The Effect of Background Music and Reading Comprehension and

Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2010

The Effect of Background Music on

Reading Comprehension and Self-Report of

College Students

Amanda Gillis

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERITY

COLLEGE OF MUSIC

THE EFFECT OF BACKGROUND MUSIC ON READING COMPREHENSION AND

SELF-REPORT OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

AMANDA GILLIS

A Thesis submitted to the

College of Music

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements of the degree of

Master of Music.

Degree Awarded:

Summer Semester, 2010

ii!

The members of the committee approve the thesis of Amanda Gillis defended on

July 8, 2010.

__________________________________

Jayne Standley

Professor Directing Thesis

__________________________________

Dianne Gregory

Committee Member

__________________________________

Alice-Ann Darrow

Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee

members.

iii!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ..........................................................................................

................

List of Figures ........................................................................

Abstract...................................................................................

1. Introduction.........................................................................

2. Review of Literature ..........................................................

3. Method ................................................................................

4. Results.................................................................................

5. Discussion...........................................................................

APPENDICES ........................................................................

A. Demographic Questionnaire .........................................

B. Music Questionnaire .....................................................

C. Health Article ................................................................

D. Reading Comprehension Test .......................................

E. Human Subjects Committee Approval Letter ...............

F. Consent Form ................................................................

REFERENCES .......................................................................

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..................................................

................

iv!

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Participants’ Demographics......................................................

Table 2: Analysis of Variance.................................................................

Table 3: Music Recognition....................................................................

Table 4: Ability to List Title ...................................................................

Table 5: Music Interference with Reading..............................................

................

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Mean Number of Reading Comprehension Questions Completed

Correctly by Group ................................................................................. 15

Figure 2: Elements of Music Interference .............................................. 17 !

vi!

ABSTRACT

The study investigated the effects of background music on reading comprehension

skills of college students. Seventy-one participants read a health related article in one of

three conditions: silence, music with lyrics, and music without lyrics. After reading the

article, participants completed a demographic questionnaire. Participants in the music

conditions completed an additional music questionnaire. To test reading comprehension,

participants were asked to answer five multiple choice and five true/false questions

pertaining to the reading. It was hypothesized that participants in the silence condition

would perform better than participants in the music condition. Results indicated that there

were no significant differences among groups

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The presence of music is more prevalent now than ever before in history. Not

only is music an art form for enjoyment, it also serves psychological (Lin, Hsu, Chang,

Hsu, Chou, & Crawford, 2009), behavioural (Hallam & Price), cognitive (Furnham,

Trew, & Sneade, 1999), and emotional functions (Cevasco, 2008). !

To date, the effects of background music have been of interest to various groups

of researchers including psychologists, therapists, and clinicians. Applied psychologists

are interested in how music increases or decreases productivity; cognitive psychologists,

in how music effects attention and processing information during various tasks; and

personality theorists in individual differences in the presence of music while performing

task.

Furnham and Bradley (1997) discovered the particular effects of music are

unpredictable due to various forms of individual experiences associated with specific

music. Although there is a generalization among listeners in our response to stimulating

or relaxing music, individuals experience associations related to particular song or genre

with a past event that may potentially elicit memorable feelings of happiness or sadness.

In the western world, music is available via television, radio, video, recordings,

and also as background music in public places such as shops and hospitals. With such

abundance of music, the need to understand how music affects both our cognition and

change in behavior is universal. Researchers examined the link between stereo headset

use and employee work responses. Results indicated that those in the stereo headset

condition significantly improved their work performance and mood (Oldham, Cumming

Mischel, Schmidtke, & Zhou, 1995). Little is known about the exposure of music with

regard to its effect on children. Given the fact that music is widespread within western

society, we might expect their exposure to be significant. However, we do know that

during adolescent years, music becomes important with teens listening to music

approximately 3 hours a day. North and colleagues found that listening to music was

preferred to other indoor activities such as doing homework, talking with parents, or

reading (North, Hargreaves, & O’Neill, 2000). Studies have also shown that most

studying in the home occurs under music conditions. In a home study survey of 387

students, Patton and colleagues found that most students chose quiet settings to perform

reading assignments, whereas math and written work were completed in the presence of

radio, stereo, or television. Overall, television was a moderate distracter and students

considered radio and stereo as beneficial (Patton, Stinard, & Routh, 1983). Many other

surveys have concluded that students combine homework and studying with listening to

the radio or watching television. Researchers have discovered that 80 % of high school

students do homework while listening to the radio whiled 50 % do homework while

watching television. In general, students have perceived a decrease in performance on

learning assignments in the presence of background media, but an increase of

performance on paper and pencil assignments (Beentjes, Koolstra, & van der Voort,

1996). With research of the aforementioned studies, the question is whether or not

background music or media is beneficial or detrimental to the students’ performance.

