Widerlegung des Mozart-Effekts bei Kindern
Ich kann leider nicht auf das Dokument verlinken, da ich nur über das Netzwerk der Uni Basel (welche auf diese Zeitschrift ein Abo hat) Zugriff auf das Dokument habe. Ein Link würde für euch in einer Sackgasse landen.
Music Perception, Ausgabe Apr 2006RUDI CˇRNCˇEC, SARAH J. WILSON, AND
MARGOT PRIOR
School of Behavioural Science, University of Melbourne,
Australia
THE MOZART EFFECT refers to claims that listening to
Mozart-like music results in a small, short-lived improvement
in spatiotemporal performance. Based on
predominantly adult research that has shown equivocal
findings, there has been speculation that the Mozart
effect may have pedagogical benefits for children. The
present study aimed to examine the Mozart effect in children
and to evaluate two alternative models proposed to
account for the effect, namely the trion model and the
arousal-mood model. One hundred and thirty-six Grade
5 students (mean age 10.7 years) were exposed to three
experimental listening conditions: Mozart piano sonata
K. 448, popular music, and silence. Each condition was
followed by a spatiotemporal task, and mood and music
questionnaires. The results showed no evidence of a
Mozart effect. Speculation about applications of the
Mozart effect in children needs to be suspended until an
effect can be reliably reproduced.
Received August 5, 2004, accepted April 26, 2005
THE MOZART EFFECT was originally taken to refer
to predominantly adult reports of improved performance
on tests of spatiotemporal function,
occurring for a period of 10 to 15 min immediately after
listening to the first movement of a Mozart piano sonata
(K. 448) or similar compositions (Rauscher, Shaw, & Ky,
1993, 1995). Researchers have speculated that this effect
may assist infants and children in developing their spatiotemporal
and other cognitive abilities (Rauscher,
1999; Shaw, 2000). Particular emphasis has been placed
on upper primary school, where topics putatively reliant
on spatiotemporal abilities, such as proportional mathematics,
are introduced (Shaw, 2000). Thus, evaluating
the Mozart effect in children of this age is important in
assessing possible pedagogical implications.
Use of the term Mozart effect has varied widely
within the scientific literature (cf. Shaw, 2001). For
example, in addition to the above definition, it has been
used to describe the reported effects of (a) K. 448 on
epileptiform activity in patients with epilepsy (Hughes,
Daaboul, Fino, & Shaw, 1998), (b) K. 448 on maze
learning in rodents (Rauscher, Robinson, & Jens, 1998),
and (c) background music listening on spatiotemporal
task performance (Ivanov & Geake, 2003). These
diverse findings have not been shown to share a common
underlying mechanism. Therefore, unifying them
under a common term may create a false impression of
the breadth and robustness of the Mozart effect. It is
also important to differentiate the Mozart effect from a
related line of research examining the effects of music
lessons on cognitive abilities (cf. Hetland, 2000a). This
study examined the Mozart effect as it was initially
defined, that is, in relation to predictions about
improved spatiotemporal performance following exposure
to Mozart’s music.
There is considerable popular interest in the Mozart
effect, much of which has resulted from the misreporting
of scientific data and confusion about the parameters
of the effect. For example, in the first study of
the Mozart effect the results were reported as a shortterm
improvement in spatial IQ (Rauscher et al., 1993).
This finding was subsequently described in the media as
a long-term improvement in overall IQ, leading to the
popular misconception that “Mozart makes you
smarter.” Further complicating this picture, the term
Mozart effect was trademarked by Campbell in 1997 as
an inclusive term signifying proposed wide-ranging
benefits of music in improving health, creativity, and
intellectual abilities (Campbell, 1997). Campbell has
written two books, neither of which are based on the
scientific research outlined above (Campbell, 1997,
2000). A substantial industry based on this broader
definition has since developed with compact discs,
videos, and other items targeted especially at improving
the abilities of infants and children. A thorough
examination of research evidence for the Mozart effect
in children will help determine the scientific basis of
this industry.
NO EVIDENCE FOR THE MOZART EFFECT IN CHILDREN
Music Perception VOLUME 23, ISSUE 4, PP. 305-317, ISSN 0730-7829, ELECTRONIC ISSN 1533-8312 © 2006 BY THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PLEASE DIRECT ALL REQUESTS FOR PERMISSION TO PHOTOCOPY OR REPRODUCE ARTICLE CONTENT
THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS’S RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS WEBSITE AT WWW.UCPRESS.EDU/JOURNALS/RIGHTS.HTM
No Evidence for the Mozart Effect in Children 305
Explanatory Models of the Mozart Effect
Two main explanatory models of the Mozart effect have
been proposed: initially the trion model (Leng & Shaw,
1991) and later the arousal-mood model (Thompson,
Schellenberg, & Husain, 2001). The former is a mathematical
model of neuronal firing in human cortex. It
has been argued that as the trion model generates firing
patterns with complex spatial and temporal patterns
and Mozart’s music is structured according to complex,
spatial and temporal patterns, exposure to Mozart
primes the brain for spatiotemporal tasks (Shaw, 2000).
Repetitive music is not thought to exert this effect
owing to its “simple” structure (Rauscher & Shaw,
1998), although the terms “complex” and “simple” have
not been musically operationalized within the research
field. Schellenberg (2001) has argued that the assertion
that K. 448 primes the brain for spatiotemporal performance
is not supported by cognitive or neuropsychological
research and is a “radical claim about
cognitive processes” (p. 358). Given the relatively weak
link between the trion model and the Mozart effect,
studies have tended to be driven by empirical findings,
rather than predictions from the trion model per se
(e.g., Rauscher & Shaw, 1998).
The arousal-mood model claims that the Mozart
effect is a function of the participant’s enjoyment of the
stimulus and associated mild increases in arousal and
positive mood. Husain, Thompson, and Schellenberg
(2002) posited that any enjoyable stimulus may confer a
small positive effect on spatiotemporal reasoning. Thus,
they argued that the Mozart effect has nothing to do
with music in general, or with Mozart per se. This
model is supported by studies indicating that music can
affect arousal and mood (e.g., Schmidt & Trainor, 2001;
Sloboda & Juslin, 2001) and that arousal and mood can
in turn influence cognition (e.g., Yerkes & Dodson,
1908; Isen, 2002). While this model reconciles the
Mozart effect with well-reported scientific phenomena,
a problem is raised. Arousal and mood are understood
to affect performance on a range of cognitive tasks,
but to date the Mozart effect has only been evident for
spatiotemporal tasks. Several other cognitive abilities
have been examined in relation to the Mozart effect, but
none have shown significant improvements (cf.
