Seminal evidence for the Mozart effect was presented by Rauscher, Shaw, and colleagues in 1993 and 1994. A critical evaluation of their methodologies and interpretation of findings raises questions that must be answered before this evidence can be regarded as valid. We discuss issues such as their scoring of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, the experimental design used in their 1993 study, the validity of their 1993 IQ measure, the duration of the Mozart effect, their choice of experimental tasks in relation to predictions of the trion model of neural functioning, and the statistical analyses and interpretation of results in the 1993 and 1994 studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CarstensC. B.HuskinsE., & HounshellG. W. (1995) Listening to Mozart may not enhance performance on the Revised Minnesota Paper Form Board Test. Psychological Reports, 77, 111–114.
2.
ChabrisC. F. (1998) IQ since “The bell curve”. Commentary, 106(2), 33–40.
3.
ChabrisC. F. (1999) Prelude or requiem for the ‘Mozart effect’?Nature, 400, 826–827.
4.
HowellD. C. (2002) Statistical methods for psychology. (5th ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury.
5.
HughesJ. R.DaaboulY.FinoJ. J., & ShawG. L. (1998) The “Mozart effect” on epileptiform activity. Clinical Electroencephalography, 29, 109–119.
6.
JohnsonJ. K.CotmanC. W.TasakiC. S., & ShawG. L. (1998) Enhancement of spatial-temporal reasoning after a Mozart listening condition in Alzheimer's disease: A case study. Neurological Research, 20, 666–672.
7.
LengX., & ShawG. L. (1991) Toward a neural theory of higher brain function using music as a window. Concepts in Neuroscience, 2, 229–258.
8.
McKelvieP., & LowJ. (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.
9.
NewmanJ.RosenbachJ. H.BurnsK. L.LatimerB. C.MatochaH. R., & VogtE. R. (1995) An experimental test of “the Mozart effect”: Does listening to his music improve spatial ability?Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 1379–1387.
10.
RauscherF. H. (1999) Rauscher replies. Nature, 400, 827–828.
11.
RauscherF. H., & ShawG. L. (1998) Key components of the Mozart effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 835–841.
12.
RauscherF. H.ShawG. L., & KyK. N. (1993) Music and spatial task performance. Nature, 365, 611.
13.
RauscherF. H.ShawG. L., & KyK. N. (1995) Listening to Mozart enhances spatial-temporal reasoning: Towards a neurophysiological basis. Neuroscience Letters, 185, 44–47.
14.
RauscherF. H.ShawG. L.LevineL. J.KyK. N., & WrightE. L. (1994) Music and spatial task performance: A causal relationship. Presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association,Los Angeles, CA.
15.
ShawG. L. (2000) Keeping Mozart in mind.San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
16.
SteeleK. M. (1998) In C. F. Chabris & Critics, Does IQ matter? Commentary, 106(5), 13–23.
17.
SteeleK. M. (2001) The “Mozart effect”: An example of the scientific method in operation. Psychology Teacher Network, 11, 2–5.
18.
SteeleK. M.BallT. N., & RunkR. (1997) Listening to Mozart does not enhance backwards digit span performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 1179–1184.
19.
SteeleK. M.BassK. E., & CrookM. D. (1999) The mystery of the Mozart effect: Failure to replicate. Psychological Science, 10, 366–369.
20.
SteeleK. M.BrownJ. D., & StoeckerJ. A. (1999) Failure to confirm the Rauscher and Shaw description of recovery of the Mozart effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 843–848.
21.
StoughC.KerkinB.BatesT., & ManganG. (1994) Music and spatial IQ. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 695.
22.
ThorndikeR. L.HagenE. P., & SattlerJ. M. (1986) The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: Guide for administering and scoring. (4th ed.) Chicago, IL: Riverside.
23.
ThorndikeR. M. (1997) Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education. (6th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