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

According to certain limited-capacity theorists, background music and media

potentially hinder cognitive performance due to the limited amount of mental resources

used for cognitive processing (Basil, 1994; Lang, 2000). Limited capacity theorists have

two schools of though: 1) disturbance occurs when awareness capacity is exceeded and 2)

structural interference occurs when tasks are performed simultaneously.

In two experiments, Bourke and colleagues examined the limitations on

simultaneous tasks and found that tasks should be structured according to a general factor

as measured by interference (Bourke, Duncan, and Nimmo-Smith, 1996). The

combination of homework and media challenges students with maintaining attention on

two tasks. Human mental resources have limited capacity and, therefore, allow only part

of the information to be processed. This is particularly true because content of television

can elicit a response as a reaction to stimuli such as sound effects, movements, visual

complexity, etc (Lang, 2000). For example, Pool, van der Voort, Beentjes, and Koolstra

(2000) found that a Dutch-speaking television program inhibited eighth grade students’

performance on writing assignments, whereas English-speaking music videos did not

cause distraction. Similarly, Pool, Koolstra, and van der Voort (2003) examined how

background soap operas affected homework performance and time. Students performed a

writing task and memorization task in one of three conditions: soap opera episodes,

soundtrack of soap operas or silence. During the memorization task, students were asked

to answer questions without reading material present, whereas during the writing

assignment the reading material was available. Results showed that students in the soap

opera conditions performed worse and used more time compared to the silence condition.

Students in the television condition shifted between television and time spent on task.

However, other background media did not have any affect on performance. The results of

these two studies suggest performance decreased due to shifting between homework and

television, which led to a decrease in the processing of homework assignments. Because

soap operas offer comprehensible information and music videos are easily

understandable, soap operas most likely demand more limited attention capacity. Lang

(1995) indicates that if a message is easily understood, attention capacity is relatively

small.

Within our culture, there are several different types of music. Each individual has

his/her preference of music whether it’s jazz, rhythm and blues, pop, rock, or classical to

name a few. Music affects us in different ways and can either cause arousal or lower

arousal, depending upon the type of music. Music can have emotional effects on mood as

well as varying effects on our ability to concentrate on cognitive tasks. However,

research suggests that many students listen to music while studying (Beentjes, Koolstra,

& van der Voort, 1996; Patton, Stinard, & Routh, 1983). Etaugh and Michaels (1975)

found that college aged students who usually listen to music while studying performed

better on a reading comprehension test in the presence of music. They also found that

males performed better than females while listening to preferred music. This indicates

that unfamiliar sounds are more distracting than familiar sounds. Similarly, Etaugh and

Ptasnik (1982) researched the presence or absence of preferred music on reading

comprehension of forty college students. After reading the passage, students were either

allowed to relax or read unrelated material. They found that individuals who seldom

studied in the presence of background music displayed greater degree of comprehension

during silence conditions, while those who regularly studied in the presence of

background music performed better during music conditions.

Tucker and Bushman (1991) studied the effects of rock and roll music on

mathematical, verbal, and reading comprehension tasks. Results showed that performance

of mathematical and verbal skills decreased, whereas reading comprehension remained

consistent. One element that may affect performance during music conditions is the

complexity of the music. The musical complexity theory states that, although music can

lead to increased performance, increased complexity within music will lead to a decrease

in performance compared to less complex music (Furnham & Bradley, 1997; Furnham &

Strbac, 2002). Previous studies on complexity contained music without lyrics (Furnham

