Evolutionary origins of . Classical and recent hypotheses Kasper Kalinowski et al.

Anthropological Review • Vol. 84(2), 213–231 (2021)

Evolutionary origins of music. Classical and recent hypotheses

Kasper Kalinowski1,2, Agata Kozłowska3, Marta Malesza4, Dariusz P. Danel5

1 Department of Psychology of Development and Education, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Warmia and Mazury 2 Department of Cognitive Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw 3 Department of Individual Differences, Faculty of Psychology, University of Social Sciences and Humanities in Warsaw 4 Faculty of Psychology, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw, Poland 5 Ludwik Hirszfeld Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy, Polish Academy of Sciences, Wroclaw, Poland

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to review recent hypotheses on the evolutionary origins of music in Homo sapiens, taking into account the most influential traditional hypotheses. To date, theories derived from evo- lution have focused primarily on the importance that music carries in solving detailed adaptive problems. The three most influential theoretical concepts have described the evolution of human music in terms of 1) sexual selection, 2) the formation of social bonds, or treated it 3) as a byproduct. According to recent proposals, traditional hypotheses are flawed or insufficient in fully explaining the complexity of music in Homo sapiens. This paper will critically discuss three traditional hypotheses of music evolution (music as an effect of sexual selection, a mechanism of social bonding, and a byproduct), as as and two recent concepts of music evolution - music as a credible signal and Music and Social Bonding (MSB) hypothesis.

Key words: evolutionary psychology, music, biomusicology, evolutionary theories of music, functions of music

Introduction basis of an early version of the theory of evolution, noted that man’s capaci- Explaining the phenomenon of music in ties for music “must be ranked amongst the evolutionary terms was already a prob- most mysterious with which he is endowed”. lem for Darwin, who, unable to fully ex- (Darwin 1871). Despite the fact that the plain the phenomenon of music on the explanation of music genesis is consid-

