Mozart effect

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Mozart effect is a scientific hypothesis according to which, after listening to a certain piece by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Sonata in D major for two pianos, KV 448), a temporary increase in performance in visual-spatial processing should occur. In a broader sense, the Mozart effect is understood to mean all possible types of cognitive performance enhancement that can be attributed to exposure to music by Mozart, or to classical music in general.

The concept of the Mozart effect was first introduced by the French researcher Alfred A. Tomatis in his book Pourquoi Mozart? (1991). The hypothesis goes back to research at the University of California, Irvine , the results of which were published in 1993 in the renowned journal Nature . The name "Mozart Effect" originated in journalistic coverage of the study and was later patented by Don Campbell.

Because of the weaknesses recognized in the first experiment and insufficient replication, the Mozart effect is considered non-existent in science.

Scientific debate on the Mozart effect

The scientific debate regarding the existence of the Mozart effect in the narrower sense, as well as a possible effect in the broader sense, was controversial. Since 1993 representatives of the following theses have been found.

  • (1) There is no Mozart effect.
  • (2) There is an effect that is neither specifically for classical music or music in general, nor specifically for the quality of the visual-spatial processing or cognitive abilities in general. The arousal-mood hypothesis states: positive mood and arousal are the factors that lead to a "Mozarte effect". An actual “Mozart” effect is neither theoretically nor practically relevant.
  • (3) There is a specific, theoretically and practically relevant Mozart effect.

The baseline study and its background

The basis for the assumption of the Mozart effect was an article by the research group led by Frances Rauscher from the Center for Neurobiology of Learning and Memory at the University of California, Irvine, in which an experiment was reported in which 36 students in a so-called repeated measurement design in three sessions each:

  • (1) listened to Mozart's Sonata in D major for two pianos (KV 448),
  • (2) listened to a recording of relaxation instructions
  • (3) Spent 10 minutes in silence.

In each session, they then worked on a series of tasks measuring visuospatial processing ability from the Stanford-Binet intelligence test . According to the authors of the article, the participants showed after listening to the Mozart piece, a visual-spatial processing performance, their performance after listening to relaxation instructions and after the silence around the equivalent of "8" (relaxation) and "9" (silence) IQ - Exceeded points.

The brevity of the original article was due to the fact that many questions about the study design and the theoretical assumptions behind the study remained open after its publication (Schellenberg, 2012). As the authors made clear in a later publication (Rauscher, Shaw & Ky, 1995), the study was based on specific neurological assumptions from the so-called Trion model . However, due to the exclusion of any theoretical assumptions in the original article, the subsequent scientific debate dealt very little with the original underlying assumptions and more with whether the effect found by the authors can be replicated in subsequent studies . An exception are Glenn Schellenberg and Lynn Waterhouse, who understand and discuss the theoretical background of the original study derived from the Trion model as a kind of priming effect. According to Schellenberg, the assumption of a priming effect over areas that are not directly connected to one another (music, spatial processing) conflicts with the existing research literature, according to which a priming effect is to be expected primarily with closely related stimuli. Waterhouse emphasizes that the assumptions are in contradiction to previous findings from the research literature on learning, but she does not want to rule out the existence of a priming effect as assumed in the original work. She refers to a study by Koelsch, Kasper, Collector, Schulze, Gunter & Friederici (2004) and argues that a priming effect of music on spatial processing can be possible, provided there is an overlap between the neural circuits.

Criticism was raised of the design of the original study, for example, according to Schellenberg, it is unclear whether the order in which the participants went through the conditions of music, relaxation and silence and the order in which the three different groups of intelligence test items were presented were counterbalanced to control the effects of exercise, fatigue and frustration.

Media reception

Rauscher's study in abbreviated form quickly found its way into American newspapers and educational policy. The authors of the original study emphasized that the increase in performance only lasted 10–15 minutes. They referred to further tests needed to see whether the increase in performance for other cognitive abilities and other music can be observed. The New York Times announced that Mozart had now overtaken Beethoven because Mozart's music made more intelligent. In 1998, the then governor of Georgia arranged for every mother of a newborn to receive a classic CD free of charge to increase her child's intelligence. US psychologists, however, have the “Mozart Effect” at number six on the charts of the greatest myths in popular psychology (first place: the idea that we only use ten percent of our brains). In Florida it was passed by law that one hour of classical music should be listened to in public kindergartens. The Mozart Effect came on the shelves with numerous Mozart Effect CDs. Don Campbell contributed to the popularity with the popular science book. The descriptive title was Mozart Effect: Tapping the Power of Music to Heal the Body, Strengthen the Mind and Unlock the Creative Spirit . Don Campbell applied for a patent for the term “Mozart Effect”. "The Mozart effect only exists in the imagination - even if more than 80 percent of Americans believe in it."