Chabris, 1999; Hetland, 2000b). Moreover, not all studies
that have reported differences in mood or arousal
following K. 448 have demonstrated a corresponding
Mozart effect (e.g., Steele, Bass, & Crook, 1999; Steele,
Dalla Bella, et al., 1999), raising concerns about the reliability
of the Mozart effect.
Research Investigating the Mozart Effect
The bulk of research examining the Mozart effect has
been conducted with undergraduate students. Thus,
speculation about benefits to children and infants has
been largely based on the downward extension of adult
findings. This is problematic for several reasons. First, it
is generally accepted that findings considered to have
applications for children should be directly evaluated
within this population. Second, many extant adult studies,
including the original reports by Rauscher et al.
(1993, 1995), have methodological shortcomings
(Fudin & Lembessis, 2004). These include poor control
of potentially relevant variables such as arousal, mood,
and music training and the use of “control” conditions
that may actively depress spatiotemporal performance,
such as relaxation instructions. Third, while the Mozart
effect has been reproduced in adults by the original
authors (e.g., Rauscher et al., 1995) and several others
(cf. Chabris, 1999; Hetland, 2000b), there are approximately
equal numbers of adult studies demonstrating or
refuting the effect. In a meta-analysis of published adult
research, Chabris (1999) found an overall nonsignificant
effect of Mozart on spatiotemporal performance
(d .14). In a second meta-analysis, Hetland concluded
that there was a medium-sized, short-lived
Mozart effect (d .50) (Hetland, 2000b). This second
analysis included multiple unpublished manuscripts,
many of which reported a large Mozart effect. None of
these positive results has subsequently been published,
raising concerns about Hetland’s summary data. Thus,
in general the Mozart effect appears to be a small and
unreliable effect in the adult population.
Only two previous studies have investigated the
Mozart effect in children (Hallam, 2000; McKelvie &
Low, 2002). In the first study, Hallam (2000) sought to
replicate the Mozart effect in a naturalistic school environment.
Participants were 8,120 children (age range,
10–11 years) recruited from 150 schools. Participants
were tested in class groups, with the class teacher running
the experiment from a script. A between-participants,
posttest design was used where performance on
two tests of spatial reasoning was assessed after exposure
to either Mozart (K. 593), popular music, or a scientific
discussion. The participants were tested simultaneously,
with the experimental stimuli played on BBC radio. The
analysis revealed no significant differences in spatial
performance between the three conditions.
McKelvie and Low (2002) reported results from two
experiments using designs that had previously shown a
Mozart effect in adults. Study 1 employed a single-session,
306 R. Cˇrncˇec, S. J. Wilson, and M. Prior
between-participants, pre- versus posttest design with 55
participants (mean age12 years). Experimental stimuli
were either K. 448 or a popular dance composition.
McKelvie and Low (2002) included self-rated measures
of enjoyment of the musical stimuli and previous music
training. The results revealed no evidence of a Mozart
effect, nor any interactions. In Experiment 2, K. 448
and popular music were contrasted with relaxation
music. This study employed a between-participants,
pre- versus posttest design, with 48 participants (mean
age 12.2 years). The results were similar to those of
Study 1. McKelvie and Low (2002) utilized sex and
music training as covariates in their data analyses, as
both of these variables are thought to influence spatiotemporal
abilities (cf. McKelvie & Low, 2002). Sex
and music training were also employed as covariates in
the present study.
Neither Hallam (2000) nor McKelvie and Low (2002)
included a silence, or neutral control condition.
Therefore, in both studies the null results may have been
attributable to a general effect of listening to auditory
material. Further, both studies utilized between-participants
designs. Such a design makes it difficult to evaluate
the predictions of the arousal-mood model, that is,
the possible effect of individual responses to music on
spatiotemporal function. In addition, between-participants
designs do not control for individual differences in
spatiotemporal ability across groups. Nonetheless, these
studies suggest that the Mozart effect may not be evident
in childhood populations.
In a related study, Ivanov and Geake (2003) assessed
performance on a 10-item paper-folding task using a
single-session posttest design with three background
listening conditions: (a) K. 448, (b) Bach (DWV 916),
and (c) silence. This use of continuous background
music significantly changes the nature of the task, as
attention is divided between the cognitive task and the
music. Nevertheless, given the use of K. 448 and a spatiotemporal
dependent variable, the results warrant
consideration. Participants were 76 children with a
mean age of 11.1 years. Musical experience was assessed
by a self-report questionnaire before testing. Ivanov and
Geake (2003) reported significantly better paper-folding
performance for the Mozart and Bach conditions
relative to the silence condition. No effect of music
training was noted. The researchers speculated that
(a) the results may be explained by the arousal-mood
model, and (b) music may have brought cohesion to the
background noise of the classroom, facilitating task performance
(cf. Cash, El-Mallakh, Camberlain, Bratton, &
Li, 1997). Ivanov and Geake (2003) could not evaluate
whether the observed effects were related to the arousalmood
model, however, as they did not assess enjoyment,
mood, or arousal following exposure to the stimuli.
Rationale
The present investigation sought to evaluate the Mozart
effect in a pediatric population using a tightly controlled
experimental paradigm to directly compare the
two extant models of the effect. To our knowledge, such
a comparison of models has not been previously conducted
with either adults or children. We contrasted the
effects of K. 448, popular music (“Zorba’s Dance”), and
silence on spatiotemporal performance using a withinparticipants,
repeated-measures design. “Zorba’s Dance”
was chosen as the popular piece because this composition
was predicted to be enjoyable and arousing to children
and thus, according to the arousal-mood model, to
improve spatiotemporal abilities. Moreover, as “Zorba’s
Dance” was simple and repetitive, the trion model predicted
no enhancement in spatiotemporal performance
for this condition. K. 448 represented the composition
predicted by the trion model to enhance spatiotemporal
abilities. A silence condition was included to control
for the possibility of a general listening effect. Spatiotemporal
ability and self-reported preference, arousal,
and mood were evaluated after exposure to each listening
condition. Baseline visuospatial and musical abilities
were assessed and each participant’s parents completed a
questionnaire about their child’s music training.
Baseline musical ability was also examined, as this variable
is thought to be correlated with spatiotemporal
functioning (e.g., Hassler, Birbaumer, & Feil, 1985,
1987) but has not been examined in studies of the
Mozart effect to date. We predicted that any effects of
music exposure on spatiotemporal ability would be
attributable to (a) differences in baseline spatiotemporal
ability, (b) preference for the listening condition,
(c) mood following the listening condition, and/or
(d) musical ability.
