The Truth Behind the Mozart Effect

Dominick Trombetta

FND 196- Sound, Music, & Science

October 28, 2008
Prof. Levine
 Imagine that just listening to classical music could boost a person’s intelligence. In
the scientific journal Nature, Rauscher et al. revealed the surprising result that listening
to Mozart improves one’s spatial reasoning skills, at least for a brief period of time.1
Three groups of students were given three variable listening conditions. The first group
listened to Mozart’s Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major, the second group listened to an
instructional relaxation tape, and the third group, the control, listened to nothing.
Afterwards, each subject in each group took an abstract reasoning test taken from the
Stanford-Binet intelligence scale. The group that listened to Mozart before the test
performed considerably better than the other two groups that listened either to a
relaxation tape or silence. The performances were translated to equivalent spatial IQ
points, and the Mozart group scored 8-9 points higher than the other two groups.2 The
result that came from the improved performance became known as the Mozart effect.
Rauscher et al. also presented limiting conditions for the effect; it is ephemeral, and it is
also unknown to facilitate other measures of intelligence. Despite Rauscher’s limiting
conditions for the temporal effect, the idea of improved performance due to classical
music became overgeneralized. The general public assumed that the experiment
implicated that if one listens to classical music, even neonates, then ones intelligence will
rise. Even the original idea of an ephemeral enhancement has its supporters and
detractors. Some have replicated the Mozart effect, while other scientists cannot find
consistent results to agree with the existence of such an effect.
In 2001, Thompson et al. decided to attempt to replicate the better performance
implicated by the Mozart effect. Moreover, they researched the importance of mood and
arousal that led to the improved scores. The three listening selections that were used were
Mozart’s Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major, Albinoni’s Adagio in G Minor for Organ
and Strings, and silence. Each participant either listened to one of the music selections or
silence first, and then listened to the other choice one week later. Before either listening
condition, the participants completed the Profile of Mood States (POMS) test and also a
global rating of mood and arousal. The POMS test utilizes different sets of adjectives to

1
Frances H. Rauscher, Gordon L. Shaw, and Katherine N. Ky, "Music and Spatial Task
Performance," Nature 365 (1993): 611.

2
Rauscher 611.

2
describe one’s mood and arousal state. After the listening experience, the person
completed the Paper Folding & Cutting subtest from the Stanford-Binet intelligence test.
Then, each person again took the POMS test and gave a global rating to comparatively
assess mood and arousal. Each person returned one week later to perform the same
protocol, except with the opposite listening condition; i.e, if music was played the first
time, now silence is used.3 According to Thompson et al., “Participants performed better
on a test of spatial abilities after listening to a Mozart sonata than after sitting in silence.”4
In contrast, the Albinoni music sample, which is characterized as slow and solemn,
produced no noticeable effect. The control, silence, was as effective as using the Albinoni
sample. Likewise, participants that listened to the Mozart sample scored higher on
positive mood and arousal on the POMS and global scale as opposed to those who
listened to Albinoni. Therefore, Thompson et. al concluded that, “Our results provide the
only direct support…that the short-term effects of listening to Mozart on spatial ability
are an artifact of arousal and mood.”5 Therefore, the music provided temporary
enhancement of temporal skills. This improvement is due to positive mood and arousal
that are both associated with listening to Mozart.6
Rauscher et al. replicated the success of their seminal first experiment in 1994,
proving once again that listening to Mozart provides a boost in spatial abilities. They
divided 79 students into three groups that participated for five days. One group listened to
silence, another group listened to Mozart, and the third group listened to a variety of
musical selections. On each day, after each group had listened to their selection, the
individual participants took Paper Folding & Cutting tests, since they fall into the group
of spatial-temporal pattern development. Rauscher et al. found that, “…in addition to
reproducing the original findings of the Mozart enhancement with respect to silence, this

3
William F. Thompson, E. G. Schellenberg, and Gabriela Husain, "Arousal, Mood, and
the Mozart Effect," Psychological Science 12 (2001): 248-49.