Original Research Article Received: April 10, 2021; Revised: May 13, 2021; Accepted: May 14, 2021 DOI: 10.2478/anre-2021-0011 © 2021 Polish Anthropological Society 214 Kasper Kalinowski et al. ered crucial in the context of language terms can be based on three main con- evolution (Huron 2001), and music it- cepts (Mehr et al. 2020; Fitch 2006; Hu- self is treated as a second and equally ron 2001; Cross 2009). Music in Homo sa- important communication channel of pienswas interpreted as: 1) a byproduct of Homo sapiens (Harvey 2020), the issue of evolutionary processes, 2) sexual selec- the evolutionary origins of music is still tion, and 3) a social bonding mechanism. unclear. This is due to the complexity of These concepts allowed the creation of music. According to Fitch (2006), the hypotheses that can be empirically and term “music” itself should be treated as experimentally verified (Miller 2001; an ‘’umbrella term’’, and it is crucial to Tifferet et al. 2015; Kreutz 2014; Launay distinguish between the different com- et al. 2015; Wilks 2011). Nonetheless ponents of capacity for music, which data collected to date are not sufficient may have evolved at different times enough to fully accept one of the tradi- independently of each other. The fact tional hypotheses (Fitch 2006; Mehr et that music does not constitute a single al. 2020, Savage et al. 2020). detailed capacity makes answering the A novel and more comprehensive question “Why did music evolve?” consid- approach to the problem of the origins erably challenging. of music is offered by recent hypothe- Music has seemingly accompanied ses analyzing the evolutionary origin of Homo sapiens since at least the Paleolith- music in terms of credible signal (in at ic period. The oldest surviving artefacts, least two contexts – coalitional interac- which are indisputably considered mu- tions and infant care) (Mehr et al. 2020) sical instruments, are ca. 43 and were and Music and Social Bonding (MSB) hy- found in the of the Swabian Jura pothesis, (Savage et al. 2020). The two, region (Higham et al. 2012; Blake and new alternative scenarios for the genesis Cross 2008; Kunej and Turk 2000; d’Err- of music fill gaps that previous concepts ico et al. 2000). Some researchers push have not dealt with and set the stage this boundary even further – according to for further research. Most importantly, Steven Mithen’s hypothesis, singing phy- they are not limited to single adaptation logenetically preceded the emergence of problems, which was perhaps the biggest articulate speech in Homo sapiens and was drawback of traditional concepts. Bio- present among Neanderthals (Mithen , as the field that attempts to 2011). Evidence of the presence of mu- answer the question of the evolutionary sic among Neanderthals is an instrument origins of music, is an interdisciplinary discovered in the Slovenian Divje babe I area (Honning 2018; Peretz 2006). Ac- , which was allegedly made by made cordingly, both the music as the credible by them . However, due to the poor con- signal hypothesis and the MSB hypothe- dition of the artefact, the discovery is sis integrate contributions from biology, questionable, and according to some re- , evolutionary psychology, searchers, the “Neanderthal flute” should neuroscience, primatology, and compar- be interpreted as a bone nibbled by pred- ative cultural studies. ators (Tuniz et al. 2010; Diedrich 2015; Before presenting music as a credible Turk et al. 2020). signal hypothesis and the MSB hypoth- Previous theories explaining the esis, three groups of theories that have emergence of music in evolutionary dominated biology and psychology for Evolutionary origins of music. Classical and recent hypotheses 215 over two decades will be discussed along a previous relationship. Overall, over with critical comments. Theories that 92% of all had some “reproduc- describe music as 1) an effect of sexu- tive content”. When Hobbs and Gal- al selection, 2) social bonding, and 3) a lup compared the songs of artists who byproduct. entered the charts and other randomly selected songs by the same artists, the Sexual selection theories conclusions were very clear. “Hits” had much more reproductive content than of music songs that were less successful. The love threads in the songs are nothing new – The hypothesis of the evolution of music in pop and country music they have been as an activity to promote one’s genetic prevalent at least since the 1960s, as quality and increase fitness through indi- shown by Hobbs and Gallup. They went vidual reproductive success is very pop- even further and analysed the content of ular not only in evolutionary psychology the most famous opera arias (some of but also in the popular science literature. them from the 16th century). Again, the Not only does it confirm common majority of songs (90%) concerned “re- human intuitions derived from folk psy- productive content”. chology, but such an explanation seems The roots of perceiving music as a particularly attractive given that love, be- result of the mechanism of sexual selec- trayal, or intimate relationships are often tion can be found in the works of Darwin central themes of musical works in many (1871). However, songs may represent cultures (Mehr et al. 2019). Nonetheless, only some kind of ideal which western particular cultures may have indigenous culture can no longer enact due to cul- themes dominating their music, e.g., Ab- tural changes and progressing fertility original Australians and their music and decline (Westoff 1983; Teitelbaum 2013; dreaming ceremonies devoted to spirits Caldwell 2006). and land creation. (Curan et al. 2019; However, Darwin himself did not de- Hume et al, 2007; Boyd 2018). vote much attention to music and treat- From among an infinite number of ed it on a par with other characteristics topics, the authors of the usually that increase reproductive success, such choose one – love, sex and their conse- as deer antlers or a peacock’s tail (Fitch quences (positive and negative). Hobbs 2006; Bannan 2017). and Gallup (2011) analysed the content The works of Miller (2000, 2001) of music hits on the Billboard list (in should be considered the beginning of genres of pop, country and rap music). empirical verification of Darwin’s -intu They were looking for “reproductive con- itions in the field of music. According tent” in the lyrics. As positive “content”, to Miller’s concept, music is a “cogni- topics included falling in love, romance, tive peacock tail”, and the proficiency in sex, close relationships, attachment producing it translates into reproductive and admiration for a romantic partner. success and serves men to attract female As negative “content” it was checked sexual partners. Indirect evidence to sup- whether the songs discussed unrequit- port the concept of music as an effect of ed love, betrayal, abandonment or the sexual selection is the predominance of memory of the old happy moments in male artists, not only in music, but also 216 Kasper Kalinowski et al. in other areas of art, such as literature The most serious objection is the lack of (Lange et al. 2013; Euler 2014; Sternberg confirmation of music as mechanism of and Lubart 1991). sexual selection hypothesis in genetic re- Despite the popularity of this con- search (Mosing et al. 2015). The largest cept, it is supported by surprisingly little study of this type to date collected data empirical data, and some of which even supporting the hypothesis of music with contradicts the music sexual selection sexual selection to a minor extent. Ad- hypothesis. mittedly, moderate genetic influences on According to the Theory of Parental musical aptitude for both sexes, but ge- Investments(Trivers 1972), grater mating netic influences were low and nonsignifi- efforts are typical to sex that invests less cant for female heritability. The music as in child-rearing; therefore, the predomi- sexual selection hypothesis is contradict- nance of male can be expect- ed by the fact that people who had great- ed. (Trivers 1972). Despite some data er musical ability were scoring lower on showing the predominance of male per- the measures of mating success. Addi- formers (Miller 2000, 2001), the unequal tionally, music serves far more functions gender distribution can be explained than in the area of human​​ mating (Cross, equally well by cultural factors. In mod- 2009; Schäfer et. Al., 2013). ern orchestras, gender proportions are evenly distributed (Sergeant and Himon- Music as social bonding ides 2019), with the percentage of female performers increasing per decade (Dukes Music is a universal part of Homo sapiens’ et al. 2003). Secondly, the structure of the social life and is directly linked to the music itself does not contain any charac- core processes of human social life (Lo- teristics that would allow the performer’s ersch and Arbuckle 2013). Regardless gender to be identified (which cannot be of culture, music accompanies people at inferred from recorded music) (Sergeant important life events like weddings and and Himonides 2014). The few gender funerals. The phenomenon cannot be differences documented concern low lev- considered in terms of religious rituals; el perception of music as transient evoked songs are equally present in secular so- otoacoustic emissions (Cassidy and Ditty cieties (Savage et al. 2020, Mehr et al. 2001), and pitch memory (Gaab et al. 2019). As Huron (2001) notes, much 2003), which do not take into account about the social nature of music is told the complexity of music. An important by the most popular songs in history. In gender difference is a better recognition his view, if the number of performances of familiar melodies in the case of women is taken as a measure of popularity, the (Miles et al. 2016). undisputed winner is the “Happy The assumption that musical capac- Birthday”. ities, which are a manifestation of high In hypotheses describing the evolu- genetic quality, that will be passed on to tionary origin of music as social bond- future generations, is the core of Miller’s ing, music is a mechanism that creates hypothesis. This applies in particular to and strengthens bonds between group such aspects as cognitive abilities, which, members. Social bonding hypotheses are according to Miller (2000), are the main supported by comparative data. Vocaliza- indicator of the so-called “good genes”. tions as a bonding behavior and a prefer- Evolutionary origins of music. Classical and recent hypotheses 217 ence for responses from pack members Numerous data support the social among which grooming occurs has been bonding hypothesis. However, not only observed most frequently in non-hu- can music have a beneficial effect on man primates like macaques (Arlet et mood (Van Goethem and Sloboda 2011; al. 2015) bonobos (Levréro et al. 2019) Campbell and Berezina Gill 2020). The and lemurs of the Lepilemur edwardsi ability to discriminate tones and particu- species (Méndez-Cárdenas and Zimmer- lar preferences developed during infancy mann 2009). also plays a vital role in early ontogeny Concepts of the evolutionary origins (Trehub 2015). Preferences are present of music as a social bonding mecha- among newborns as early as day two af- nism were already proposed by Roeder- ter birth, even in deaf parents (Matasaka er (1984), who emphasized the social 2006). Mother-infant singing alleviates bonding role of music that accompanies anxiety and strengthens bonds (Fan- modern religious and military rituals and court and Perkins 2018; Kostilainen et al. its adaptive role in the past. The con- 2020). temporary popularity of social bonding Music can be used to justify some ide- theory is related to Dunbar’s hypothe- ologies, such as the Nazi’s use of Wag- sis, which assumes that in groups such nerian music as a kind of Aryan arche- as human gatherings, where numbers type that plays a central role in the Nazi do not allow for time-costly grooming, mythos of the glorious Nordic/German- music and laughter have replaced it as a ic warrior tradition (Ticker 2016). As bonding mechanism (Dunbar 2012; Dun- Woody Allen mentioned in his famous bar 1991). According to Dunbar (1993, quote, “I just can’t listen to any more 1996), music serves the function of “vo- Wagner, you know... I’m starting to get cal grooming”, and together with laugh- the urge to conquer Poland.” Music can ter solved the problem of the “bonding be used to reaffirm in-group/out-group gap” in groups with large numbers by distinctions and reify inter-group bound- being a much more effective mechanism aries. For that reason, Jewish for strengthening bonds than grooming. were banned by the Nazis (Haas 2013). Phylogenetically, music was a precursor A literature review on the topic of to the emergence of articulated speech mother-infant singing was recently pre- (Dunbar 2017; Dunbar 2003). sented by Arrasmith (2020). According Subsequent works have highlighted to recent work by Alessandronia et al. numerous neurohormonal mechanisms (2020), in addition to dyadic interactions accompanying music that enhance social (adult-baby), music in the first months of bonding such as opioid release that also life, may also play a role in shaping early occurs with social laughter (Dunbar et triadic interactions (adult-object-baby). al. 2012) and which may play a key role Music also strengthens in-group in human sociality (Machin and Dunbar bonds between unrelated individuals 2011;Tarr et al. 2014; Weinstein et al. (Pearce et al. 2016) facilitates fast co- 2016). Music also increases oxytocin lev- hesion between unfamiliar individu- els (Riedl et al. 2017; Harvey 2016; Nils- als – the so-called “ice-breaker effect” son 2009) and decreases cortisol (Uedo (Pearce et al. 2016), singing improves et al. 2004; Koelsch et al. 2014; Khalfa et health and well-being (Pearce et al. 2016; al. 2003). Grape 2020), music training increases 218 Kasper Kalinowski et al. prosocial skills in children (Schellenberg (2020) “proximate mechanisms, such as re- et al. 2015), it improves social commu- lease of neurohormones, are themselves subject nications even in children with autism to selection, and therefore cannot serve as ul- (Sharda 2018), increases cooperative timate-level explanations for the genetic evo- and prosocial behaviours (Kniffin et al. lution of a social bonding strategy” (Mehr et 2017; Ilari et al. 2020) or empathy skills al. 2020, p. 9). (Cho 2019). Interesting evidence in fa- Another of the pillars of the music vor of music as social bonding hypothe- as social bonding hypothesis assumes sis comes from recent research indicating that music is an activity closely related the advantage of live-performed music in to rhythm and synchronization, which bonding. Music listened to live, in the brings many beneficial effects for the company of other people, engages listen- group and is associated with an advan- ers more than recordings (Swarbrick et tage in competition with other groups. al. 2019), and increases cardiac synchro- However, the supporters of music as so- ny (Ardizzi et al. 2020). cial bonding do not take into account the However, traditional theories of mu- recently documented adverse effects of sic as social bonding fail to explain many synchrony on the group (Cirrelli 2018; aspects of human music (Mehr et al. Hoehl et al. 2021). As most studies focus 2020). According to Carr, hypotheses of on the positive aspects of synchrony, the music as a social bonding mechanism social bonding hypotheses generally ig- ignore the positive impact of music at nore the fact that it is not always benefi- the individual level, although facilitat- cial at the group level. Synchrony reduces ing communicative interactions (Carr creativity, the tendency to express differ- 2009). Some researchers question Dun- ent views and impedes self-regulation of bar’s hypothesis itself, which is the core affect (Galbusera et al. 2019; Mehr et al. of the social bonding concept. In their 2020; Gelfand et al. 2020). In addition, view, interpreting grooming as a mech- synchrony results in the fact that the anism whose primary function was to members of the group feel more similar reduce stress and create bonds is flawed to and dependent on others and reduces (Port et al. 2020; Mehr et al. 2020). The the pain sensation (Vicaria and Dickens main selective pressures for group-living 2016; Rabinowitch et al. 2015; Tarr et al. in primates are predator avoidance and 2015; Galbusera et al. 2019). communal resource defense (Port et al. 2020, Mehr et al. 2020). Music as byproduct According to Fitch (2006), further in- vestigation of specific factors is needed The null hypothesis treats music as a by- to determine to what extent group cohe- product of natural selection.. The origins sion and social bonding are influenced by of this approach can be traced back to the phenomenon of music itself, and to the work of William James, who consid- what extent it is the result of performing ered music solely as “a mere incidental an activity together. peculiarity of the nervous system” (Pa- Additionally, classical explanations tel 2010). The necessity of including in of music as social bonding are accused the explanation of human behavior not of confusing proximate with ultimate only adaptations, but also byproducts – mechanisms. As noted by Mehr et al. that is, the characteristics that evolved Evolutionary origins of music. Classical and recent hypotheses 219 for a completely different purpose from appears to subscribe to a simple version of the the one currently used – was pointed Western folk-theory of music as a commodi- out by Stephen Jay Gould (Gould and fied set of complex sound patterns produced Lewontin 1979; Gould and Vrba 1982). by the few and consumed by the many simply To describe them, he proposed the term for pleasure, rather than as the complex and spandrel, currently popular especially in socially significant interactive medium that it the philosophy of biology. It is a term de- is and has been both in the West and in other rived from spandrel- tapering triangular cultures, places, and times. This unacknowl- spaces formed by the intersection of two edgedly ethnocentric treatment of music effec- rounded arches at right angles. The void tively nullifies the value of his discussion of its formed at the junction of the two arches relationship to evolutionary processes” (Carr was richly decorated, but that was not its 2009, p. 9,). original function. Such activity that uses As the authors of the concept of mu- mechanisms evolved for another purpose sic as credible signal note, Pinker’s con- is central tenets in music hypotheses as a cept cannot be described as completely byproduct. The production of music and wrong, but neither can it be considered its reception within these hypotheses is correct (Mehr et al. 2020). In their view, connected with the exploitation of such music admittedly exploits mechanisms mechanisms of human cognitive archi- that have evolved for a different purpose, tecture such as memory, emotional, per- and in this sense, the “auditory cheese- ceptual, motor mechanisms, etc. cake” metaphor is valid. However, in The contemporary popularity of these light of their hypothesis, music is also theories stems from Steven Pinker’s in- the result of biological adaptations in at fluential concept (Pinker 1997). In his least two key areas – coalitional interac- famous “auditory cheesecake” metaphor, tion and infant care (Mehr et al. 2020). Pinker notes that music is an evolutionary According to Fitch (2006), the stron- byproduct (1997). According to Pinker,if gest argument refuting the music as music confers no survival advantage, byproduct hypothesis is the age of mu- where does it come from and why does sic itself and the fact that music is one it work? I suspect that music is auditory of the human universals, just as dance, cheesecake, an exquisite confection craft- for example, is found in every human ed to tickle the sensitive spots of at least culture (Brown 2004; Netl 2000; Mehr six of our mental faculties (Pinker 1997, et al. 2019). The fact that music is a hu- p. 534). Six mental faculties according to man universal is supported by, among Pinker are 1) language 2) auditory scene other things, the fact that tone discrim- analysis 3) emotional calls 4) habitat se- ination is universal and possible despite lection 5) motor control 6) something a lack of knowledge about a particular else (Pinker 1997). culture (Kessler et al. 1984: Balkwill and According to Carr (2009), Pinker’s Thompson 1999; Popescu et al. 2020), concept is characterized by Western eth- and that process does not require prior nocentrism, which has influenced the learning (Tillmann et al. 2000; Battcock simplification of the very definition of and Schutz 2021). Fitch (2006) also the phenomenon of “music” which dis- points out that music production is an qualifies the hypothesis of music as by- energetically expensive and potentially product. As Carr notes – “However, Pinker dangerous activity. Additionally, the by- 220 Kasper Kalinowski et al. product hypothesis is challenged by the to approximately 500 million years ago. deficit of congenital described by Koi fish (Cyprinus carpio) are able to dis- Peretz (2003). Individuals suffering from tinguish from the blues congenital amusia are characterized by (Chase 2001), and naïve goldfish distin- a lack of awareness of acquired musical guished a Bach piece from a Stravinsky pitch knowledge (Gosselin et al. 2017). piece (Shinozuka et al. 2013). Congenital amusia affects approximately 4% of the population and is indicative of Flaws in traditional hypotheses both the presence of the genetic variance necessary for music production among and the need for new proposals human populations, as well as the neu- ral specialization responsible for music Traditional hypotheses do not provide (Peretz and Vuvan 2017; Peretz et al. a sufficient answer to the question of 2015) suggested in previous works (Za- the evolutionary origins of music. The torre and Salimpoor 2013; Habibi and music as by product hypothesis is un- Damasio 2014). Additionally, the sheer sustainable in the light of collected data complexity of music resembles a gram- (Mehr et al. 2020; Huron 2001; Fitch matical structure analogous to natural 2006; Cross 2009; Savage et al. 2020). language, for which there is now little The greatest disadvantage of adaptation- doubt that it is a biological adaptation ist hypotheses to date seems to be their (Fitch 2016; Pinker and Bloom 1990). excessive reductionism. Music as a com- Another key argument that weak- plex cognitive process performs more ens the power of the music as byprod- functions than traditional adaptationist uct thesis is the convergent evolution of hypotheses assume (Cross 2009; Schäfer musical abilities among different genres. et al. 2013). Schäfer et al. (2013), in one McDermott and Hauser’s (2006) thesis of the more comprehensive reviews of that music is an activity unique to hu- the issue, distinguished 129 non-re- mans cannot be supported. Music-relat- dundant functions of music. According ed behaviors have evolved independently to Schäfer et al. (2013) the functions of among many species, and the reasons music can be reduced to three dimen- for their emergence cannot be explained sions 1) regulate arousal and mood 2) by the mechanism of evolution of ho- achieve self-awareness and 3) expres- mologous traits-they are in the nature sion of social relatedness. It seems im- of analogous traits that have evolved in- possible to explain such a wide variety dependently of each other. E.g., singing of music functions on the basis of tradi- (not only in a mating context as believed tional theories. The reductionism of tra- for decades) is also found among birds ditional hypotheses results from treating (Catchpole and Slater 2003; Riebel et the cognitively complex and intercultur- al. 2017), marine mammals (Stafford et ally universal phenomenon of music as al. 2018; Kello et. al. 2018 ) or gibbons the effect of adaptation to solving a rel- (Geissmann 2000). According to some atively narrow class of adaptation prob- hypotheses, we share some of the per- lems. As with other complex processes, ceptual mechanisms involved in the pro- such as perception (Hoffman and Singh duction and reception of music with the 2014; Hoffman 2016) or language (Bar- first jawed vertebrates which date back rett 2016; Scott-Phillips 2015; Gibson et Evolutionary origins of music. Classical and recent hypotheses 221 al. 2019), it is necessary to consider mu- cepts discussed above in their entirety sic in a broader context, e.g. including but supplements them with new areas. cultural and developmental factors. Such The authors share, among others, the an attempt to describe origins of music view derived from the Music as Sexual in a broader theoretical context and an Selection Theory that music is a form alternative to the existing hypotheses of a credible signal. However, they cau- are new theoretical propositions – mu- tion that it serves far more functions sic as credible signal (Mehr et al. 2020) than merely promoting the mate qual- and Music and Social Bonding (MSB) hy- ity of an individual, such as territorial pothesis (Savage et al. 2020). advertisements. In the natural world, loud vocalizations are often associated Music as credible signal with territorial advertisements. The phe- nomenon occurs among rodents (Rieger The hypothesis of Mehr et al. (2020) as- and Marler 2018; Siracusa et al. 2017), sumes that music has evolved as a cred- (Lingnau and Bastos 2007), ible signal in two contexts – coalitional marine mammals (McComb and Reby interactions and infant care, where music 2009; Frey and Gebler 2010; Dudzinski plays the role of a credible signal drawing et al. 2009), primates (Willems and van the attention of caregivers. Schaik 2015; Torti et al. 2013; Caselli et Music as a credible signal derives al. 2014) and insects, among which ci- from Zahavi’s handicap principle (1975, cadas show behavioral patterns based 1977). A costly signal is a type of signal, on prime numbers (Grant 2005; Tanaka the sending of which seems to reduce an et al. 2009). Interestingly, in one of the individual’s fitness, e.g. a peacock’s tail most original experiments in topic lady or deer antlers, which requires spending beetles, those exposed to AC/DC music additional energy to produce and main- ate fewer aphids than their counterparts taining them. The cost of sending is a who were exposed to silence or to the guarantee of its honesty – only individ- softer sounds of country music (Barton uals with high biological quality are able et al. 2018). to produce a credible signal, which is a According to Mehr et al. (2020), hu- greater burden for an individual inform- man ancestors announced territory own- ing about its quality “unfairly”. Music, ership in an analogous way, and such like dance, is undoubtedly an expensive, territorial vocalizations represented the and thus a credible signal (Hagen and evolutionary origin of music. According Bryant 2003). Its production is not only to their concept, music evolved to cred- energy-costly behavior, but music can ibly signal a group’s quality, size, and also be loud and may increase the threat power to other groups. Contrary to so- from predators or hostile groups. cial bonding hypotheses, they argue that music plays an important role in social Music as credible signal life, not because it directly influences group cohesion and strengthens bonds, of coalition but in the course of evolution it has been the most effective tool to show already The hypothesis of music as credible existing social cohesion and coalitions to signal does not reject the classical con- foreign groups (Mehr et al. 2020). 222 Kasper Kalinowski et al.