& Bradley, 1997; Furnham & Allas, 1999). However, lyrics can add a dimension of

complexity as another level of processing for the brain. Banbury and Berry (1998) found

that background noise in combination with words decreased memory, while background

noise without words did not have any notable effects. Salame and Baddeley (1989) also

looked at the effects of music on short-term memory (STM). Participants were asked to

recall a number sequence while listening to vocal or instrumental music. Participants in

the instrumental music condition were able to recall numbers more accurately than those

in the vocal music condition. The words were distracting to those in the vocal music

condition, but instrumental music was not distracting. Wolfe (1983) examined the effects

of loudness of background music. Participants were assigned to one of three conditions:

(1) task only, (2) task plus background music at 60-70 dB, (3) task plus background

music at 70-80 dB, and (4) task plus background music at 80-90 dB. Tasks consisted of

completing math problems and answering questionnaires. Results showed there to be no

significant effect on task performance during music conditions. The majority of

participants, in the 80-90 dB music group, perceived loudness as the most distracting

factor.

The Yerkes-Dodson law states that arousal levels increase performance to peak

levels, whereas over-arousal or stimulation decreases performance. Also performance

declines more quickly when a task is complex. Research suggests that stimulating music

increases arousal and performance on simple task, while deteriorating performance on a

complex task (Hallam, Price, and Katsarou, 2002). The arousal levels of music may show

a link to personality factors and environmental stimuli. Researchers have highlighted

individual differences as probable influences of response to background music (Furnham

et al., 1999). There has been a variety of studies that have examined the differences

between performance of extroverts and introverts. Furnham, Gunter, and Peterson (1994)

examined the effects of television on cognitive processing. Reading comprehension tasks

were completed in two conditions: silence and the presence of television. Results showed

a significant difference between personality and condition. Both introverts and extroverts

performed better during silence condition and extroverts performed better than introverts

in the presence of television.

Different personality types function differently at various arousal levels. Geen

(1984) measured the preferred stimulation levels in introverts and extroverts and their

effects on arousal and performance. Results indicated that introverts performed most

effectively at lower level arousal than extroverts. Cassidy and Macdonald (2007) studied

the effects of music classified as high arousal and negative affect (HA), low arousal and

positive affect (LA), and everyday noise during cognitive tasks performed by introverts

and extroverts. Results indicated that performance for both introverts and extroverts

decreased while listening to background music and noise compared to performance

during silence conditions. HA music appeared to have more detrimental effects than LA

music. Introverts displayed more negative effects than extroverts during HA music and

noise conditions. Furnham and Strbac (2002) extended a previous study and examined

whether background noise was as distracting as music. Participants were asked to

perform a reading comprehension task, a prose recall task, and a mental arithmetic task in

the presence of silence, garage music, or office noise. Results confirmed that extroverts

performed better than introverts during music and noise conditions, but the same during

silence condition. Daoussis and McKelvie (1986) investigated how rock and roll music

effects task performance on introverts and extroverts. Findings indicated that introverts

performed poorer on tasks during music conditions than silence condition. With the

aforementioned findings, we can expect background music to have a more negative effect

on introverts than extroverts. However, we can conclude that extroverts will be more

distracted by negative affective background music than positive affective music due to

mood type. Belojevic and colleages (2001) examined responses to noise by measuring

concentration, fatigue, and annoyance during noise and silence conditions. They found

that under music conditions, introverts experienced slower performance rate and more

difficulty with concentration.

There has been and continues to be immense interest in the effects of background

sound on individuals’ performance of differing cognitive tasks. Limited research has

focused on the effects of noise on task performance. It has been suggested that short-term

memory may be a fundamental building block of reading comprehension. Boyle and

Coltheart (1996) examined the effects of irrelevant sounds on phonological coding in

reading comprehension and short-term memory. Irrelevant sounds included irrelevant

speech, accompanied and unaccompanied singing, instrumental music, and silence

conditions. They found that accuracy was unchanged by irrelevant sounds, but was a

challenge due to complexity of sentences. However, word recall was affected by

irrelevant sounds. Kjellberg, Landstorm, Tesarz, Soderberg, and Akerlund (1996) studied

responses to noise and factors that influence those responses. After measuring noise in

the workplace, participants were given questionnaires and factors that affected

annoyance. Annoyance was related to sound level, and distraction was related to self-

control of the noise and noise predictability. Results noted that background noise resulted

in stress and had an adverse effect on cognitive performance. A later study (Evans and