Follow-up studies

As research by Schellenberg shows, many articles on the topic were published in the years after the original study was published, although in his opinion a trend is emerging that the quality of the scientific journals in which studies on the Mozart effect appeared decreased over time. An early important article expressing strong skepticism about the Mozart Effect came from Steele, Dalla Bella, Peretz, Dunlop, Dawe, Humphrey, Shannon, Kirby, and Olmstead (1999). They tried to replicate the original study results from Rauscher exactly according to their own instructions, but found no statistically significant Mozart effect.

The numerous other studies have revealed findings that are of mixed nature. Some studies were able to replicate a Mozart effect and others couldn't. In addition, individual studies have shown an effect on other cognitive abilities: as in 2007 by Schellenberg, Nakata & Hunter on creativity. There are studies that report effects from other pieces of music (such as 'Schubert-Effekt' by Nantais and Schellenberg, 1999) and others do not.

Meta-analyzes

Since the publication of Rauscher's article in 1993, meta-analyzes on the Mozart effect have also been published, which have come to conclusions that correspond to the three theses characterized at the beginning.

  • As early as 1999, the Harvard psychologist Christopher Chabris presented a meta-analysis of 16 studies with the result that the Mozart effect only brought about a small, temporary improvement, which can simply be explained by an increased level of arousal . Arousal describes the state of excitement that, according to Chabris, would occur in the right brain hemisphere and, in combination with the good mood, could make it easier to solve spatial tasks due to music that is perceived as pleasant. a simple explanation for the supposed Mozart phenomenon is presented. Listening to pleasant music can excite the right hemisphere of the brain, he reported in the journal "Nature", and thus make it easier to solve difficult spatial thinking tasks. Because the right hemisphere is also entrusted with these.
  • In 2000, however, Hetland concluded from the meta-analytical summary of the relevant studies he had identified that there was a robust, moderate Mozart effect on spatial processing ability (especially tasks of mental rotation).
  • A research team led by Jakob Pietschnig examined 36 studies with 3,000 participants and, based on their own meta-analytical results, argued that there was no evidence for the existence of a “specific” Mozart effect.

Criticism of the research on the Mozart effect

Howard, Lau, Maxwell, Venter, Lundy and Sweeny (2009) as well as Sweeney (2007) criticize the research on the Mozart effect, which in their opinion is particularly distorted by the publication bias . Using a simulation, Sweeney (2007) tried to illustrate that meta-analyzes that want to integrate the existing research literature on the Mozart effect with new studies would be very little influenced by new, negative findings due to the existing bias, and that simply carrying out further studies on the subject and its meta-analytical summary will probably not lead to the question of the existence of the Mozart effect being clarified.

The arousal-and-mood hypothesis as an alternative explanation

Schellenberg and Chabris (1999) offer an alternative explanation for the Mozart Effect: According to them, the positive evidence for the Mozart effect is a mediation due, in a more optimal state of arousal (music Arousal causes) and a more positive mood, which in turn cause the observed increase in performance. The Mozart effect would thus, according to the 2nd (above) thesis , not be specific and consequently would not add anything new to the existing literature on the subject. However, it does not explain why many studies have found no effect. It would also pose a problem for the arousal-and-mood hypothesis if it were to prove that the Mozart effect was limited to visual-spatial processing. “Mozart effects” on creativity and processing speed could be shown and Pietschnig also speak out in favor of an unspecific effect, further research would be necessary for the specific clarification of the Mozart effect.

Conclusion

The evidence is insufficient to establish a connection between listening to (exclusively) Mozart's music and improving performance.

“Making music promotes creativity, but does not increase intelligence. Nevertheless, there are good reasons to teach children to make music. "