Method
Participants
One hundred and thirty-six Grade 5 children (56%
male) were recruited to the study, with a mean age of
10.7 years (SD .34; range, 9.5–11.6 years). Participants
were recruited from six classes in three neighboring
public schools from the same socioeconomic area in
metropolitan Melbourne. Each school devoted a similar
amount of time to group music lessons. Of the 136 children
who participated in the study, there were 36 cases
No Evidence for the Mozart Effect in Children 307
of missing data. This was principally due to participants
not attending one of the four testing sessions. In addition,
data obtained from three children with neurological,
psychological, or learning disorders were excluded
from the study. Missing cases were randomly distributed
across schools and sex. The sample had sufficient
experimental power to detect a small to medium-sized
Mozart effect.
Stimuli and Measures
The K. 448 stimulus was the first movement of this
sonata, lasting 8 min 23 s (Mozart, 1985). The popular
music stimulus was created from a recording of “Zorba’s
Dance” (LCD, 1998). “Zorba’s Dance” was modified
using Cool Edit 2000 software (Johnston, 2000) to
remove phrases from the composition that contained
short verbalizations and to make the stimulus the same
length as K. 448. In the silence condition, participants
were instructed to sit quietly and were informed when
8 min 23 s had elapsed.
The primary measure of spatiotemporal reasoning
was the Fitzgerald paper-folding test (Fitzgerald, 1978).
This has been developed and normed in Australia for
use with children in upper primary school and has been
shown to demonstrate good internal consistency and
test-retest reliability (Fitzgerald, 1978). It requires children
to visualize paper being folded, punctured, and
then unfolded and to select the correct answer from a
multiple-choice array. It consists of a practice item and
20 test items administered in paper-and-pencil form
and takes approximately 10 to 15 min to complete. The
Fitzgerald paper-folding task satisfies Rauscher and
Shaw’s (1998) criteria for a spatiotemporal task, in that
it requires both spatial imagery and the temporal ordering
of spatial components. It was not appropriate to use
the paper folding and cutting subtest from the Stanford-
Binet intelligence scale (4th edition), a test frequently
used in adult Mozart effect research, as normative data
are only available for children aged 12 and over
(Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler, 1986). Furthermore, given
that the Mozart effect in adults is thought to wane after
a period of 10 to 15 min (cf. Rauscher & Shaw, 1998),
additional measures of spatiotemporal reasoning were
not employed.
Children rated their preference for and familiarity
with each experimental stimulus after it was played
using 5-point Likert-type scales. These scales were created
specifically for use in the present study and were
presented in the form of a questionnaire.
Arousal and mood were measured using the 10-item
affective reaction chart developed for children by Ainley
(Ainley, Bretherton, & Sanson, 1994; Ainley, Hidi, &
Tran, 1997; Ainley & Hidi, 2002). Participants were
asked to rate the extent they experienced each of the
10 emotions after the listening condition using 5-point
Likert-type scales. This measure derives its empirical
base from Izard’s differential emotions theory (Izard,
1977) and his work on the measurement of emotions in
children (cf. Izard, Dougherty, Bloxom, & Kotsch, 1974;
Manstead, 1993). Particular emotions on the affective
reaction chart, such as interest and surprise, provided a
useful index of the participant’s level of arousal.
Other visuospatial measures administered during the
pretest were the Porteous Mazes (Porteous, 1973), the
Rey-Osterrieth complex figure test (Rey, 1941), and the
Vandenberg three-dimensional mental rotation task
(Vandenberg & Kuse, 1978). These were selected to provide
a broader assessment of the participants’ visuospatial
abilities. Musical ability was measured at pretest
using the Bentley Measures of Musical Abilities (Bentley,
1966). This test assesses four areas: pitch discrimination,
tonal memory, chord analysis, and rhythmic memory.
These four scores can be combined to give a total
musical ability score.
All parents and guardians were required to complete
a questionnaire about their child’s music experience
before the commencement of testing. This included
questions about the presence and length of extracurricular
music lessons to control for any effect of music
training on the Mozart effect. Demographic information,
handedness, and the presence of neurological, psychological,
or learning disorders were also obtained.
Procedure
The relevant Human Research Ethics Committees approved
this study, and formal consent was obtained
before testing. Preexperimental testing took place in
classroom groups with the children’s teacher present.
The experimenter provided standard instructions for
each test before its commencement, displayed on an
overhead projector, so that the group moved through the
tasks together. Talking was not permitted during test
administration; however, due to the age of the participants,
some chatter was allowed once everyone had finished
a test. Teachers were encouraged to assist with
disciplinary issues where required. Preexperimental
testing duration was 1.5 hours.
Experimental testing commenced 1 week later with
classes of children randomly allocated to one of six counterbalanced
stimulus presentation conditions (see Table 1).
The same procedures used in the preexperimental protocol
were applied. Before the commencement of testing,
308 R. Cˇrncˇec, S. J. Wilson, and M. Prior
participants were instructed in the use of the music and
mood questionnaires and completed the Fitzgerald
paper-folding test practice item. Following this, participants
were informed that they would be exposed to a
short period of music or silence. Participants were
instructed not to talk, draw, or do anything else with
their hands during this time; however, they were permitted
to put their heads on their desks. The listening
condition was preceded by a quick “stretch and wriggle”
to assist the children to sit quietly. Participants were
advised that immediately after presentation of the musical
stimulus or silence they were to complete the
Fitzgerald paper-folding test and questionnaires. The
duration of experimental testing was approximately
40 min. This procedure was repeated three times at
weekly intervals for each of the listening conditions. All
musical stimuli were played on compact disc through a
CDSONIC AE-240 Amplified Speaker System.
Results
Preexperimental Testing
Examination of the parent questionnaire indicated that
77 children (57.9%) were engaged in extracurricular
music lessons. These children had been engaged in music
lessons for an average of 32.7 months (SD22.40).
Group mean scores for all pretest spatial and musical
tasks were within average limits, indicating that the
sample was representative in terms of spatial and musical
abilities (see Table 2).
