a 1 het pty, ante Ae Combe Si Boe i fans ie Exploring the Mozart Effect Among High School Students Martin H. Jones University of Memphis David B. Estell Indiana University, Bloomington Much past work onthe Movat effect—the temporary inceas in eefommance on sata elatons tasks following listening to Moraei—ied deteanning ithe ease Is due to neurological priming oF changes in general arousal. Results have been mixed, and no work to date hs attempted to examine this phenomenon in high school stalens, The presen study sought to address these gaps i the extant Tteratue by examining the neurological and arousal hypotheses in this previeusy unstudied population ‘of aolescens. Towatd this end, 86 high schoo students were randomly assigned 9 Mozat of contol (silence) conditions, then assessed on afousal levels and spatial eaoning. Ress indicated tha those ia the Mozart condition td higher spatial reasoning scores, but were not systematically more or less syowsed. Deceased sous epuless of listening conditioning, was related 1 lower spatial reasoning. ‘While arousal and listening condition were not related to each othe, inclusion of both i sige model nepal these det effet. Keywords: Movar effect, ‘The debate on whether music affects intelligence is one of the ‘oldest and popular issues in psychology and appears in some ofthe earliest psychological literature (eg., Fracker & Howard, 1928: Hrarbar-Passck, 1928). Indeed, over the past 20 years few psycho- logical theories garnered more notoriety among the general public than the Mozart effect, the possibility that listening to Mozart enhances spatial intelligence. The issue of whether Mozart affects the brain and intelligence has touched such diverse academic discipline as epilepsy research (Hughes, 2001), musie education (Demorest & Morrison, 2000), and social psychology (Bangerter ‘& Heath, 2004) and spurmed several meta-analyses and literature reviews (Chabris, 1999; Demorest & Morrison, 2000; Hetland, 2000; Latendresse, Larivée, & Miranda, 2006; Waterhouse, 2006). Sil, the issue of whether music ean enhance intelligence seems unresolved as reviews of the research indicate mixed result, (Chabeis (1999) and Hetland (2000) claim in their separate meta- analyses tha small increase may happen given proper musie and, spatial testing measures. Demorest and Morrison (2000) state a Variety of methodological concerns that invalidate many of the claims made from Mozart effect studies. Latendresse, Larivée, and Miranda (2006) believe existing research does not support the initial claims that listening to Mozart enhances intelligence (he “Martin H, Jones, Department of Counseling, Educational Peychology and Research, Universit of Memphis: and David B. Este, Department of Counseling and Educational Prycholgy, Indiana University, Blooming ‘We kindly thank Elizabeth Jarchow and the study's piipans for ‘making this possible. In addition, we thank Kand S, McQueen, Gale Dov, (Clute Tarn, and Stephen D. West for thei sight and suppod. Much ofthis article's work cccured while Martin Jones was doctoral student a Indiana University, Bloomington ‘Conespondence concerning tis article should be addressed 1o Mastin H. Jones. Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Re scaich, 100 Ball Hall, Univesity af Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152. Ell: MJones@niemphis.ed wolligence, music, arousal a0 nplicatons fo future work on these phenomena are discussed criginal Mozart effect authors make no claims about general intelligence, but rather just spatial intelligence; Rauscher & Hinton, 2006). While each review employed similar published aticles in their analyses, each had slighlly different conclusions. (One of the issues among the disparities is the use of various theoretical rationales for the Mozart effect. Two prominent ralion- ales are the neurological and arousal theories. The neurological theory suggests that listening to Mozart enhances the inherent cognitive functioning of the brain (e-g.. Rauscher. Shaw, & Ky, 1993), In contrat, the arousal argument contends that listening to “Mozart heightens or optimizes emotional levels that corespond {0 higher pesformance on intelligence tests (eg, Steele, Bass, & Crook, 1999), A separate issue in Mozart effet empirical research is the high use of college students as participants. While college students are often used in psychological research, the predominant use of a single subject pool limits the generalizability of Mozart effect findings. In the current study, we hope to clarify existing research disparities by directly testing these wo prominent Mozart effet theories using high school students. We begin witha review ofthe competing theories ‘The Mozant Effect: A Neurological Argument ‘The first article on the Mozart effect appeared ina 1993 issue of Nature. In the study, Rauscher, Shaw, and Ky proposed that ‘students’ spatial intelligence scores significantly improved alter listening to 10 min of Mozart's “Sonata for Two Pianos in D “Major, K448." The spatial intelligence inerease was greater ater listening to Mozart than when participants underwent relaxation techniques. The authors note, however, that such spatial increases were temporal in nature and lasted only for 10-15 min after hearing the music, These results supported a hypothesis that Leng and Shaw generated afew years prior to this first empirical Mozart eft article, ‘Leng and Shaw (1991) proposed a “trion model” which was a mathematical representation of Mountcastle's (1978) columnar220 JONES AND ESTELL model of the cerebral cortex. The model suggested that similar ‘neurons fired when either listening to music or doing activities ‘requiring spatial ability. Rausheer, Shaw, and Ky (1993) subse- ‘quently proposed that hearing the righ! type of music might “warm-up” neurons