Daigle	No
61	“Hey Look Ma, I Made It”	Panic! At the Disco	No
62	“Circles”	Post Malone	Yes
63	“Beer Never Broke My Heart”	Luke Combs	Yes
64	“The London”	Young Thug, J Cole, & Travis Scott	Yes
65	“Con Calma”	Daddy Yankee & Katy Perry (featuring Snow)	Yes
66	“Murder on My Mind”	YNW Melly	Yes
67	“When the Party’s Over”	Billie Ellish	Yes
68	“Act Up”	City Girls	Yes
69	“I Like It”	Cardi B, Bad Bunny, & J Balvin	Yes
70	“Trampoline”	SHAED	Yes
71	“Leave Me Alone”	Flipp Dinero	Yes
72	“Breathin”	Ariana Grande	Yes
73	“Bury a Friend”	Billie Ellish	No
74	“Close Friends”	Lil Baby	Yes
75	“Baby Shark”	Pinkfong	No
76	“My Type”	Saweetie	Yes
77	“Worth It”	YK Osiris	Yes
78	“Only Human”	Jonas Brothers	Yes
79	“Knockin’ Boots”	Luke Bryan	Yes
80	“Trip”	Ella Mai	Yes
81	“Rumor”	Lee Brice	Yes
82	“Swervin”	A Boogie Wit da Hoodie (featuring 6ix9ine)	Yes
83	“How Do You Sleep?”	Sam Smith	Yes
84	“Baby”	Lil Baby & DaBaby	Yes
85	“Look What God Gave Her”	Thomas Rhett	Yes
86	“Good as You”	Kane Brown	Yes
87	“Clout”	Offset (featuring Cardi B)	Yes
88	“Love Lies”	Khalid & Normani	Yes
89	“One Thing Right”	Marshmello & Kane Brown	Yes
90	“Cash Shit”	Megan Thee Stallion (featuring DaBaby)	Yes
91	“Tequila”	Dan + Shay	Yes
92	“Shotta Flow”	NLE Choppa	No
93	“Hot Girl Summer”	Megan Thee Stallion, Nicki Minaj, & Ty Dolla $ign	Yes
94	“Talk You Out of It”	Florida Gorgia Line	Yes
95	“Beautiful”	Bazzi (featuring Camila Cabello)	Yes
96	“Eyes on You”	Chase Rice	Yes
97	“All to Myself”	Dan + Shay	Yes
98	“Boyfriend”	Ariana Grande & Social House	Yes
99	“Walk Me Home”	P!nk	Yes
100	“Robbery”	Juice WRLD	Yes

Data availability

Data and analyses are available upon request from the first author.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

ORCID iDs

McKell A Jorgensen-Wells

Sarah M Coyne

References

Ainsworth

(1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709–716.

Anglada-Tort

Krause

A. E.

North

A. C.

(2021). Popular music lyrics and musicians’ gender over time: A computational approach. Psychology of Music, 49(3), 426–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735619871602

Arriaga

X. B.

Kumashiro

Simpson

J. A.

Overall

N. C.

(2018). Revising working models across time: Relationship situations that enhance attachment security. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 71–96.

Bandura

(1999). A social cognitive theory of personality. In Pervin

John

(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 154–196). Guilford.

Banse

(2004). Adult attachment and marital satisfaction: Evidence for dyadic configuration effects. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(2), 273–282.

Becht

A. I.

Nelemans

S. A.

Branje

S. J. T.

Vollebergh

W. A. M.

Koot

H. M.

Denissen

J. J. A.

Meeus

W. H. J.

(2016). The quest for identity in adolescence: Heterogeneity in daily identity formation and psychosocial adjustment across 5 years. Developmental Psychology, 52(12), 2010–2021. http://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000245

Billboard. (2019). Year end charts hot 100 songs. https://www.billboard.com/charts/year-end/2019/hot-100-songs

Blakemore

S.-J.

Mills

K. L.

(2014). Is adolescence a sensitive period for sociocultural processing?. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 187–207. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115202

Bleakley

Hennessy

Fishbein

(2011). A model of adolescents’ seeking of sexual content in their media choices. Journal of Sex Research, 48(4), 309–315.

10.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.

11.

Butzer

Campbell

(2008). Adult attachment, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction: A study of married couples. Personal Relationships, 15(1), 141–154.

12.

Campbell

Stanton

S. C. E.

(2019). Adult attachment and trust in romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 148–151.

13.