Their hypothesis is supported by rected songs by adults regardless of cul- cross-cultural comparative data and data ture (Moser et al. 2020; Bainbridge et al. from hunter gatherer communities (Mehr 2020; Trainor 1997; Trehub 2001; Trehub et al. 2020; Netl 2015). Contemporary et al. 1993; Cirelli and Trehub 2020). examples of music as credible signal of Children directed songs are, accord- traditional coalitions are the Maori haka ing to Mehr et al. (2020), a credible sig- “Ka Mate”, which is intended to show nal that the caregiver is paying attention strength and group cohesion, increases to the child’s needs. During their per- identification with the group and- con formance, for example, interaction with tinues to accompany e.g. sporting events other individuals or physical distance is (Balme 1999) or songs with specific not possible – parent-infant songs are themes present during warfare (Dimijian also a signal of physical closeness of the 2010; Volgsten and Brown 2006). caregiver (Mehr et al. 2020). The advantage of this hypothesis is According to the authors (Mehr et al. that it explains why music is produced 2020), while vocalizations for coalitioin in front of strangers, which is the case interactions were the precursor to the with today’s mass concerts. Of course, as universal phenomenon of rhythm in mu- the authors point out, terrestrial adver- sic, songs directed to children are respon- tisement and group cohesion are not the sible for the evolution of another univer- only areas of social life where music acts sal music , i.e. melodic features. as a credible signal (Mehr et al. 2020). According to recent studies, melodic fea- Nonetheless, territorial signals were ture recognition is present as early as 6 supposed to be precursors of rhythmic months of age (Hahn et al. 2020; Mehr et features present among other primates al. 2020). Recent genetic data also sup- (Larsson et al. 2019; Schruth et al. 2020). port the hypothesis. Children with An- gelman syndrome are characterized by Music as credible signal decreased responsiveness to music and its relaxation function, with increased of parental attention parental care expectations (Kotler et al. 2019). In contrast, in children with Prad- The second adaptive area that, accord- er-Willi syndrome, the opposite pattern is ing to the concept of music as a credible observed; decreased demands of parental signal, concerns the evolutionary origin care with enhanced relaxation responses to produce music as an adaptation to pa- to songs (Mehr et. al. 2017). These find- rental care. In the case of Homo sapiens ings are the first to point to a common newborns, and the extended childhood biological basis for parental care mecha- characteristic of humans, parental care nisms and music opening promising per- is crucial for survival (Voland and Dun- spectives for further research. bar 1995; Alonso and Ortiz-Rodríguez 2017). Music and Social Bonding Mehr et al. (2020) noted the univer- sality of the phenomenon of child-di- (MSB) hypothesis rected songs, their richly documented cross-cultural structural similarity, stress The Music and Social Bonding (MSB) reduction, and recognition of infant di- hypothesis (Savage et al. 2020) was pub- Evolutionary origins of music. Classical and recent hypotheses 223 lished concurrently with the music as that they initiated gene-culture coevolu- credible signal hypothesis. The MSB hy- tion (Savage et al. 2020). pothesis interprets music as a coevolved The arguments that Savage et al. system for social bonding that strength- (2020) cite in support of the MBS hy- ened group ties and became widespread pothesis boil down to the areas of 1) through gene-culture coevolution (Sav- cross-cultural evidence describing the age et al. 2020). The authors distinguish cross-cultural universality of music 2) between the concept of “musicality,” historical-archaeological data describing which refers to the biological capacities the oldest human instruments 3) devel- that enable the production and recep- opmental-the role music plays in the cre- tion of music, and “music” itself, which ation of bonding, infant-directed songs they regard as a cultural product derived and their universality and 4) psycholog- from human “musicality” (Savvage et al. ical-the strengthening of group bonds. 2020). According to Savage et al. (2020), These arguments do not go beyond the focusing on single adaptive problems research cited above in analyzing classi- that music is supposed to solve ignores cal conceptions of the evolutionary ori- the complexity and nature of the phe- gins of music. nomenon itself, and in practice generates The basic objection against the MBS if not false then incomplete hypotheses. hypothesis is the lack of a reason why Under the MSB hypothesis, the key bi- music is treated as a mechanism that ological capacities responsible for human coevolved uniquely with social-bonding musicality should be viewed as mecha- mechanisms. The assumptions of the nisms that strengthen social bonds. The MBS hypothesis equally explain the evo- authors’ argument at this stage, starts lutionary origins of language or any other from Dunbar’s classical hypothesis and social-bonding behavior that is beneficial overlaps with the music as social bond- to the group. As the authors themselves ing hypotheses discussed above (Savage point out, further research is needed to et al. 2020). narrow the scope of the MBS hypothesis The key feature that distinguishes the to music (Savage et al. 2020). MSB hypothesis from other theoretical proposals, and its greatest strength, is Summary its emphasis on the role of gene-culture coevolution which allows it to go be- Music as credible signal and MSB hypoth- yond group selection mechanisms. The esis proposed in 2020 should be consid- authors cite recent work by Patel (2018) ered as valuable contributions to explain- and Podlipniak (2017), who suggested ing the phenomenon of music in humans. that the cause of human musicality may Hypotheses treating music as a byprod- be the Baldwin effect – music arose as uct are difficult to sustain in light of data a product of culture and over time was collected. In contrast, other traditional transformed into an instinctive trait by adaptationist hypotheses have treated the means of natural selection (Savage music as one general ability of the human et al. 2020). Proto-musical abilities, un- brain that has evolved to solve a specific der the MBS hypothesis, were important adaptive problem. However, in the case of behavioral innovations that strengthened more complex processes such as vision, group bonds to such a significant degree memory, or just music, this hypothesis 224 Kasper Kalinowski et al. cannot lead to a comprehensive explana- in the evolution of paternal investment in tion of the phenomenon. The charge of humans: An evolutionary game approach. reductionism is justified in this case. Nei- Journal of theoretical biology, 419, 44–51. ther music as credible signal nor the MSB Ardizzi M, Calbi M, Tavaglione S, Umiltà MA & Gallese V. 2020. Audience spontaneous hypotheses reject previous theoretical po- entrainment during the collective enjoy- sitions entirely. They can be regarded as a ment of live performances: physiological valuable additions and new perspectives and behavioral measurements. Scientific that may contribute to breaking down the reports, 10(1), 1–12. perception of music in narrow categories Arlet M, Jubin R, Masataka N & Lemasson of one adaptive area. It seems unlikely A. 2015. Grooming-at-a-distance by ex- that an explanation of any area of human changing calls in non-human primates. behavior, which is after all both the result Biology letters, 11(10), 20150711. of biology and culture, will be possible on Arrasmith K. 2020. Infant Music Develop- ment and Music Experiences: A Literature the basis of traditional, reductionist hy- Review. Update: Applications of Research potheses. The new hypotheses are holis- in , 38(3), 9–17. tic in nature. Music as credible signal and Bainbridge CM, Bertolo M, Youngers J, At- MBS hypotheses do not analyze music wood S, Yurdum L, Simson J & Mehr SA. in isolation from psychological, develop- 2020. Infants relax in response to unfa- mental, social, and cultural factors, and miliar foreign lullabies. Nature Human may open promising perspectives for fur- Behaviour, 1–9. ther research. Baird A. 2018. Group singing enhances posi- tive affect in people with Parkinson’s dis- ease. Music and Medicine, 10(1), 13–7. The Author’s contribution Balkwill LL & Thompson WF. 1999. A cross-cultural investigation of the percep- Conceptualization: KK; investigation: tion of emotion in music: Psychophysi- KK, MM, AK, DD; writing – KK, MM, cal and cultural cues. , DD; writing – review and editing: KK, 17(1), 43–64. MM, AK, DD Balme CB. 1999. Hula and haka: perfor- mance, metonymy and identity formation Conflict of interest in colonial Hawaii and New Zealand. Hu- manities research, (3), 41–58. Bannan N. 2017. Darwin, music and evolu- The authors declare that there is no con- tion: new insights from family correspon- flict of interest. dence on The Descent of Man. Musicae Scientiae, 21(1), 3–25. Corresponding author Barrett M Ed. 2016. The development of lan- guage. Psychology Press. Kasper Kalinowski, Faculty of Psycholo- Barton BT, Hodge ME, Speights CJ, Autrey gy, University of Warsaw, Stawki 5/7, 00- AM, Lashley MA & Klink VP. 2018. Test- 183 Warszawa. ing the AC/DC hypothesis: Rock and roll e-mail: [email protected] is noise pollution and weakens a trophic cascade. Ecology and Evolution, 8(15), 7649–56. References Battcock A & Schutz M. 2021. Emotion and expertise: how listeners with formal mu- Alonso DL & Ortiz-Rodríguez IM. 2017. Off- spring mortality was a determinant factor Evolutionary origins of music. Classical and recent hypotheses 225

