Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T04:52:40.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cultural evolution of emotional expression in 50 years of song lyrics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2019

Charlotte O. Brand*
Affiliation:
Human Behaviour and Cultural Evolution Group, Biosciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Penryn, UK
Alberto Acerbi
Affiliation:
Faculty of Science, Department for Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, University of Tübingen, Germany
Alex Mesoudi
Affiliation:
Human Behaviour and Cultural Evolution Group, Biosciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Penryn, UK
*
*Corresponding Author: Human Behaviour and Cultural Evolution Group, Biosciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Penryn TR10 9FE, UK. E-mail: c.brand@exeter.ac.uk

Abstract

Popular music offers a rich source of data that provides insights into long-term cultural evolutionary dynamics. One major trend in popular music, as well as other cultural products such as literary fiction, is an increase over time in negatively valenced emotional content, and a decrease in positively valenced emotional content. Here we use two large datasets containing lyrics from n = 4913 and n = 159,015 pop songs respectively and spanning 1965–2015, to test whether cultural transmission biases derived from the cultural evolution literature can explain this trend towards emotional negativity. We find some evidence of content bias (negative lyrics do better in the charts), prestige bias (best-selling artists are copied) and success bias (best-selling songs are copied) in the proliferation of negative lyrics. However, the effects of prestige and success bias largely disappear when unbiased transmission is included in the models, which assumes that the occurrence of negative lyrics is predicted by their past frequency. We conclude that the proliferation of negative song lyrics may be explained partly by content bias, and partly by undirected, unbiased cultural transmission.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019
Figure 0

Figure 1. Proportion of the term love (left panel) and hate (right panel) in all song lyrics by year for the dataset billboard which contains the lyrics of the songs included in the annual US Billboard Hot 100 (n = 4913 songs). The proportions here are small as we are reporting the proportion of the word out of the total number of words in 100 songs each year (on average 30,000 words, i.e. 300 words/song) and on different scales (the frequency of positive emotion words is usually higher than the frequency of negative emotion words). To have an intuitive idea of the change, from 1965 to 1990, in the top-100 billboard songs, the word hate was used each year around four or five times overall (30,000*0.00015), whereas now the average is around 24 (30,000 × 0.0008).

Figure 1

Table 1. Details of model comparison results for the billboard dataset models. The model with the lowest WAIC and highest proportion of the WAIC weight from each set is in bold. Please note that we always used the full models for inference, as the WAIC standard errors contain a lot of overlap, see Results section for more information

Figure 2

Table 2. Details of model comparison results for the mxm dataset models. The model with the lowest WAIC and highest proportion of the WAIC weight from each set is in bold. Please note that we always used the full models for inference, as the WAIC standard errors contain a lot of overlap, see Results section for more information

Figure 3

Figure 2. (a) Parameter estimates from the full positive billboard model. Estimates include 89% confidence intervals. Estimates that cross zero are interpreted as not having a strong effect on the probability of a lyric being positive. (b) Parameter estimates from the full positive billboard model with unbiased transmission included. (c) Parameter estimates from the full negative billboard model. (d) Parameter estimates from the full negative billboard mode with unbiased transmission included.

Figure 4

Figure 3. (a) Parameter estimates from the full positive mxm model. Estimates include 89% confidence intervals. Estimates that cross zero are interpreted as not having a strong effect on the probability of a lyric being positive. (b) Parameter estimates from the full positive mxm model with unbiased transmission included. (c) Parameter estimates from the full negative mxm model. (d) Parameter estimates from the full negative mxm model with unbiased transmission included.

Supplementary material: File

Brand et al. supplementary material

Brand et al. supplementary material

Download Brand et al. supplementary material(File)
File 1.6 MB