Experimental Testing
The Mozart effect. Data were normally distributed and
suitable for parametric analyses. To examine whether
there was a significant change in paper-folding scores as
a function of music listening condition (Mozart, popular
music, or silence), a within-participants repeatedmeasures
ANCOVA was performed. Sex and the
presence of music training were included as covariates
in this analysis. The main effect of listening condition
on paper folding was not significant, F(2, 188) 1.6,
p .21. The main effects of sex and music training
were also not significant, F(1, 94) .10, p .76,
and F(1, 94) .43, p .51, respectively. Neither
sex, F(2, 188) 1.42, p .05, nor music training,
F(2, 188) .87, p .05, significantly adjusted paperfolding
scores. These results are shown in Figure 1.
As the Fitzgerald paper-folding test was administered
on four separate testing sessions (Pretest, Posttest 1,
Posttest 2, and Posttest 3), a mixed repeated-measures
ANOVA was performed to examine the effect of practice,
with counterbalanced group as the between-participants
factor. There were six levels of counterbalanced
group (see Table 1). The main effect of counterbalanced
group was not significant, F(5, 86) .99, p .05, nor
was the testing session by counterbalanced group interaction,
F(15, 258) 1.47, p .05. However, a significant
main effect of testing session was observed, F(3,
258) 13.25, p .0001. Post hoc simple contrasts indicated
that paper-folding performance differed significantly
between Pretest and Posttest 3, F(1, 86)19.29,
p .0001, and between Posttest 1 and Posttest 3, F(1,
86) 14.03, p .0001, but not between Posttest 2 and
Posttest 3, F(1, 86) 2.62, p .05.
The possibility that participant improvement across
testing sessions concealed a Mozart effect was further
evaluated by examining the effect of listening condition
(K. 448, popular, and silence) on Posttest 1 experimental
scores. These scores are least likely to be affected by
practice. This effectively changed the design to a
between-participants posttest comparison, as commonly
used in previous research. The results revealed
no effect of listening condition on paper-folding performance
during Posttest 1, F(2, 118) 1.04, p .36,
supporting the absence of a Mozart effect.
Preference, mood, and arousal effects. A further possibility
for the lack of a Mozart effect was that the music
No Evidence for the Mozart Effect in Children 309
TABLE 1. Overview of experimental design.
Classroom Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4
1 Pretest Silence Popular K. 448
2 Pretest Silence K. 448 Popular
3 Pretest K. 448 Popular Silence
4 Pretest K. 448 Silence Popular
5 Pretest Popular K. 448 Silence
6 Pretest Popular Silence K. 448
FIG. 1. Mean paper-folding scores following exposure to each of the
experimental listening conditions.
310 R. Cˇrncˇec, S. J. Wilson, and M. Prior
was not associated with increased preference, positive
mood, or arousal, as measured using the 5-point rating
scales. To explore differences in the children’s subjective
responses to K. 448, popular music, and silence, a
repeated-measures within-participants ANOVA was
performed across the three listening conditions for each
rating category. Simple post hoc contrasts were used to
explore significant effects of listening condition. As shown
in Table 3, ratings of preference, F(2, 204)100.33,
p.0001; happiness, F(2, 198)61.93, p.0001;
interest, F(2, 202)87.74, p.0001; and surprise, F(2,
206)18.46, p.0001, were significantly higher following
popular music compared to K. 448 or silence.
Participants also reported significantly less sadness, F(2,
204)4.26, p.02; disgust, F(2, 200)11.80, p
.0001; boredom, F(2, 202)74.20, p.0001; and
neutrality, F(2, 202)12.89, p.0001, following popular
music when compared to K. 448 or silence. This supports
the notion that the popular condition served its
intended purpose of inducing positive mood and arousal;
yet, despite this, it did not confer an advantage on paperfolding
performance. Participants reported that K. 448
was significantly more complex than popular music or
silence, F(2, 204)47.64, p.0001. Thus, K. 448
served as a good measure of the trion model in children.
Participants also reported that K. 448 was less familiar
than either popular music or silence, F(2, 204)71.19,
p.0001. Given that familiarity of the experimental
stimulus has not been previously investigated in Mozart
effect studies but may be important, this variable was
included in subsequent analyses.
Predictors of spatiotemporal performance. To examine
the contribution of specific within-participants variables
to spatiotemporal ability, a multiple regression
TABLE 2. Group performance on preexperimental measures of spatial and musical ability and their intercorrelation.
Porteous Rey figure Paper folding Vandenberg Bentley total
Maze test rotations task
Porteous .24* .25* .27* .29*
Maze test
Rey figure .36* .31* .34*
Paper folding .36* .29*
Vandenberg .15
rotations task
Means 15.20 26.06 9.60 7.37 36.53
SDs 1.43 4.81 3.44 4.31 7.19
Range 8.5–17 9–35 2–18 0–19 16–56
*p .01.
TABLE 3. Participant subjective ratings following exposure to the experimental listening conditions.
Rating K. 448 Popular music Silence
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Interested 2.25 1.18 3.64** 1.21 1.74 1.23
Happy 2.48 1.19 3.81** 1.13 2.40 1.32
Surprised 1.89 1.16 2.55** 1.41 1.67 1.20
Sad 1.23 .76 1.07* .29 1.37 1.04
Angry 1.18 .65 1.23 .79 1.52 1.18
Disgusted 1.56 1.05 1.17** .72 1.74 1.38
Bored 2.97 1.42 1.66** 1.08 3.68 1.44
Scared 1.08 .46 1.04 .28 1.28 .97
Shy 1.09 .49 1.09 .38 1.22 .87
Neutral 2.48 1.45 1.74** 1.14 2.51 1.52
Preference 2.70 1.04 4.28** .82 2.57 1.18
Familiarity 1.78** 1.02 3.51 1.35 3.83 1.59
Complexity 3.01* 1.22 2.66 1.23 1.55 1.17
Note. All items were rated using 5-point Likert-type scales.
*p .05. **p .0001.
analysis was performed for each listening condition. In
all analyses, the dependent variable was paper-folding
score following exposure to the experimental stimulus.
Independent variables were selected on the basis of a
possible association with paper-folding score and
included (a) self-reported happiness (positive mood),
(b) preference for the listening condition, (c) familiarity
of the stimulus, (d) musical ability, and (e) pretest
paper-folding performance. This last variable represented
an important control for individual differences
in baseline spatiotemporal ability in this study. Pearson
r correlations between these variables are shown
in Table 4.
As indicated in Table 5, the results of the K. 448 and
popular music multiple regression analyses were similar.
That is, R was significantly different from zero,
No Evidence for the Mozart Effect in Children 311
TABLE 4. Correlations between variables used in the K. 448, popular music, and silence multiple regression analyses.