sic training use cues to perceive emotion. Cirelli LK & Trehub SE. 2018. Infants help Psychological Research, 1–21. singers of familiar songs. Music & Sci- Blake EC & Cross I. 2008. Flint tools as por- ence, 1, 2059204318761622. table sound-producing objects in the up- Cirelli LK & Trehub SE. 2020. Familiar songs per palaeolithic context: an experimental reduce infant distress. Developmental study. Experiencing archaeology by exper- psychology, 56(5), 861. iment, 1–19. Cross I. 2009. The nature of music and its Boer D. 2009. Music makes the people come evolution. The Oxford handbook of music together: Social functions of music listen- psychology, 3–13. ing for young people across cultures. Cross I. 2014. Music and communication in Boyd A. 2018. Landscape, spirit and music: . Psychology of music, An Australian story. In The Soundscapes 42(6), 809–19. of Australia (pp. 11–33). Routledge. Cross I. 2015. Music, Speech and Meaning in Brown DE. 2004. Human universals, hu- interaction. Music, Analysis, Experience. man nature & human culture. Daedalus, New Perspectives in Musical Semiotics, 133(4), 47–54. 19–30. Caldwell JC. 2006. The globalization of fer- Curran G, Barwick L, Turpin M, Walsh F & tility behavior. In Demographic Transi- Laughren M. 2019. Central Australian tion Theory (pp. 249-271. Springer, Dor- Aboriginal Songs and Biocultural Knowl- drecht. edge: Evidence from Women’s Ceremo- Campbell EA, Berezina E & Gill CHD. 2020. nies Relating to Edible Seeds. Journal of The effects of music induction on mood Ethnobiology, 39(3), 354–70. and affect in an Asian context. Psychology Darwin CR. 1871. The descent of man and of Music, 0305735620928578. selection in relations to sex. London: John Caselli CB, Mennill DJ, Bicca-Marques JC Murray. & Setz EZ. 2014. Vocal behavior of d’Errico F, Henshilwood C, Lawson G, Van- black-fronted titi monkeys (Callicebus haeren M, Tillier AM, Soressi M & Julien nigrifrons): Acoustic properties and be- M. 2003. Archaeological evidence for the havioral contexts of loud calls. American emergence of language, symbolism, and Journal of Primatology, 76(8), 788–800. music – an alternative multidisciplinary Cassidy JW & Ditty KM. 2001. Gender dif- perspective. Journal of World , ferences among newborns on a transient 17(1), 1–70. otoacoustic emissions test for hearing. Diedrich CG. 2015. ‘Neanderthal bone flutes’: Journal of , 38(1), 28–35. simply products of Ice Age spotted hyena Catchpole CK & Slater PJ. 2003. Bird song: scavenging activities on cave bear cubs in biological themes and variations. Cam- European cave bear dens. Royal Society bridge university press. Open Science, 2(4), 140022. Chase AR. 2001. Music discriminations by Dimijian GG. 2010. Warfare, genocide, and carp (Cyprinus carpio. Learning & ethnic conflict: a Darwinian approach. Behavior, 29(4), 336–53. In Baylor University Medical Center Pro- Cho E. 2019. The relationship between small ceedings (Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 292–300. music ensemble experience and empathy Taylor & Francis. skill: A survey study. Psychology of Music, Dudzinski KM, Thomas JA & Gregg JD. 2009. 0305735619887226. Communication in marine mammals. In Cirelli LK. 2018. How interpersonal synchro- Encyclopedia of marine mammals (pp. ny facilitates early prosocial behavior. 260–9. Academic Press. Current opinion in psychology, 20, 35–9. Dukes RL, Bisel TM, Borega KN, Lobato EA & Owens MD. 2003. Expressions of love, sex, and hurt in popular songs: A content 226 Kasper Kalinowski et al.