prio to completing a spatial task. This would increase spatial performance as a result of the music priming the ‘brain for spatial activity Several empirical reports support the neurological argument Rauscher, Shaw, and Ky (1995) replicated the study by using a varity of musical styles, with Mozart producing a statistically significant increase in spatial intelligence. Extending these Find ings, Rideout, Dougherty, and Wernert (1998) used the Mozart sonata and Yanni’s “Acroyali/Sanding in Motion,” which was deemed musically similar to the Mozart piece. Significant in- ‘creases in spatial intelligence were seen when participants heard cither Mozart or Yanni. Jausovee and Habe (2005) suggest that, Mozart improved spatial performance and, according to EEG readings, affect brain functioning. Finally, Rideout and Taylor (1997) found a greater association with Mozart and spatial intel- ligence than a relaxation technique, which they believe would refute an arousal theory. ‘The Mozart Effect: Optimizing Arousal While several studies support the neurological argument, other researchers claim the Mozart effect is merely an artifact of opti rized arousal. The bass for the arousal argument is tha listening {to Mocart either heightens insulicient arousal or lessens excessive arousal levels prior o spatial testing (Stele, 20), The change in arousal leads to greater testing ability, regardless of specifically listening to Mozart or not. For instance, Steele, Bass, and Crook (1999) had participants listen to a “repetitive,” ‘obnoxious,’ and, ‘rating™” Philip Glass musical piece and the “lively,” “bouney.” and “happy” Mozart sonata (p. 367). As expected, participants, reported higher amounts of anger and tension when listening tothe Philip Glass song, though no differences in spatial performance ‘occured, ‘Other studies also suggest arousal affects spatial performance, ‘Thompson, Schellenberg, and Husain (2001) compared the Mozart Sonata and a sad song by Albinoni. Spatial scores significantly improved for those hearing Mozart, but not for those listening 10 the slower Albinoni musical selection. The researchers then bel arousal levels statistically constant between the Mozart and ‘Albinoni groups. Once controlling for arousal, no statistical dit ference appeared between the two groups. In using the same Mozart piece as the original researchers, Husain, Thompson, and Schellenberg (2002) altered the tempo of the sonata to see if it was, the tempo affecting participants’ arousal and spatial performance Results suggested that faster versions of the Mozart sonata signif= icantly increased arousal, which in turn improved spatial perfor- mance. Ina recent study, Jones, West, and Estell (2006) also found ‘that arousal mediated the relationship between musie and spatial performance. In their study, arousal alone did not predict spatial performance. Instead, music affected arousal, which subsequently improved spatial ability. This demonstrated the indirect association ‘between Mozart and spatial intelligence via arousal optimization, Mozart Effect Participants An issue with many ofthe Mozart effect studies isthe heavy use of college students as participants (e.g, Bridgett & Cuevas, 2000; Jackson & Tlauka, 2004; Jones etal, 2006; Nantais & Schellen- berg, 1999: Rauscher, Shaw, Levine, & Wright, 1994; Rauscher et al, 1993, 1995; Rideout & Taylor, 1997, Rideout et al, 1998; Steele, Ball, & Runk, 1997; Steele, Bass, & Crook, 1999; Steele, Brown, & Stoecker, 1999; Steele etal, 1999; Thompson et al. 2001; Twomey & Esgate, 2002). Perhaps in an effort to replicate the initial 1993 Mozart effet publication, many subsequent studies include college students. Alternately, tis may be because college participants are a more accessible sample to university-based te- searchers. Regardless, the use of adults and college students de- creases the validity and generalizability of Mozart effect results. In contrast, only a few published studies include nonadult and noncollege participants. MeKelvie and Low (2002) used preado- lescents with a mean age of 11.92 years. Students were exposed to dance music and Mozart. In this study, dance music produced greater spatial intelligence improvement than did the Mozart so- rata, Using a similar age group, Crncec, Wilson, and Prior (2006) found that Mozart did not significantly affect children’s spatial abilities. Conversely, another study found a Mozart effect among I-yearolds (vanoy & Geake, 2003). Finally, a study using preschool aged children from an elite prep school suggested no increase in spatial problem solving after hearing Mozart (Hui, 2006). Given the disparity in results among both adults and chil dren, additional research is warranted to better understand if, ‘when, and how the Mozart effect might happen ‘The Present Study Existing research highlights two distinct rationales for why the “Mozart effect might exist. The first theory suggests a neurological relationship between listening to Mozart and heightened spatial ability. The second theory posts that listening to musie optimizes orheightens arousal levels, which in tum leads o improved spatial testing performance, These incongruent rationales appear predom- inanly in studies using college students. The few studies wilizin younger populations have yet to include high school students. As Such, the current study sought to answer wo questions. Firs, does the Mozart effect exist in the previously unstudied population of high school students? Second, if so, what is the mechanism un- derlying this relationship between listening to Mozart and perfor- mance on spatial 1Q tes-—listening to music leads to neural priming of listening to musie optimizes arousal? Method Participants ‘Students came from a high school in the metropolitan area of a moderately large