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c Don G. Campbell: The Mozart effect: tapping the power of music to heal the body, strengthen the mind, and unlock the creative spirit . 1st ed. Avon Books, New York 1997.
  2. ^ Frances H. Rauscher, Gordon L. Shaw, Katherine N. Ky: Music and spatial task performance. In: Nature . tape 365 , 1993, pp. 611 .
  3. ↑ Sarah Nünemann and coworkers: Hear yourself smart! , University of Göttingen, Institute for Psychology, Experimental Psychology, winter semester 2011/2012.
  4. ^ William Forde Thompson, E. Glenn Schellenberg, Gabriela Husain: Arousal, Mood, and The Mozart Effect . In: Psychological Science . tape 12 , no. 3 , 2001, ISSN  0956-7976 , p. 248-251 , doi : 10.1111 / 1467-9280.00345 ( sagepub.com [accessed September 18, 2019]).
  5. ^ A b c d Glenn Schellenberg: Cognitive Performance After Listening to Music: A Review of the Mozart Effect. In: Raymond MacDonald, Gunter Kreutz, Laura Mitchell (Eds.): Music, Health, and Wellbeing . Oxford: University Press, 2012 ( google.de [accessed September 18, 2019]).
  6. ↑ Frances H. Rauscher, Gordon L. Shaw, Katherine N. Ky: Listening to Mozart enhances spatial-temporal reasoning: towards a neurophysiological basis. In: Neuroscience Letters . tape 185 , 1995, pp. 44-47 .
  7. ^ E. Glenn Schellenberg: Music and Cognitive Abilities . In: Current Directions in Psychological Science . tape 14 , no. 6 , December 1, 2005, ISSN  0963-7214 , p. 317-320 ( sagepub.com [accessed September 18, 2019]).
  8. ^ Lynn Waterhouse: Multiple Intelligences, the Mozart Effect, and Emotional Intelligence: A Critical Review . In: Educational Psychologist . tape 41 , no. 4 , December 2006, ISSN  0046-1520 , p. 207–225 ( tandfonline.com [accessed September 18, 2019]).
  9. ↑ Stefan Koelsch, Elisabeth Kasper, Daniela Collector, Katrin Schulze, Thomas Gunter, Angela D. Friederici: Music, language and meaning: brain signatures of semantic processing. In: Nature Neuroscience . tape 7 , p. 302-307 .
  10. ↑ Classical music only promotes intelligence for a short time - and no more than other art enjoyment . In: Die Presse , Vienna, May 5, 2010.
  11. ↑ a b Music by Mozart doesn't make you smarter . In: Der Tagesspiegel , December 13, 2013
  12. ↑ Kenneth M. Steele, Simone Dalla Bella, Isabelle Peretz, Tracey Dunlop, Lloyd A. Dawe, G. Keith Humphrey, Roberta A. Shannon, Johnny L. Kirby, CG Olmstead: Prelude or requiem for the 'Mozart effect'? In: Nature . tape 400 , 1999, pp. 827 .
  13. ↑ a b E. Glenn Schellenberg, Takayuki Nakata, Patrick G. Hunter, Sachiko Tamoto: Exposure to music and cognitive performance: tests of children and adults . In: Psychology of Music . tape 35 , no. 1 , January 1, 2007, ISSN  0305-7356 , p. 5-19 , doi : 10.1177 / 0305735607068885 ( sagepub.com [accessed September 18, 2019]).
  14. ^ Kristin M. Nantais, E. Glenn Schellenberg: The Mozart Effect: An Artifact of Preference . In: Psychological Science . tape 10 , no. 4 , July 1, 1999, ISSN  0956-7976 , p. 370–373 , doi : 10.1111 / 1467-9280.00170 ( sagepub.com [accessed September 18, 2019]).
  15. ↑ Hartmut Wewetzer: Music by Mozart doesn't make you smarter . In: Der Tagesspiegel, December 13, 2013
  16. ^ L. Hetland: Listening to music enhances spatial-temporal reasoning: evidence for the Mozart effect. In: Journal of Aestethic Education . tape 34 , 2000, pp. 105-148 .
  17. ↑ a b Jacob Pietschnig, M. Voracek, AK Formann: Mozart Effect Shmozart Effect: A meta-analysis . In: Intelligence . tape 38 , 2010, p. 314-323 .
  18. ↑ Christoph Drösser: Music doesn't make you smart per se . In: swr3 , September 26, 2019: “Glenn Schellenberg is a respected music researcher who exposed the so-called Mozart effect to be nonsense 20 years ago. The Canadian psychologist and composer has been fighting for years against exaggerated claims that music lessons promote other skills such as intelligence, a feeling for language or mathematical thinking. "

literature

  • Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Ed.): Does Mozart Smart? The promotion of cognitive skills through music . Educational Research Volume 18, Bonn and Berlin 2006. PDF
  • Tanja Gabriele Baudson : Does classical music make you smart? - Why listening to Mozart is not enough . In: MinD-Magazin, 97, December 2013.
  • Catherine S. Jackson, Michael Tlauka: Route-learning and the Mozart effect . In: Psychology of Music 32. 2004,2. Pp. 213-220.
  • Peter Markl: But no requiem for the “Mozart Effect” yet? In: Austrian music magazine 61. 2006,1 / 2. Pp. 38-47.
  • Frances H. Rauscher: Prelude or requiem for the Mozart effect? . In: Nature Vol. 400, August 26, 1999, pp. 827-828.
  • Eduard Glenn Schellenberg: Long-term positive associations between music lessons and IQ . In: Journal of Educational Psychology, 98 (2006) 457-468.

Web links