Variables Condition Pretest paper- Happiness Preference Familiarity Musical
folding score ability
Posttest paper- K. 448 .63** .04 .09 .06 .29*
folding scorea Popular .65** .05 .09 .02 .26*
Silence .66** .07 .11 .10 .30*
Pretest paper- K. 448 .09 .05 .00 .28*
folding score Popular .14 .01 .01 .29**
Silence .02 .05 .14 .27*
Happiness K. 448 .59** .04 .06
Popular .55** .12 .03
Silence .38** .07 .01
Preference K. 448 .15 .14
Popular .20* .05
Silence .27* .03
Familiarity K. 448 .03
Popular .00
Silence .02
aRefers to posttest score collapsed across all counterbalanced presentations of each listening condition.
*p .01. **p .0001.
TABLE 5. Multiple regression analyses of within-participants variables on paper-folding scores following exposure to
K. 448, popular music, or silence.
Variables Condition B sri
2 (unique)
Happiness K. 448 .27 .08 .00
Popular .31 .10 .01
Silence .11 .04 .00
Preference K. 448 .25 .07 .00
Popular .01 .00 .00
Silence .04 .01 .00
Familiarity K. 448 .36 .09 .01
Popular .14 .05 .00
Silence .01 .00 .00
Musical ability K. 448 .07 .13 .02
Popular .05 .09 .01
Silence .08* .15 .02
Pretest paper-folding score K. 448 .65** .60 .33
Popular .66** .63 .35
Silence .62** .62 .35
Note. K. 448 regression: R2 .44, adjusted R2 .41, R .66*; popular music regression: R2 .44, adjusted R2 .41,
R .66*; silence regression: R2 .46, adjusted R2 .44, R .68**.
*p .05. **p .0001.
Mozart, popular music, or silence. Predictions made by
the trion model were not upheld. Despite being rated as
more complex by the children, K. 448 did not enhance
spatiotemporal performance compared to repetitive
music or silence. Taken together, theoretical concerns
with the trion model (cf. Schellenberg, 2001) and the
lack of behavioral data demonstrating a Mozart effect in
children (Hallam, 2000; McKelvie & Low, 2002) suggest
that complex music does not prime children’s brains for
spatiotemporal tasks. In contrast, predictions of the
arousal-mood model were partly upheld. Exposure to
popular music was associated with enhanced positive
mood, arousal, and increased preference; however,
these changes did not result in improved spatiotemporal
performance. Rather, participants in this study
showed short-term stability in their performance of
the spatiotemporal task, with pretest spatiotemporal
performance most strongly predicting posttest experimental
scores.
Findings from this study are consistent with and
extend those of McKelvie and Low (2002) and Hallam
(2000). Together these investigations provide corroborative
evidence that the Mozart effect does not exist in
childhood populations and is not a function of subjective
responses to music or the effects of prior music training.
The results of the present study are at odds with those of
Ivanov and Geake (2003), who demonstrated improved
paper-folding performance in upper-primary-school-age
children after continuous listening to K. 448 or the music
of Bach. Although Ivanov and Geake’s results need to be
replicated before they can be considered conclusive, it is
interesting to consider the present findings in light of
these data. Specifically, the possibility emerges that while
a pretest musical stimulus is insufficient to produce a
small enhancement in spatiotemporal reasoning in children,
continuous exposure to music may produce an
effect. This will be discussed further below.
F(5, 98) 15.10, p .0001, and F(5, 100) 15.39,
p .0001, respectively, with pretest paper-folding score
the only variable to significantly contribute to the prediction
of posttest paper-folding score (sri
2 .33 and
.35, respectively). In these analyses, scores on the five
independent variables predicted 40.6% and 40.7%,
respectively, of the adjusted variability in spatiotemporal
performance.
R was significantly different from zero in the silence
multiple regression analysis, F(5, 97) 16.83, p
.0001, with pretest paper-folding performance again
strongly predicting posttest paper-folding performance
(sri
2 .35). In this analysis, musical ability also significantly
contributed to the prediction of paper-folding
score (sri
2 .02). The five independent variables
accounted for 43.7% of the adjusted variability in spatiotemporal
performance (see Table 5). In order to evaluate
which aspects of music ability were contributing to
paper-folding performance, a further multiple regression
analysis was conducted on posttest paper-folding
scores following exposure to silence. The independent
variables were the four subtest scores of the Bentley
Measures of Musical Ability, namely, pitch, tunes,
chords, and rhythm. As summarized in Table 6, R was
significantly different from zero, F(4, 102) 3.65,
p .01. Only the rhythm subtest contributed significantly
to the prediction of paper-folding scores
(sri
2 .04). Altogether, these four independent variables
predicted 9.1% of the adjusted variability in
paper-folding scores.
Discussion
The results of this study indicated no evidence of
a Mozart effect in upper-primary-school-age children.
Children performed no differently on tests of spatiotemporal
reasoning following passive exposure to
312 R. Cˇrncˇec, S. J. Wilson, and M. Prior
TABLE 6. Multiple regression analysis of Bentley measures of musical ability subtest scores on posttest
paper-folding scores following exposure to silence, and correlations between variables.
Variables Paper-folding Pitch Tunes Rhythm B sri
2 (unique)
score
Pitch .16 .08 .07 .00
Tunes .23* .36** .26 .15 .02
Rhythm .25** .28* .23* .39* .20 .04
Chords .16 .12 .17 .06 .16 .13 .02
Note. R2 .13, adjusted R2 .09, R .35*.
*p .05. **p .001.
In this study, musical ability was found to contribute
significantly to the prediction of paper-folding performance
in the silence condition. While the contribution
was small (sri
2 .02), this suggests that children with
greater musical ability also have greater spatiotemporal
ability. Indeed, the Bentley Measures of Musical Ability
total score was positively correlated with several other
measures of visuospatial skills taken during the pretest
(see Table 2). A link between musical and visuospatial
abilities in children has been previously well demonstrated
(Barret & Barker, 1973; Manturzewska, 1978;
Karma, 1979; Hassler et al., 1985, 1987; Lynn, Wilson, &
Gault, 1989; Nelson & Barressi, 1989; Gromko &
Poorman, 1998); however, further research is required
to elucidate specific factors that underpin this association.
The relationship between musical and visuospatial
skills highlights the importance of controlling for musical
ability in studies of the Mozart effect and raises the
possibility that previous research reporting a Mozart
effect may be confounded by this variable.