Johnson, 2000) suggests that noise is both stressful and harmful to health and decreases

levels of enthusiasm. In this study, results indicated that individuals in the noise condition

experienced higher levels of urinary epinephrine (marker of stress) and had fewer

attempts at unsolved puzzles. In their study of noise distraction on undergraduate

students, Banbury and Berry (1998) examined the effects of office noise (with and

without speech) on memory for recall and mental arithmetic. They found that during

mental mathematics and recall, task performance significantly declined in the presence of

background office noise compared to silence conditions. Broadbent (1958) tested the

effects of noise on complex mental tasks. Results showed that noise, compared to silence

conditions, deteriorated performance over time.

Over the past several decades, there has been great speculation about the benefits

of musical training on academic achievement. There has been speculation that average

musical abilities in both children and adults co-occur with above average abilities in

academic performance. It has been presented that music training potentially enhances

other cognitive functions. The Mozart Effect has generated much controversy in the

research of active participation, music instruction, and passive music listening. There has

been prior research that shows music instruction to be effective in improving spatial skills

(Hetland, 2000) but the Mozart Effect has not been validated by recent research. In a pilot

study, Schellenberg (2004) examined the premise that music lessons increase general

intelligence. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups: standard

keyboard lessons, Kodaly voice lessons, or no lessons. Participants were administered the

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Third Edition (WISC-III). Schellenberg found

that combined music groups had significantly larger improvement of seven IQ points than

those in the drama and no lessons group. In discussion, Schellenberg concluded that

music lessons may potentially improve IQ by exposing participants to supplemental

experiences.

Hurwitz, Wolff, Bortnick, and Kokas (1975) compared two groups of primary

grade children on tasks of temporal and spatial abilities. One group received exposure to

the Kodaly Music Training Program, while the other group received no music. They

found that the music group performed better on both temporal and spatial tasks than the

control group. Also children in the music group performed more effectively on the

reading tests. Contrastly, Costa- Gimoi (2004) found that three years of weekly piano

lessons did not affect arithmetic performance. With regard to research of older children

and academic achievement, Barnet (1987) found that SAT scores were predictors of

music grade point average in non-performance courses of freshman music students. Ho,

Cheung, and Chan (2003) found a like between music lessons and verbal memory

performance. Results of the study showed that children with music training illustrated

better verbal memory performance than the control group. There was no significant

difference in the visual memory performance of groups. This study is consistent with a

previous study for adults (Chan, Ho, and Cheung, 1998). Results of both studies suggest

that music lessons may have implications for reading ability and memory processing. To

date, however, research does not fully support the fact that music lessons offer an

advantage over other extracurricular education with respect to academic performance.

Many researchers have been interested in how background music in the classroom

can possibly enhance learning. Typically, studies have suggested that soothing and

calming music may cause arousal for learning. In this area of study, mixed results have

been shown. Hall (1952) explored the effects of music on reading comprehension of 245

and 9

grade students. Results indicated, in the presence of background music, 58 %

of students showed an increase in scores in the Nelson Silent Reading Tests. Also, this

study suggests that background music increased accuracy and those considered ‘below

average’ benefitted more from the background music than those considered ‘above

average’. In a smaller study, Scott (1970) compared performance of arithmetic tasks in

four different conditions: the normal classroom environment; the introduction of

background music into the normal classroom; children sitting in three-sided booths; and

background music. Results revealed that background music in the classroom had a

calming effect on four hyperactive students. Students were observed as being most

attentive when background music was introduced into the normal classroom setting.

Madsen and Forsythe (1973) investigated the effects of contingent music listening on

mathematical skills of 6

grade students. After working on math problems for 20 minutes

students were assigned to one of four conditions: (1) contact control group- students

worked on other subjects, (2) math games control group- students played math games, (3)

dance-listening group- students listened to music that was played through a stereophonic

high-fidelity system and had the option of dancing and listening to music, and (4)

earphone listening group- students listened to music through individual earphones

inhibiting socialization. Results showed that there was no significant difference between

the two control groups, but there was a significant difference between the control and

contingent music listening groups. Contingent music listening increased the number of

correct responses to math problems.