Midwestern city. The sample included 86 high School ULEDIS (aics = 48; 558%: Migs = 38, 44.2%), who ranged from 14 10 18 years of age (M ="I5388, SD = 1.12). The majority were White (1 = 66, 76.7%), with fewer numbers of African American (n = 13, 15.1%), HispaniiLatino (n= 1 1.266), and Native American ( = 1, 1.24) students. Three 3.5%) students self-reported their ethnicity as “othe,” and two (2.3%) didMOZART EFFECT IN HIGH SCHOOL. STUDENTS 221 ‘ot report their ethnicity. In the school, 36% of students were on freereduced lunch (Indiana Department of Education, 2006) Procedure ‘A week prior t0 data collection, students were solicited for a study described as measuring the relationship between music and, solving puzzles, then were given a consent form for their parents! ‘guardians to sign, Only students retuming signed consent forms participated in Uhe study (all solicited students returned consent forms). On the day of data collection, the researcher again ex- plained the nature ofthe study and randomly assigned students to ‘experimental (listening to Mozart, n = 42) and control conditions (silence exposure, n = 4, Participants then filled out a brief demographic questionnaire. Experimental group members stayed in the classroom to hear the music, while their teacher took the control group members to a neasby hallway ‘The experimental group listened to the first movement of Mozart's “Sonata for Two Pianos in D major, K. 448" (Mozart 2001). The Mozart composition lasted 7 min and 28 sec and was played on a portable stereo. The principal researcher made sure all ‘experimental group participants could sulicintly hear the sonata by asking students to confiem they could hear the music (all participants indicated they could). During the musical piece, st dents were told to sit quietly and listen to the music. Once the Mozart composition was complete, participants waited less than 30 see until the control group retumed. While the experimental group listened tothe music the control roup was monitored by ther teacher for 75 min, Control group participants sat in a hallway that was about a 20-see walk from the classroom, The hallway was far enough away from other class= oom to ensure that control group members were not affected by ‘other students or teachers and could not hear the music. The teacher's presence assured that students remained calm and quit ding this time, ‘Aller the 75min of silence exposure, contol group participants returned to theirclassroom. Al participants then self-reported thie arousal level and tried solving the series of spatial problems described below. Students had total of 30 min to complete these measures. Those finishing early sat and read quietly until all students were finished, Measures Following work done by Jones, West, and Estll (2006), st dens self-reported their arousal. Directly after listening to Mozart fr being exposed to silence, students were asked to circle one of three options concerning their arousal level alter Mozartsilence exposure: more awake, less awake, or neither. This measure tapped, into the larger construct of arousal. In addition, it corresponded 10 arousal measurement in past research (eg., Thompson, Schellenberg, & Husain, 2001). Spatial measures came from 17 paper folding and euting ques- tions from the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Seales (4th ed, ‘Thomuike, Hagen, & Satler, 1986). These questions require par ticipants to envision a piece of paper being folded several times and then having shapes cut out of the folded paper. Participants then mentally rotate and unfold the paper and select from four possible choices. See Figure I for an example of these questions + 4 B c D Figure Basic example of pape folding and cuting question. Imagine the Fst sow isa paper being folded and eu fom let sgh. Doe lines represent folds. Colored seas represent portions ofthe paper being cut-out. (nthe sand row, ehoose what te paper would lok like when the paper is unfed? Results ‘We present to different sets of analyses regarding the possi bility that listening to Mozart relates to spatial intelligence. The first analysis includes a direct test for the Mozart effect, which is supported by the neurological theory of dhe Mozart effect. The second analysis investigates whether arousal optimizes spatial testing ability. We close with analyses using a slightly diferent conceptualization of arousal than existing research, which com- pares arousal self-clasitications against each other. Testing for the Mozart Effect We first tested for possible differences in spatial performance between boys and girls. Using an analysis of variance (ANOVA), there was no significant difference between male and female students’ spatial performance, FU, 84) =.03,p = 86,d =.04. As such, we collapsed boys and gies together in all further analyses. Next, we examined the possible difference in spatial performance between the Mozart and silence groups. This was a direct test of the Mozart effect and excluded the arousal variable, The results indicated that the Mozart group scored significantly higher on spatial ability than the silence group, FU, 84) = 6.32, p = O1,d = “54 (see Table I for descriptive statistics). This result suggests that listening to Mozart improved spatial performance Arousal Test for Mozart Effect We then tested the effect of arousal on spatial performance to see ifthe addition of arousal into the model dissipated the Mozart effect. In onder to run the analysis, we teated the arousal variable as categorical data since participants selected a specific arousal Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Mozart and Silence Groups Less More MSD awake Neither awake Mozat group 421069396 HELE s 2 Silence exposure 44839450 n= 20 Noe. Scones were auf 17 possible questions,