The present results indicated that rhythmic ability
was the musical skill most strongly associated with spatiotemporal
performance. This result has not been previously
described, likely reflecting the absence of
rhythmic measures in research investigating associations
between musical and visuospatial abilities. There
is, however, some evidence linking rhythmic ability
with other nonmusical abilities. For example, Lynn et al.
(1989) reported that children’s performance on both
rhythm and pitch discrimination tasks was positively
associated with measures of general intelligence.
Rhythm discrimination has also been associated with
reading and spelling abilities (Douglas & Willatts,
1994). There are at least two possible explanations for
the association between rhythmic and spatiotemporal
abilities observed in this study. First, both the rhythm
discrimination task from the Bentley Measures of
Musical Ability and the Fitzgerald paper-folding task
rely on working memory function. This notion is supported
by the finding that the tonal memory task from
the Bentley Measures of Musical Ability also correlated
with posttest paper-folding performance and has a predominant
working memory component (see Table 6).
In other words, all of these tasks require the stimulus to
be “held in mind” over a period of several seconds
while a discrimination judgment is made. Alternatively,
both the rhythm discrimination and paper-folding
tasks may have a visuomotor component, suggesting
that general motor skills may partly account for the
observed association. The links between rhythmic and
visuospatial abilities offer exciting avenues for future
research.
General Discussion
Methodological Considerations in the Current Design
The null results of this study may reflect methodological
issues. First, the use of a single measure of spatiotemporal
reasoning represents a methodological
concern common to Mozart effect studies. Specifically,
the use of additional spatiotemporal measures could
improve the validity of results, excepting that the shortlived
nature of the Mozart effect makes this unfeasible
unless multiple experiments are conducted. Second, the
readministration of the Fitzgerald paper-folding test on
several occasions led to a small practice effect across
testing sessions, which may have “washed out” any
Mozart effect. We consider this unlikely for several reasons.
The experimental conditions were presented in
counterbalanced order, and thus, the effects of practice
were equivalent across conditions. Moreover, the nonsignificant
interaction between testing session and
counterbalanced group suggests that the observed practice
effect did not mask an effect of listening condition.
Examination of the results did not indicate that the participants
reached a ceiling level of performance on the
paper-folding task. Therefore, any improvements associated
with exposure to K. 448 or popular music should
have been detectable above those associated with practice
of the task. In addition, post hoc analysis of the first
experimental session scores in isolation did not demonstrate
evidence of a Mozart effect. This suggests that the
broader results of the study are robust.
Developmental Considerations
Developmental factors could explain why children’s
performance on spatiotemporal tasks may not be influenced
by small fluctuations in arousal and mood
brought about by pretest exposure to music. The major
explanatory models of the Mozart effect may be invalid
in child populations. This, in turn, raises the dual possibility
that either the Mozart effect is exclusively an adult
effect or the Mozart effect does not exist at all. In the
case of the former, children’s performance on spatiotemporal
tasks may not be influenced by small fluctuations
in arousal and mood. The present study
supports the proposition of McKelvie and Low (2002)
that children exhibit short-term stability in their performance
on these tasks. Further, while the general
principles of the Yerkes-Dodson law of arousal (1908)
are thought to apply to developmental populations, to
date few studies have directly examined the role of
arousal and mood in mediating children’s cognitive
No Evidence for the Mozart Effect in Children 313
performance. After evaluating the effects of mood on
children’s memory and impression formation, Forgas,
Burnham, and Trimboli (1988) speculated that “There
are likely to be profound, and as yet not fully explored
differences between adults and children in the way
mood states influence their cognitive abilities” (p. 703).
Theories of adult responses to arousal and mood may
not be directly applicable to children. For example,
researchers have noted that background music aimed at
reducing levels of arousal may exert beneficial effects on
children’s schoolwork, while arousing music can disrupt
performance (Hallam, Price, & Katsarou, 2002).
There are developmental differences between the
brains of children and adults that may account for differential
responses to positive mood and arousal.
Generally speaking, the brains of children aged between
9 and 12 years are undergoing several neuronal developmental
processes, including a decrease in synaptic
density, axonal elimination, changes in global cerebral
metabolism, and myelination of axonal fibers in the
telencephalon (Brown, Keynes, & Lumsden, 2001). Of
particular relevance is the lack of maturation of cortical
regions thought to be important in spatiotemporal reasoning,
including the parietal and frontal lobes
(Klingberg, Forssberg, & Westerberg, 2002) and connections
between these regions (Lambe, Krimer, &
Goldman-Rakic, 2000; Klingberg et al., 2002). It is
understood that dopaminergic projections to the
frontal cortex continue to develop during adolescence
and into early adulthood (Benes, 2003). Increased
dopaminergic activity in frontal regions associated with
positive mood may partly account for the Mozart effect
in adults (Isen, 2002). Dopaminergic projections to the
frontal cortex are underdeveloped in children, potentially
reducing this effect.
Alternatively, it is conceivable that music may need to
be present continually in order to exert a small effect on
spatiotemporal performance in children (Ivanov &
Geake, 2003). The affect regulation and attentional systems
of children are functionally immature (Eisenberg
& Fabes, 1999; Manly et al., 2001); thus mood states
induced by music may rapidly subside once the music
has ceased. There is little research on the durability of
experimentally induced moods in pediatric populations;
however, there is some indication that in adults,
mood states induced in the laboratory may dissipate
after approximately 15 min (for review see Brenner,
2000). Existing research examining background classroom
music has not demonstrated reliable effects on
cognitive or academic performance (Cˇrncˇec, Wilson, &
Prior, in press). The present study is unable to shed light
on these issues, and further research with adults and
children is clearly warranted.
Even if we assume that the arousal-mood model can
accurately account for the Mozart effect, compositions
by Mozart may not be the best music to play to children
to enhance mood and arousal. Results from the present
study indicate that children enjoyed Mozart to the same
extent as sitting in silence for 8 min. Further, it is conceivable
that playing Mozart or, more generally, classical
music to children may impair cognitive performance, as
it may induce negative mood (cf. O’Hanlon, 1981). The
observation that children and adolescents do not, by and
large, enjoy classical music is well documented (e.g.,
Hargreaves, Comber, & Colley, 1995; LeBlanc, Sims,
Siivola, & Obert, 1996; Hargreaves & North, 1997). The
contemporary success of piped classical music as a
deterrent for the congregation of children and adolescents
in public places is testimony to this (Grabosky,
1995; Hughes, McLaughlin, & Muncie, 2002).