analysis of all-time greatest hits. The So- Geissmann T. 2000. Gibbon songs and human cial Science Journal, 40(4), 643–50. music from an evolutionary perspective. Dunbar RI. 1996. Grooming, gossip and the The origins of music, 103–23. evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: Gelfand MJ, Caluori N, Jackson JC & Tay- Harvard University Press. lor MK. 2020. The cultural evolutionary Dunbar RI. 1991. Functional significance of trade-off of ritualistic synchrony. Philo- social grooming in primates. Folia prima- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society tologica, 57(3), 121–31. B, 375(1805), 20190432. Dunbar RI. 2003. The social brain: mind, Gibson E, Futrell R, Piantadosi SP, Dautriche language, and society in evolutionary per- I, Mahowald K, Bergen L & Levy R. 2019. spective. Annual review of , How efficiency shapes human language. 32(1), 163–81. Trends in cognitive sciences, 23(5), 389– Dunbar RI. 2012. On the evolutionary func- 407. tion of song and dance. Music, language, Gosselin N, Paquette S & Peretz I. 2015. Sen- and human evolution, 201–14. sitivity to musical emotions in congenital Dunbar RI. 2017. Group size, vocal grooming amusia. Cortex, 71, 171–82. and the origins of language. Psychonomic Gould SJ & Lewontin RC. 1979. The span- bulletin & review, 24(1), 209–12. drels of San Marco and the Panglossian Dunbar RI, Baron R, Frangou A, Pearce E, paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist Van Leeuwen EJ, Stow J & Van Vugt M. programme. Proceedings of the royal soci- 2012. Social laughter is correlated with an ety of London. Series B. Biological Scienc- elevated pain threshold. Proceedings of es, 205(1161), 581–98. the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Gould SJ & Vrba ES. 1982. Exaptation-a 279(1731), 1161–7. missing term in the science of form. Pale- Fancourt D & Perkins R. 2018. The effects of obiology, 4–15. mother–infant singing on emotional close- Grant PR. 2005. The priming of periodical ness, affect, anxiety, and stress hormones. cicada life cycles. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20, Music & Science, 1, 2059204317745746. 169–174. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2005.01.016 Fitch WT. 2006. The biology and evolution of Grape C, Sandgren M, Hansson LO, Ericson music: A comparative perspective. Cogni- M & Theorell T. 2002. Does singing pro- tion, 100(1), 173–215. mote well-being?: An empirical study of Fitch WT. 2015. Four Principles of Bio-Mu- professional and amateur singers during sicology. Philosophical Transactions of a singing lesson. Integrative Physiological the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, & Behavioral Science, 38(1), 65–74. 370(1664), 20140091. Haas M. 2013. Forbidden Music: The Jewish Frey R & Gebler A. 2010. Mechanisms and Composers Banned by the Nazis. Yale evolution of roaring-like vocalization in University Press. mammals. In Handbook of Behavioral Habibi A & Damasio A. 2014. Music, feel- Neuroscience (Vol. 19, pp. 439–50. Else- ings, and the human brain. Psychomusi- vier. cology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 24(1), Gaab N, Keenan JP & Schlaug G. 2003. The 92. effects of gender on the neural substrates Hagen EH & Bryant GA. 2003. Music and of pitch memory. Journal of cognitive dance as a coalition signaling system. Hu- Neuroscience, 15(6), 810–20. man nature, 14(1), 21–51. Galbusera L, Finn MT, Tschacher W & Kyse- Hahn LE, Benders T, Snijders TM & Fikkert lo M. 2019. Interpersonal synchrony feels P. 2020. Six-month-old infants recog- good but impedes self-regulation of affect. nize phrases in song and speech. Infancy, Scientific reports, 9(1), 1–12. 25(5), 699–718. Evolutionary origins of music. Classical and recent hypotheses 227