Mitchell (1949) compared performance on a comprehension task in the presence

of a variety show, a musical show, or silence. Mitchell found that reading comprehension

was not adversely affected by the musical selections. Research has also indicated that

background music does not enhance test performance. Henderson, Crew, and Barlow

(1945) examined students on various sections of the Nelson-Denny Reading Test. Pop

music showed significant distraction, whereas classical music showed no indication of

distraction in the vocabulary or paragraph sections of the test. Mowsesian and Heyer

(1973) studied the effects of rock, folk, symphonic music, and opera on test performance

of students. The music did not have any significant effect on students’ performance.

Hallam, Price, and Katsarou (2002) compared arithmetic performance and

memory tasks of children aged 10-12 in the presence of music perceived to be calming

and relaxing and silence conditions. Results showed children performed better on both

tasks during the music condition compared to the silence condition. During the music

condition, children completed more arithmetic problems although accuracy was not

improved. Furthermore, this study also demonstrated that music perceived as aggressive

and arousing impaired performance on the memory task. Hallam et al (2002) also

anticipated that calming music can be useful during times when children are over-

aroused, such as returning to the classroom from lunch. Conversely, music can be used to

stimulate those with a decreased arousal level. Chalmers, Olson, and Zurkowski (1999)

have provided support for the above observations. They examined how music effects

10!

noise level in the lunchroom. In the presence of classical music, noise decreased

approximately six decibels. Hallam and Price (1998) studied the effects of background

music on behavior and performance during a mathematics task. All ten children

significantly improved their behavior and performance during the task. Also observed

was a decrease in aggression following the study. Giles (1991) suggests that background

music can be used throughout the day for several reasons, including, but not limited to:

engaging children who are tired or bored, helping students stay relaxed, and providing a

calming atmosphere during lunchtime.

According to research, music with special education populations has shown

positive results. Savan (1999) examined the effects of Mozart orchestral compositions on

ten 12-year-old boys identified as special needs and having emotional and behavioral

problems. In the presence of music, it was observed that students became calm and their

co-ordination improved. This study suggests that certain sound combinations may

stimulate different parts of the brain, which can cause a calming effect.

For many college students, listening to music is an associative task. According to

Darrow, Johnson, Agnew, and Rink (2006) an associative task is defined as “listening to

music while engaged in other activities.” The majority of college students engage in

activities such as using the computer, completing homework, or studying for test while

listening to music. To date, there have been mixed results on how background music

effects cognitive performance. Ransdell and Gilroy (2001) investigated if background

music effects the ability to word process fluently and effectively. Forty-five psychology

undergraduates wrote an essay in the presence of background music. Results showed that

students with some musical background training wrote higher quality essays and longer,

more complex sentence structures. Pearsall (1989) investigated listening comprehension

in the presence of tonal and atonal background music. Ninety 1

year college students

were administered the Sequential Tests of Educational Progress Listening

Comprehension Test, Level J under three conditions: (1) no background music, (2) tonal

background music, and (3) atonal background music. Pearsall (1989) found that students

performed better during the no music condition. It was observed that tonal music seemed

to distract because of tonality. Similarly, Hillard and Tolin (1979) also tested

11!

undergraduates using the Sequential Tests of Educational Progress found that scores were

higher during the familiar music condition than the unfamiliar music condition.

The aim of the present study was to examine reading comprehension skills of

college students in the presence or absence of background music.

12!

CHAPTER 3

METHOD

Participants

The study was conducted with a sample of 71 students enrolled in a large

southeastern university. The individuals were comprised of both undergraduate and

graduate students, with varying backgrounds of study. Ages ranged from 18 to 43,

averaging 23.6 years. The total sample was composed of 49 females and 22 males.

Participants were acquired on a voluntary basis and were randomly assigned to one of

three groups: Group 1-task only (no music); Group 2- task plus lyrical background music

(“Tik Tok” by Ke$ha); and Group 3-task plus instrumental background music (excerpt

from “The Four Seasons-Spring” by Vivaldi). Participants were tested ranging from one

to ten per group.

Table 1: Participants’ Demographics

Male Female Mean Age Graduate Undergraduate

Silence 8 16 24.6 9 15

Lyrical 5 19 28.4 13 11

Instrumental 9 14 23.3 9 14

Total 22 49 23.6 31 40

13!