Carpentier

F. D.

Knobloch-Westerwick

Blumhoff

(2007). Naughty versus nice: Suggestive pop music influences on perceptions of potential romantic partners. Media Psychology, 9(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260709336800

14.

Chittenden

(2013). In my rearview mirror. Journal of Children and Media, 7(2), 186–200.

15.

Christopher

F. S.

Poulsen

F. O.

McKenney

S. J.

(2016). Early adolescents and “going out”: The emergence of romantic relationship roles. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(6), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515599676

16.

Cole

R. R.

(1971). Top songs in the sixties: A content analysis of popular lyrics. American Behavioral Scientist, 14, 389–400.

17.

Collins

T. J.

Gillath

(2012). Attachment, breakup strategies, and associated outcomes: The effects of security enhancement on the selection of breakup strategies. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.008

18.

Collins

W. A.

Welsh

D. P.

Furman

(2009). Adolescent romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163459

19.

Coyne

S. M.

Davis

Warburton

Stockdale

Abba

Busby

D. M.

(2021). Mirror, mirror on the wall: The effect of listening to body positive music on implicit and explicit body esteem. Psychology of Popular Media, 10(1), 2–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000273

20.

Crone

E. A.

Konijn

E. A.

(2018). Media use and brain development during adolescence. Nature Communications, 9, Article 588. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03126-x

21.

del Giudice

. (2011). Sex differences in romantic attachment: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(2), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210392789

22.

del Giudice

. (2019). Sex differences in attachment styles. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.004

23.

Delmonte

(2017). 2017 Music consumption: The overall landscape. AudienceNet.

24.

Delmonte

(2018). Audio Monitor U.S. 2018: The overall music landscape. AudienceNet.

25.

Ebbert. (2019). chisq.posthoc.test: Perform post hoc analyses based on residuals of Pearson’s Chi-squared test for count data (R package version 0.1.2).

26.

Erickson

S. E.

Cin

S. D.

(2018). Romantic parasocial attachments and the development of romantic scripts, schemas, and beliefs among adolescents. Media Psychology, 21(1), 111–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1305281

27.

Erikson

(1968). Youth: Identity and crisis. Norton.

28.

Fivush

(2006). Scripting attachment: Generalized event representations and internal working models. Attachment and Human Development, 8(3), 283–289.

29.

Forenza

Bermea

Rogers

(2018). Ideals and reality: Perceptions of healthy and unhealthy relationships among foster youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 35(3), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-017-0523-3

30.

Fuld

G. L.

Mulligan

D. A.

Altmann

T. R.

Brown

Christakis

Clarke-Pearson

Dreyer

B. P.

Falik

H. L.

Nelson

K. G.

O’Keefe

G. S.

Strasburger

V. C.

De Rivas

M. R. G.

Milteer

R. M.

Shifrin

D. L.

Brody

Wilcox

Noland

V. L.

Steiner

G. L.

(2009). Policy statement-impact of music, music lyrics, and music videos on children and youth. Pediatrics, 124(5), 1488–1494. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-2145

31.

Gerbner

Gross

(1976). Living with television: The violence profile. The Journal of Communication, 26(2), 173–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x

32.

Gerbner

Gross

Morgan

Signorielli

(1986). Living with television: The dynamics of the cultivation process. In Bryant

Zillman

(Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 17–40). Lawrence Erlbaum.

33.

Hazan

Shaver

(1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524.

34.

Hazan

Zeifman

(1999). Pair bonds as attachments: Evaluating the evidence. In Cassidy

Shaver

P. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of Attachment Theory and Research (pp. 336–354).

35.

Hefner

(2015). Tuning into fantasy: Motivations to view wedding television and associated romantic beliefs. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(4), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000079

36.

Hefner

Wilson

B. J.

(2013). From love at first sight to soul mate: The influence of romantic ideals in popular films on young people’s beliefs about relationships. Communication Monographs, 80(2), 150–175.

37.

Kansky

B. J.

(2018). What’s love got to do with it? Romantic relationships and well-being. In Diener

Oishi

Tay

(Eds.), Handbook of well-being (pp. 1–24). DEF.

38.

Kim

H.-Y.

(2017). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics, 42(2), 152–155.

39.

Kirkpatrick

L. A.

Davis

K. E.

(1994). Attachment style, gender, and relationship stability: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 502–512.

40.

Kistler

Rodgers

K. B.

Power

Austin

E. W.

Hill

L. G.

(2010). Adolescents and music media: Toward an involvement-mediational model of consumption and self-concept. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20(3), 616–630.

41.