Harvey AR. 2020. Links Between the Neuro- Khalfa S, Bella SD, Roy M, Peretz I & Lupi- biology of Oxytocin and Human Musicali- en SJ. 2003. Effects of relaxing music on ty. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 14, salivary cortisol level after psychological 350. stress. Annals of the New York Academy Hobbs DR, Gallup Jr GG. 2011. Songs as a of Sciences, 999(1), 374–6. medium for embedded reproductive mes- Kniffin KM, Yan J, Wansink B & Schulze WD. sages. Evolutionary Psychology 9(3): 2017. The sound of cooperation: Musi- 390–416. cal influences on cooperative behavior. Higham T, Basell L, Jacobi R, Wood R, Ram- Journal of organizational behavior, 38(3), sey CB & Conard NJ. 2012. Testing mod- 372–90. els for the beginnings of the Koelsch S, Fuermetz J, Sack U, Bauer K, Ho- and the advent of figurative art and music: henadel M, Wiegel M & Heinke W. 2011. The radiocarbon chronology of Geißen- Effects of music listening on cortisol lev- klösterle. Journal of human evolution, els and propofol consumption during spi- 62(6), 664–76. nal anesthesia. Frontiers in psychology, 2, Hoehl S, Fairhurst M & Schirmer A. 2021. 58. Interactional synchrony: signals, mecha- Kostilainen K, Mikkola K, Erkkilä J & Huo- nisms and benefits. Social Cognitive and tilainen M. 2020. Effects of maternal Affective Neuroscience, 16(1-2), 5–18. singing during kangaroo care on mater- Hoffman DD. 2016. The interface theory of nal anxiety, wellbeing, and mother-infant perception. Current Directions in Psycho- relationship after preterm birth: a mixed logical Science, 25(3), 157–61. methods study. Nordic Journal of Music Hoffman DD & Singh M. 2012. Computation- Therapy, 1–20. al evolutionary perception. Perception, Kotler J, Mehr SA, Egner A, Haig D & Kras- 41(9), 1073–91. now MM. 2019. Response to vocal music Honing H. Ed. 2018. The origins of musicali- in Angelman syndrome contrasts with ty. MIT Press. Prader-Willi syndrome. Evolution and Hu- Hume L. 2004. Accessing the eternal: Dream- man Behavior, 40(5), 420–6. ing “the dreaming” and ceremonial per- Kreutz G. 2014. Does singing facilitate so- formance. Zygon®, 39(1), 237–58. cial bonding. Music and Medicine, 6(2), Huron D. 2001. Is music an evolutionary ad- 51–60. aptation?. Annals of the New York Acade- Kunej D & Turk I. 2000. New perspectives on my of sciences, 930(1), 43–61. the beginnings of music: Archaeological Ilari B, Helfter S & Huynh T. 2020. Associ- and musicological analysis of a Middle Pa- ations Between Musical Participation and leolithic bone ‘flute’. The origins of - mu Young Children’s Prosocial Behaviors. sic, 235–68. Journal of Research in Music Education, Lange BP & Euler HA. 2014. Writers have 67(4), 399–412. groupies, too: High quality literature pro- Kello CT, Bella SD, Médé B & Balasubramani- duction and mating success. Evolutionary am R. 2017. Hierarchical temporal struc- Behavioral Sciences, 8(1), 20. ture in music, speech and animal vocaliza- Lange BP, Schwarz S & Euler HA. 2013. The tions: jazz is like a conversation, hump- sexual nature of human culture. The Evo- backs sing like hermit thrushes. Journal lutionary Review: Art, Science, Culture, of The Royal Society Interface, 14(135), 4(1), 76–85. 20170231. Larsson M, Richter J & Ravignani A. 2019. Bi- Kessler EJ, Hansen C & Shepard RN. 1984. pedal steps in the development of rhyth- Tonal schemata in the perception of music mic behavior in humans. Music & Sci- in Bali and in the West. Music Perception, ence, 2, 2059204319892617. 2(2), 131–65. 228 Kasper Kalinowski et al.