4
Thompson 249.

5
Thompson 250.

6
Thompson 251.

3
showed that repetitive music produced no enhancement of spatial-temporal reasoning.”7
Thus, large improvements in ability over silence and other music are demonstrated. Since
the Philip Glass piece used in the third group’s procedure did not enhance performance, it
demonstrates that it is not just any music that causes the Mozart effect. Rauscher et al.
developed several hypotheses after the success of the replication. It is possible that the
same neurons that carry nerve impulses to parts of the brain are primed during music
listening so that performance is enhanced during spatial tasks. The firing patterns for
impulses are rallied during listening to a complex music, so that a task in the right
hemisphere such as spatial reasoning is made easier.8 This idea would agree with the
result that the complex Mozart sonata boosts performance over Glass’ minimalist,
repetitive piece. Both Thompson and Rauscher managed to replicate the success of the
original in showing that the Mozart effect, although limited in nature, is true.
Although several others besides Thompson and Rauscher had managed to replicate
the original findings, many scientists have not been able to prove the Mozart effect.
McCutcheon is one researcher who not only failed to replicate the experiment, but also
found evidence to the contrary of the original. McCutcheon used six different conditions
involving two different spatial tasks from the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery and
three listening conditions. The first sample consisted of three jazz pieces by Thelonious
Monk, the second sample consisted of the fourth movement of Antonin Dvorak’s opus
87, and the third condition consisted of silence. After ten minutes of listening, for
duration slightly shorter than the original, each participant completed one of the spatial
tasks. Age adjustment and spatial task reanalysis were used to make the experiment
unbiased and as close to the original as possible.9 The difficulty between the two tasks
and the order of protocol were determined to have no effect on the final results.
According to McCutcheon, “In light of…the effort to adhere to conditions deemed
7

Frances H. Rauscher, Gordon L. Shaw, and Katherine N. Ky, "Listening to Mozart

Enhances Spatial-Temporal Reasoning: Towards a Neurophysiological Basis,"
Neuroscience Letters 185 (1995): 46.

8
Rauscher 47.
9
Lynn E. McCutcheon, "Another Failure to Generalize the Mozart Effect,"
Psychological Reports 87 (2000): 326-328.

4
important for producing a Mozart effect, the finding of no significant difference in
listening conditions…is disappointing.”10 Also, contrary to the original result, “Higher
task scores were associated with the silence condition, not the music condition.”11
McCutcheon called into question the possible complexity of the music, and the
effectiveness of the spatial tasks, but decided that the effect may just apply to only a few
pieces of music, and under extremely specific criteria. Therefore, the original effect may
be nothing but the product of very specific items for a temporal period.
Steele et al. also reported that despite following the pre-conditions of the first
experiment, no significant difference was found between the listening conditions. The 36
students were divided into three groups. One group listened to Mozart’s Sonata for Two
Pianos in D Major, the second group listened to an environmental sounds piece with
gentle rain showers, and the last group listened to silence. After listening for ten minutes,
each participant listened to nine digits with two-second intervals between each. Then,
each subject had to recall the digits in reverse order.12 The Mozart group did not have a
significant improvement in performance. The backwards digit span task should have
produced the same results as Rauscher’s first experiment, since it is also a spatial task
which requires mental manipulation.13 According to Steele, “There seems to be some
important methodological difference between Rauscher et al.’s work and that of other
experimenters that has not yet been elucidated. The nature of this difference constitutes a
puzzle since the experimental design seems straightforward.”14 Steele, along with many
other researchers, was puzzled about how such a simple experiment could not be
replicated with very small variations. Steele used the exact same Mozart sonata, and only
varied the kind of spatial task that needed to be performed. If the Mozart effect is to be
generalized, then the experiments need to be more general in terms of classical piece and
spatial task.15
The Mozart effect has proven itself to be quite an elusive phenomenon. Many
10
McCutcheon 329.
11
McCutcheon 329.
12
Kenneth M. Steele, Tamera N. Ball, and Rebecca Runk, "Listening to Mozart Does Not
Enhance Backwards Digit Span Performance," Thesis, Appalachian State University,
27 Oct. 2008 <http://www1.appstate.edu/~kms/classes/psy2664/modelpaper.pdf>.
13
Steele.
14
Steele.
15
Steele.

5
scientists besides the original group have been able to replicate the experiment yet others
with even slight variations have found no difference, or even contrary results. The Mozart
effect needs to be fully replicated before it can be truly appreciated for boosting spatial
IQ. The fad that swept the nation seemed to do nothing except raise sales of classical
music, and create false illusions about how influential the music is. The Baby Einstein
series was devised to capitalize on the public success of the effect. However, for the
present time, it is just an effect, and certainly not a theory.

6
 Works Cited

McCutcheon, Lynn E. "Another Failure to Generalize the Mozart Effect."

Psychological Reports 87 (2000): 325-330.

Rauscher, Frances H., Gordon L. Shaw, and Katherine N. Ky. "Listening to Mozart
Enhances Spatial-Temporal Reasoning: Towards a Neurophysiological Basis."
Neuroscience Letters 185 (1995): 44-47.

Rauscher, Frances H., Gordon L. Shaw, and Katherine N. Ky. "Music and Spatial Task
Performance." Nature 365 (1993): 611-11.

Steele, Kenneth M., Tamera N. Ball, and Rebecca Runk. "Listening to Mozart Does Not
Enhance Backwards Digit Span Performance." Thesis. Appalachian State University.
27 Oct. 2008 <http://www1.appstate.edu/~kms/classes/psy2664/modelpaper.pdf>.

Thompson, William F., E. G. Schellenberg, and Gabriela Husain. "Arousal, Mood, and
the Mozart Effect." Psychological Science 12 (2001): 248-51.