Kroff

Coyne

James

Ehrenreich

Underwood

Jensen

Shawcroft

Duerden

Gale

Sheppard

. (under review). Associations between sexual music lyrics and sexting across adolescence. Computers in Human Behavior. Advance online publication.

42.

Kulkarni

S. J.

Porter

A. M.

Mennick

Gil-Rivas

(2019). “I feel like. . . their relationship is based on the media”: Relationship between media representation and adolescents’ relationship knowledge and expectations. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 40, 545–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-019-00565-0

43.

Lennings

H. I.

Warburton

W. A.

(2011). The effect of auditory versus visual violent media exposure on aggressive behaviour: The role of song lyrics, video clips and musical tone. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(4), 794–799.

44.

Lonsdale

A. J.

North

A. C.

(2011). Why do we listen to music? A uses and gratifications analysis. British Journal of Psychology, 102(1), 108–134.

45.

Madanikia

Bartholomew

(2014). Themes of lust and love in popular music lyrics from 1971 to 2011. SAGE Open, 4(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014547179

46.

Madsen

S. D.

Collins

W. A.

(2011). The salience of adolescent romantic experiences for romantic relationship qualities in young adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(4), 789–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00737.x

47.

Manning

W. D.

Giordano

P. C.

Longmore

M. A.

(2006). Hooking up: The relationship contexts of “nonrelationship” sex. Journal of Adolescent Research, 21(5), 459–483.

48.

McHugh

M. L.

(2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.

49.

Neuman

Perlovsky

Cohen

Livshits

(2016). The personality of music genres. Psychology of Music, 44(5), 1044–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735615608526

50.

Paquette

Rapaport

St-Louis

A. C.

Vallerand

R. J.

(2020). Why are you passionately in love? Attachment styles as determinants of romantic passion and conflict resolution strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 44(4), 621–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09821-x

51.

Pedro

M. F.

Ribeiro

Shelton

K. H.

(2015). Romantic attachment and family functioning: The mediating role of marital satisfaction. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(11), 3482–3495. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0150-6

52.

Pettijohn

T. F.

Sacco

D. F.

(2009). The language of lyrics: An analysis of popular Billboard songs across conditions of social and economic threat. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 28(3), 297–311.

53.

R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/

54.

Rideout

Robb

(2019). The common sense census: Media use by tweens and teens. Common Sense Media.

55.

Robinson

Hamilton

N. K.

Handsome

Chammas

Parks

(2018). Love lies [Recorded by Khalid Robinson and Normani Kordei Hamilton]. On Love, Simon (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) [CD].

56.

Stackert

R. A.

Bursik

(2003). Why am I unsatisfied? Adult attachment style, gendered irrational relationship beliefs, and young adult romantic relationship satisfaction. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(8), 1419–1429.

57.

Stanley

S. M.

Rhoades

G. K.

Whitton

S. W.

(2010). Commitment: Functions, formation, and the securing of romantic attachment. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2(4), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00060.x

58.

Statista. (2020). Music in the U.S.

59.

Stefanou

Mccabe

M. P.

(2012). Adult attachment and sexual functioning: A review of past research. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9(10), 2499–2507.

60.

Vahedi

Sibalis

Sutherland

J. E.

(2018). Are media literacy interventions effective at changing attitudes and intentions towards risky health behaviors in adolescents? A meta-analytic review. Journal of Adolescence, 67, 140–152.

61.

Vasilenko

S. A.

Kugler

K. C.

Lanza

S. T.

(2016). Latent classes of adolescent sexual and romantic relationship experiences: Implications for adult sexual health and relationship outcomes. Journal of Sex Research, 53(7), 742–753.

62.

Vaterlaus

J. M.

Tulane

Porter

B. D.

Beckert

T. E.

(2018). The perceived influence of media and technology on adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Adolescent Research, 33(6), 651–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558417712611

63.

Ward

L. M.

(2016). Media and sexualization: State of empirical research, 1995–2015. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(4–5), 560–577.

64.

Welborn

B. L.

Lieberman

M. D.

Goldenberg

Fuligni

A. J.

Galvan

Telzer

E. H.

(2016). Neural mechanisms of social influence in adolescence. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 11, 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv095

65.

Williams

L. R.

Adams

H. L.

(2013). Friends with benefits or “friends” with deficits? The meaning and contexts of uncommitted sexual relationships among Mexican American and European American adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(7), 1110–1117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.04.023

66.

Wright

C. L.

Carpentier

F. D.

L. A.

Hall

Hopper

K. M.

Warburton

(2019). Popular music media literacy: Recommendations for the education curriculum. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 6(2), 186–193.