Given the lack of a Mozart effect in children, and the
equivocal nature of the effect in adults, at present there
would appear to be no immediate spatiotemporal benefits
of exposing children to Mozart. Simplistic solutions
like the Mozart effect can create false impressions about
child development and mislead well-meaning parents
into purchasing products they might not have otherwise.
Moreover, given promising research investigating
the importance of musical interactions between caregiver
and infant (Trehub, 2002; Trevarthen & Malloch,
2002), and the sheer joy that music can bring to one’s
life, it is important that a null Mozart effect does not
overshadow the other broader benefits of music.
Author Note
We thank James Canty, Mel Gallagher, and Ben Elias for
their help in conducting this study. We also acknowledge
all participants and teachers for generously giving
of their time. The helpful comments provided by three
anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft of this article
were also appreciated. This article is based on research
Rudi Cˇrncˇec undertook toward his Doctor of
Psychology (Clinical—Child Specialisation) degree at
the University of Melbourne.
Address correspondence to: Rudi Cˇrncˇec, MARCS
Auditory Laboratories, University of Western Sydney,
Locked Bag 1797, South Penrith DC, NSW 1797,
Australia. E-MAIL r.crncec@uws.edu.au
314 R. Cˇrncˇec, S. J. Wilson, and M. Prior
AINLEY, M. D., BRETHERTON, D., & SANSON, A. (1994, August).
In the picture: Accessing children’s thoughts and feelings in
interpersonal conflict situations. Paper presented at the PPOW
and International Conflict Resolution Centre Conference,
Melbourne, Australia.
AINLEY, M. D., & HIDI, S. (2002). Dynamic measures for
studying interest and learning. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr
(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: New
directions in measures and methods (Vol. 12, pp. 43–76).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
AINLEY, M. D., HIDI, S., & TRAN, D. (1997). Between the lines.
Melbourne, Australia: Department of Psychology, University
of Melbourne.
BARRET, H. C., & BARKER, H. R., JR. (1973). Cognitive pattern
perception and musical performance. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 36, 1187–1193.
BENES, F. M. (2003). Why does psychosis develop during
adolescence and early adulthood? Current Opinion in
Psychiatry, 16, 317–319.
BENTLEY, A. (1966). Musical ability in children and its
measurement. London: George G. Harrap & Co.
BRENNER, E. (2000). Mood induction in children:
Methodological issues and clinical implications. Review of
General Psychology, 4, 264–283.
BROWN, M., KEYNES, R., & LUMSDEN, A. (2001). The developing
brain. New York: Oxford University Press.
CAMPBELL, D. (1997). The Mozart effect: Using the power of music
to heal the body, strengthen the mind and unlock the creative
spirit. New York: Avon Books.
CAMPBELL, D. (2000). The Mozart effect for children: Awakening
your child’s mind, health and creativity with music. New York:
Harper Collins.
CASH, A. H., EL-MALLAKH, R. S., CAMBERLAIN, K., BRATTON, J. Z.,
& LI, R. (1997). Structure of music may influence cognition.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 66.
CHABRIS, C. F. (1999). Prelude or requiem for the “Mozart
effect”? Nature, 402, 826–827.
Cˇ
RNCˇEC, R., WILSON, S. J., & PRIOR, M. (in press). The cognitive
and academic benefits of music to children: Facts and
fiction.
DOUGLAS, S., & WILLATTS, P. (1994). The relationship between
musical ability and literacy skills. Journal of Research in
Reading, 17, 99–107.
EISENBERG, N., & FABES, R. A. (1999). Emotion, emotion-related
regulation, and quality of socio-emotional functioning. In
L. Balter & C. Tamis-LeMonda (Eds.), Child psychology: A
handbook of contemporary issues (pp. 318–335). Philadelphia:
Psychology Press.
FITZGERALD, D. F. (1978). A model of simultaneous and successive
processing as a basis for developing individualised instruction.
Armidale, Australia: University of New England Press.
FORGAS, J. P., BURNHAM, D. K., & TRIMBOLI, C. (1988). Mood,
memory, and social judgements in children. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 697–703.
FUDIN, R., & LEMBESSIS, E. (2004). The Mozart effect: Questions
about the seminal findings of Rauscher, Shaw, and colleagues.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98, 389–405.
GRABOSKY, P. N. (1995). Trends and issues in crime and criminal
justice: No. 44 Fear of crime and fear reduction strategies.
Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
GROMKO, J. E., & POORMAN, A. S. (1998). Developmental trends
and relationships in children’s aural perception and symbol
use. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 16–23.
HALLAM, S. (2000). The effects of listening to music on children’s
spatial task performance. British Psychological Society
Education Review, 25(2), 22–26.
HALLAM, S., PRICE, J., & KATSAROU, G. (2002). The effects of
background music on primary school pupils’ task
performance. Educational Studies, 28, 111–122.
HARGREAVES, D. J., COMBER, C., & COLLEY, A. (1995). Effects of
age, gender, and training on musical preferences of British
secondary school students. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 43, 242–250.
HARGREAVES, D. J., & NORTH, A. C. (March, 1997). The
development of musical preference across the life span. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago.
HASSLER, M., BIRBAUMER, N., & FEIL, A. (1985). Musical talent
and visuo-spatial ability: A longitudinal study. Psychology of
Music, 13, 99–113.
HASSLER, M., BIRBAUMER, N., & FEIL, A. (1987). Musical talent
and visuo-spatial ability: Onset of puberty. Psychology of
Music, 15, 141–151.
HETLAND, L. (2000a). Learning to make music enhances spatial
reasoning. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3–4), 179–238.
HETLAND, L. (2000b). Listening to music enhances spatialtemporal
reasoning: Evidence for the “Mozart effect.” Journal
of Aesthetic Education, 34(3–4), 105–148.
HUGHES, G., MCLAUGHLIN, E., & MUNCIE, J. (2002). Crime
prevention and community safety: Future directions. London: Sage.
HUGHES, J. R., DAABOUL, Y., FINO, J. J., & SHAW, G. L. (1998). The
Mozart effect on epileptiform activity. Clinical
Electroencephalography, 29, 109–119.
HUSAIN, G., THOMPSON, W. F., & SCHELLENBERG, E. G. (2002).
Effects of musical tempo and mode on arousal, mood, and
spatial abilities. Music Perception, 20, 151–171.
No Evidence for the Mozart Effect in Children 315
References
ISEN, A. M. (2002). A role for neuropsychology in
understanding the facilitating influence of positive affect on
social behaviour and cognitive processes. In C. R. Snyder &
S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology.