Launay J, Tarr B & Dunbar RI. 2016. Synchro- Méndez-Cárdenas MG & Zimmermann ny as an adaptive mechanism for large- E. 2009. Duetting – A mechanism to scale human social bonding. Ethology, strengthen pair bonds in a dispersed 122(10), 779–89. pair-living primate (Lepilemur edwardsi)? Levréro F, Touitou S, Frédet J, Nairaud B, American Journal of Physical Anthropolo- Guéry JP & Lemasson A. 2019. Social gy: The Official Publication of the Amer- bonding drives vocal exchanges in bono- ican Association of Physical Anthropolo- bos. Scientific reports, 9(1), 1–11. gists, 139(4), 523–32. Lingnau R & Bastos RP. 2007. Vocalizations of Miles SA, Miranda RA & Ullman MT. 2016. the Brazilian torrent heyeri Sex differences in music: A female ad- (Anura: ): Repertoire and influ- vantage at recognizing familiar melodies. ence of air temperature on advertisement Frontiers in psychology, 7, 278. call variation. Journal of Natural History, Miller G. 2000. Evolution of human music 41(17–20), 1227–35. through sexual selection (pp. 329–60). na. Loersch C & Arbuckle NL. 2013. Unraveling Miller GF. 2001. The mating mind: How sex- the mystery of music: Music as an evolved ual choice shaped the evolution of human group process. Journal of Personality and nature. New York: Doubleday Social Psychology, 105(5), 777. Mithen S. 2011. The singing Neanderthals: Machin AJ & Dunbar RI. 2011. The brain opi- The origins of music, language, mind and oid theory of social attachment: a review body. Hachette UK. of the evidence. Behaviour, 148(9–10), Moser CJ, Lee-Rubin H, Bainbridge CM, At- 985–1025. wood S, Simson J, Knox D & Mehr SA. Masataka N. 2006. Preference for consonance 2020. Acoustic regularities in infant-di- over dissonance by hearing newborns of rected vocalizations across cultures. deaf parents and of hearing parents. De- Mosing MA, Verweij KJ, Madison G, Peder- velopmental science, 9(1), 46–50. sen NL, Zietsch BP & Ullén F. 2015. Did McComb K & Reby D. 2009. Communication sexual selection shape human music? in terrestrial mammals. Encyclopedia of Testing predictions from the sexual selec- Neuroscience, 2, 1167–71. tion hypothesis of music evolution using McDermott J & Hauser M. 2005. The ori- a large genetically informative sample of gins of music: Innateness, uniqueness, over 10,000 twins. Evolution and Human and evolution. Music perception, 23(1), Behavior, 36(5), 359–66. 29–59. Nettl B. 2000. An ethnomusicologist con- Mehr SA, Kotler J, Howard RM, Haig D & templates universals in musical sound Krasnow MM. 2017. Genomic imprinting and musical culture. The origins of music, is implicated in the psychology of music. 3(2), 463–72. Psychological science, 28(10), 1455–67. Nettl B. 2015. The study of : Mehr SA, Krasnow MM, Bryant GA & Hagen Thirty-three discussions. University of Il- EH. 2020. Origins of music in credible linois Press. signaling. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Nilsson U. 2009. Soothing music can increase 1–41. oxytocin levels during bed rest after open- Mehr SA, Singh M, Knox D, Ketter DM, Pick- heart surgery: a randomised control trial. ens-Jones D, Atwood S & Glowacki L. Journal of clinical nursing, 18(15), 2153– 2019. Universality and diversity in human 61. song. Science, 366(6468). Parker ST. 2015. Re-evaluating the extractive Mehr SA, Song LA & Spelke ES. 2016. For foraging hypothesis. New Ideas in Psy- 5-month-old infants, melodies are social. chology, 37, 1–12. Psychological Science, 27(4), 486–501. Evolutionary origins of music. Classical and recent hypotheses 229

Patel AD. 2010. Music, biological evolution, Port M, Hildenbrandt H, Pen I, Schülke O, Os- and the brain. Emerging disciplines, 91– tner J & Weissing FJ. 2020. The evolution 144. of social philopatry in female primates. Patel AD & Honing H. 2018. Music as a trans- American Journal of Physical Anthropol- formative of the mind: An up- ogy, 173(3), 397–410. date. The origins of musicality, 113–126. Rabinowitch T, Knafo-Noam A & Kotz S. Syn- Pearce E, Launay J & Dunbar RI. 2015. The chronous rhythmic interaction enhances ice-breaker effect: Singing mediates fast children’s perceived similarity and close- social bonding. Royal Society open sci- ness towards each other. PLoS One 10, ence, 2(10), 150221. e0120878, https://doi.org/10.1371/jour- Pearce E, Launay J, Machin A & Dunbar R. nal.pone.0120878 (2015). I. 2016. Is group singing special? health, Riebel K, Odom KJ, Langmore NE & Hall well-being and social bonds in communi- ML. 2019. New insights from female bird ty-based adult education classes. Journal song: towards an integrated approach to of community & applied social psycholo- studying male and female communication gy, 26(6), 518–33. roles. Biology letters, 15(4), 20190059. Pearce E, Launay J, van Duijn M, Rotkirch A, Riedl R, Javor A, Gefen D, Felten A & Reuter David-Barrett T & Dunbar RI. 2016. Sing- M. 2017. Oxytocin, trust, and trustwor- ing together or apart: The effect of com- thiness: The moderating role of music. petitive and cooperative singing on social Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and bonding within and between sub-groups Economics, 10(1), 1. of a university Fraternity. Psychology of Rieger NS & Marler CA. 2018. The function music, 44(6), 1255–73. of ultrasonic vocalizations during territo- Peretz I. 2006. The nature of music from a rial defence by pair-bonded male and fe- biological perspective. Cognition, 100(1), male California mice. Animal behaviour, 1–32. 135, 97–108. Peretz I & Hyde KL. 2003. What is specific to Robert T. 1972. Parental investment and music processing? Insights from congeni- sexual selection. Sexual Selection & the tal amusia. Descent of Man, Aldine de Gruyter, New Peretz I & Vuvan DT. 2017. Prevalence of con- York, 136–79. genital amusia. European Journal of Hu- Roederer JG. 1984. The search for a survival man Genetics, 25(5), 625–30. value of music. Music perception, 1(3), Peretz I, Vuvan D, Lagrois MÉ & Armony JL. 350–6. 2015. Neural overlap in processing music Savage PE, Loui P, Tarr B, Schachner A, and speech. Philosophical Transactions of Glowacki L, Mithen S & Fitch WT. 2020. the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Music as a coevolved system for social 370(1664), 20140090. bonding. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Pinker S. 1997. How the Mind Works.Lon- 1–36. don: Allen Lane. Schäfer T, Sedlmeier P, Städtler C & Huron Pinker S & Bloom P. 1990. Natural language D. 2013. The psychological functions of and natural selection. Behavioral and music listening. Frontiers in psychology, brain sciences, 13(4), 707–27. 4, 511. Podlipniak P. 2017. The role of the Baldwin Schellenberg EG & Weiss MW. 2013. Music effect in the evolution of human musicali- and cognitive abilities. ty. Frontiers in neuroscience, 11, 542. Schellenberg EG, Corrigall KA, Dys SP & Popescu T, Widdess R & Rohrmeier M. 2021. Malti T. 2015. Group music training and Western listeners detect boundary hier- children’s prosocial skills. PLoS One, archy in Indian music: a segmentation 10(10), e0141449. study. Scientific reports, 11(1), 1–14. 230 Kasper Kalinowski et al.