(pp. 528–540). New York: Oxford University Press.
IVANOV, V. K., & GEAKE, J. G. (2003). The Mozart effect and
primary school children. Psychology of Music, 31, 405–413.
IZARD, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
IZARD, C. E., DOUGHERTY, F. E., BLOXOM, B. M., & KOTSCH, W. E.
(1974). The differential emotions scale: A method of measuring
the subjective experience of discrete emotions. Unpublished
manuscript, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.
JOHNSTON, D. (2000). Cool Edit 2000 [Computer software].
Phoenix, AZ: Syntrillium Software.
KARMA, K. (1979). Musical, spatial and verbal abilities. Bulletin
of the Council for Research in Music Education, 59, 50–53.
KLINGBERG, T., FORSSBERG, H., & WESTERBERG, H. (2002).
Increased brain activity in frontal and parietal cortex
underlies the development of visuospatial working memory
capacity during childhood. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
14, 1–10.
LAMBE, E. K., KRIMER, L. S., & GOLDMAN-RAKIC, P. S. (2000).
Differential postnatal development of catecholamine and
serotonin inputs to identified neurons in prefrontal cortex of
rhesus monkey. Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 8780–8787.
LCD. (1998). Zorba’s dance [CD]. London: Virgin.
LEBLANC, A., SIMS, W., SIIVOLA, C., & OBERT, M. (1996). Music
style preferences of different age listeners. Journal of Research
in Music Education, 44, 49–59.
LENG, X., & SHAW, G. L. (1991). Towards a neural theory of
higher brain function using music as a window. Concepts in
Neuroscience, 2, 229–258.
LYNN, R., WILSON, R. G., & GAULT, A. (1989). Simple musical
tests as measures of Spearman’s g. Personality and Individual
Differences, 10, 25–28.
MANLY, T., ANDERSON, V., NIMMO-SMITH, I., TURNER, A.,
WATSON, P., & ROBERTSON, I. H. (2001). The differential
assessment of children’s attention: The test of everyday
attention for children (TEA-Ch), normative sample and
ADHD performance. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 42, 1065–1081.
MANSTEAD, A. S. R. (1993). Children’s representation of
emotions. In C. Pratt & A. F. Garton (Eds.), Systems of
representation in children: Development and use (pp.
185–210). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
MANTURZEWSKA, M. (1978). Psychology in the music school.
Psychology of Music, 6, 36–47.
MCKELVIE, P., & LOW, J. (2002). Listening to Mozart does not
improve children’s spatial ability: Final curtains for the
Mozart effect. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20,
241–258.
MOZART, W. A. (1985). Sonata for two pianos in D major, K. 448
[Recorded by M. Perahia & R. Lupu]. On Music for piano,
four hands [CD]. London: Sony Classical. (1992)
NELSON, D. J., & BARRESSI, A. L. (1989). Children’s age-related
intellectual strategies for dealing with musical and spatial
analogical tasks. Journal of Research in Music Education, 37,
93–103.
O’HANLON, J. F. (1981). Boredom: Practical consequences and a
theory. Acta Psychologica, 49, 53–82.
PORTEOUS, S. D. (1973). Porteous maze test: Fifty years’
application. Palo Alto, CA: Pacific Books.
RAUSCHER, F. H. (1999). Music exposure and the development of
spatial intelligence in children. Bulletin of the Council for
Research in Music Education, 142, 35–47.
RAUSCHER, F. H., ROBINSON, K. D., & JENS, J. J. (1998). Improved
maze learning through early music exposure in rats.
Neurological Research, 20, 427–432.
RAUSCHER, F. H., & SHAW, G. L. (1998). Key components
of the Mozart effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86,
835–841.
RAUSCHER, F. H., SHAW, G. L., & KY, K. N. (1993). Music and
spatial task performance. Nature, 365, 611.
RAUSCHER, F. H., SHAW, G. L., & KY, K. N. (1995). Listening
to Mozart enhances spatial-temporal reasoning: Towards
a neurophysiological basis. Neuroscience Letters,
185, 44–47.
REY, A. (1941). L’examen psychologique dans les cas
d’encephalopathie traumatique [Psychological examination of
traumatic encephalopathy]. Archives de Psychologie, 28,
286–340.
SCHELLENBERG, E. G. (2001). Music and nonmusical abilities.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 930,
355–371.
SCHMIDT, L. A., & TRAINOR, L. J. (2001). Frontal brain
electrical activity (EEG) distinguishes valence and intensity
of musical emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 15,
487–500.
SHAW, G. L. (2000). Keeping Mozart in mind. San Diego:
Academic Press.
SHAW, G. L. (2001). The Mozart effect [Letter to the editor].
Epilepsy and Behavior, 2, 611–613.
SLOBODA, J. A., & JUSLIN, P. N. (2001). Psychological perspectives
on music and emotion. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.),
Music and emotion: Theory and research (pp. 71–104). New
York: Oxford University Press.
STEELE, K. M., BASS, K. E., & CROOK, M. D. (1999). The mystery
of the Mozart effect: Failure to replicate. Psychological Science,
10, 366–369.
STEELE, K. M., DALLA BELLA, S., PERETZ, I., DUNLOP, T.,
DAWE, L. A., HUMPHREY, G. K., et al. (1999). Prelude or
requiem for the Mozart effect? Nature, 402, 827.
316 R. Cˇrncˇec, S. J. Wilson, and M. Prior
THOMPSON, W. F., SCHELLENBERG, E. G., & HUSAIN, G. (2001).
Arousal, mood, and the Mozart effect. Psychological Science,
12, 248–251.
THORNDIKE, R. L., HAGEN, E. P., & SATTLER, J. M. (1986). The
Stanford-Binet intelligence scale (4th ed.). Chicago: Riverside.
TREHUB, S. E. (2002). Mothers are musical mentors. Zero to
Three, 23(1), 19–22.
TREVARTHEN, C., & MALLOCH, S. (2002). Musicality and music
before three: Human vitality and invention shared with pride.
Zero to Three, 23(1), 10–18.
VANDENBERG, S. G., & KUSE, A. R. (1978). Mental
rotations, a group test of three-dimensional spatial
visualization. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 47, 599–604.
YERKES, R. M., & DODSON, J. D. (1908). The relation of
strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit formation.
Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology,
18, 459–482.
No Evidence for the Mozart Effect in Children 317
--
Treat everyone the same until you find out they're an idiot. http://www.last.fm/user/daray