Schruth D, Templeton CN & Holman DJ. & Trainor LJ. 2019. How live music moves 2019. A definition of song from human us: head movement differences in audi- music universals observed in primate ences to live versus recorded music. Fron- calls. BioRxiv, 649459. tiers in psychology, 9, 2682. Scott-Phillips TC, Cartmill EA, Crockford Tanaka Y, Yoshimura J, Simon C, Cooley JR C, Gärdenfors P, Gómez JC, Luef EM & & Tainaka K-I. 2009. Allele effect in the Scott-Phillips TC. 2015. Nonhuman pri- selection for prime-numbered cycles mate communication, pragmatics, and the in periodical cicadas Proc. Natl. Acad. origins of language. Current Anthropolo- Sci. U.S.A. 106, 8975–9. doi: 10.1073/ gy, 56(1), 000-000. pnas.0900215106 Sergeant DC & Himonides E. 2014. Gender Tarr B, Launay J & Dunbar RI. 2014. Music and the performance of music. Frontiers and social bonding:“self-other” merging in psychology, 5, 276. and neurohormonal mechanisms. Fron- Sergeant DC & Himonides E. 2019. Orches- tiers in psychology, 5, 1096. trated sex: The representation of male and Tarr B, Launay J, Cohen E & Dunbar RI. female musicians in world-class sympho- Synchrony and exertion during dance in- ny orchestras. Frontiers in psychology, 10, dependently raise pain threshold and en- 1760. courage social bonding. Biology Letters Sharda M, Tuerk C, Chowdhury R, Jamey 11, 20150767, https://doi.org/10.1098/ K, Foster N, Custo-Blanch M & Hyde K. rsbl.2015.0767 (2015). 2018. Music improves social communica- Teitelbaum MS. 2013. The fear of population tion and brain connectivity outcomes in decline. Academic Press. children with autism: A randomized con- Ticker CS. 2016. The Effect of Richard Wag- trolled trial. ner’s Music and Beliefs on Hitler’s Ideolo- Shinozuka K, Ono H & Watanabe S. 2013. gy. Musical Offerings, 7(2), 1. Reinforcing and discriminative stimu- Tifferet S, Gaziel O & Baram Y. 2012. Guitar lus properties of music in goldfish. -Be increases male facebook attractiveness: havioural processes, 99, 26–33. preliminary support for the sexual selec- Siracusa E, Morandini M, Boutin S, Hum- tion theory of music. Letters on Evolu- phries MM, Dantzer B, Lane JE & McAd- tionary Behavioral Science, 3(1), 4-6. am AG. 2017. Red squirrel territorial vo- Tillmann B, Bharucha JJ & Bigand E. 2000. calizations deter intrusions by conspecific Implicit learning of tonality: a self-orga- rivals. Behaviour, 154(13–15), 1259–73. nizing approach. Psychological review, Snihur AW & Hampson E. 2011. Sex and 107(4), 885. ear differences in spontaneous and click- Torti V, Gamba M, Rabemananjara ZH & Gi- evoked otoacoustic emissions in young acoma C. 2013. The songs of the indris adults. Brain and cognition, 77(1), 40–7. (Mammalia: Primates: Indridae): contex- Stafford KM, Lydersen C, Wiig Ø & Kovacs tual variation in the long-distance calls of KM. 2018. Extreme diversity in the songs a lemur. Italian Journal of Zoology, 80(4), of Spitsbergen’s bowhead whales. Biology 596–607. letters, 14(4), 20180056. Trainor LJ, Clark ED, Huntley A & Adams BA. Sterelny K. 2016. Cumulative cultural evolu- 1997. The acoustic basis of preferences tion and the origins of language. Biologi- for infant-directed singing. Infant Behav- cal Theory, 11(3), 173-186. ior and Development, 20(3), 383–96. Sternberg RJ & Lubart TI. 1991. An invest- Trehub SE. 2001. Musical predispositions in ment theory of creativity and its develop- infancy. Annals of the New York Academy ment. Human development, 34(1), 1–31. of Sciences, 930(1), 1–16. Swarbrick D, Bosnyak D, Livingstone SR, Bansal J, Marsh-Rollo S, Woolhouse MH Evolutionary origins of music. Classical and recent hypotheses 231

Trehub SE. 2015. Infant musicality. The Ox- Volgsten U & Brown S. 2006. Between ideol- ford handbook of music psychology, 387– ogy and identity. Music and manipulation: 98. On the social uses and social control of Trehub SE. 2019. Nurturing infants with mu- music, 74–100. sic. International Journal of Music in Early Weinstein D, Launay J, Pearce E, Dunbar RI Childhood, 14(1), 9–15. & Stewart L. 2016. Singing and social Trehub SE, Unyk AM & Trainor LJ. 1993a. bonding: changes in connectivity and pain Adults identify infant-directed music threshold as a function of group size. Evo- across cultures. Infant Behavior and De- lution and Human Behavior, 37(2), 152–8. velopment, 16(2), 193–211. Westoff CF. 1983. Fertility decline in the Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 336–62. West: Causes and prospects. Population Tuniz C, Bernardini F, Turk I, Dimkaroski L, and Development Review, 99–104. Mancini L & Dreossi D. 2012. Did Nean- Wilks L. 2011. Bridging and bonding: Social derthals play music? X-ray computed mi- capital at music festivals. Journal of Policy cro-tomography of the divje babe ‘flute’. Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events, Archaeometry, 54(3), 581–90. 3(3), 281–97. Turk M, Turk I & Otte M. 2020. The Neander- Willems EP & van Schaik CP. 2015. Collective thal from Divje Babe action and the intensity of between-group I Cave (Slovenia): A Critical Review of competition in nonhuman primates. Be- the Discussion. Applied Sciences, 10(4), havioral Ecology, 26(2), 625–31. 1226. Zahavi A. 1975. Mate selection – a selection Uedo N, Ishikawa H, Morimoto K, Ishihara R, for a handicap. Journal of theoretical Biol- Narahara H, Akedo I & Fukuda S. 2004. ogy, 53(1), 205–14. Reduction in salivary cortisol level by Zahavi A. 1977. Reliability in communication music therapy during colonoscopic exam- systems and the evolution of altruism. ination. Hepato-gastroenterology, 51(56), In Evolutionary ecology (pp. 253–9. Pal- 451–3. grave, London. Van Goethem A & Sloboda J. 2011. The func- Zatorre RJ & Salimpoor VN. 2013. From per- tions of music for affect regulation. Musi- ception to pleasure: music and its neural cae scientiae, 15(2), 208–28. substrates. Proceedings of the National Vicaria IM & Dickens L. 2016. Meta-analyses Academy of Sciences, 110(Supplement 2), of the intra-and interpersonal outcomes 10430–7. of interpersonal coordination. Journal of Zeki S. 2002. Inner vision: An exploration of Nonverbal Behavior, 40(4), 335–61. art and the brain. Voland E & Dunbar RI. 1995. Resource com- petition and reproduction. Human Na- ture, 6(1), 33–49.