Materials

A Sony Boombox for IPOD was used to play the lyrical (“Tik Tok”) and

instrumental (excerpt from “The Four Seasons-Spring”) selections.

The stopwatch feature on an IPOD touch was used to time duration of the silence

group reading and studying the article.

Reading material (See Appendix C) was obtained by searching health articles on

www.usnews.com. The excerpt for the study was chosen because of its subject,

scarification, which was considered unfamiliar to people. The excerpt was a total of 386

words.

Music Selections

The experimental conditions consisted of two musical selections: (1) “Tik Tok”

by Ke$ha (3 minutes, 23 seconds) and (2) “The Four Seasons-Spring” by Vivaldi

(excerpt lasting 3 minutes, 23 seconds). Songs were chosen because of popularity as rated

within the top 5 of “Top 100” for popular and classical music (www.billboard.com;

www.ez-tracks.com/top-40-classical-song.html).

Questionnaires

Participants in the task only group were given a demographic questionnaire (See

Appendix A) and reading comprehension test (See Appendix D), and participants in the

task plus music groups were given two questionnaires to complete: demographic and

reading comprehension test and music questionnaire (See Appendix B). The

Demographic questionnaire requested information from participants regarding age, sex,

year in college, musical training, if they usually listened to music while studying, and, if

so, what kind of music.

14!

Questions for the music questionnaire were taken from a previous study; Wolfe,

1983. The questions are stated below:

“Did you recognize any of the selections played during the reading? If so, list the titles of

the selections you recognized. (2) Did the musical selection seem to interfere with your

reading? If so, what aspects of the music seemed to interfere the most? (subjects were

asked to check one or more of the following musical elements—melody, rhythm,

loudness, dynamics, instrumentation, personal associations to music, or specify another).

(3) How much did you like the music selection that was played? (subjects marked a like-

dislike rating scale with score of 1 (dislike very much) to 7 (like very much). (4) How

often do you listen to music while studying? (subjects marked a scale from 1 (never) to 7,

(regularly). (5) How often do you listen to this type of music? (students marked scales of

1 (never), 2 (yearly), 3 (monthly), 4 (weekly), 5 (twice a week), 6 (daily).” Once the

experiment ended, participants were thanked for their participation.

Procedure

Upon entering the testing room, participants completed a standard consent form

(See Appendix F) and received a brief description of the experiment. Participants were

randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Participants in the task plus music

conditions were informed they would have the duration of the song to read and study the

article. Participants in the task only condition were informed they would have a specified

amount of time (equal to the duration of the music groups) to read and study the article.

At the end of the allotted time, reading excerpts were removed, and all participants were

given a short demographic questionnaire. Next participants were given a reading

comprehension test consisting of five multiple choice and five true/false questions

pertaining to the reading material. A point value of one was assigned to each question on

the test and percentages were calculated. After the tests, participants in the task plus

music conditions completed a music questionnaire related to the background music

presented during testing.

15!

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Task Performance

A one-way analysis of variance was completed to establish whether there was an

effect for background music across reading comprehension task performance in the

results (Table 2). Results indicated no significant difference in the number of questions

correctly answered among the three groups.

Table 2: Analysis of Variance: Number of Reading Comprehension Problems

Completed Correctly by Group

Source!

df"

SS"

MS"

Between!Groups!

0.1312!

0.0656!

0.07!

0.932461!

The mean number of reading questions answered correctly by each group is

shown in Figure 1.

10!

Silence!

Lyrical!

Instrumental!!

Total!

16!

Figure 1: Mean Number of Reading Comprehension Questions Completed

Correctly by Group

Questionnaire Analysis

Responses in Groups 2 and 3 (n=47) to questions regarding music selections

during reading were also researched. Table 2 reports responses to the questions “Did you

recognize the selection played during the reading?” More participants recognized the

instrumental selection than lyrical selection.

Table 3: Music Recognition

Group!

Yes!

Maybe!

No!

Lyrical!

15!(62.5%)!

1!(4.2%)!

8!(33.3%)!

Instrumental!

22!(96%)!

0!!

1!(4%)!

Total!

37!(78.7%)!

1!(2.2%)!

9!(19.1%)!

For those who stated they did recognize the music selections, Table 4 shows their

ability to name the selection. More participants accurately named the instrumental

selection.

Table 4: Ability to List Title

Group!

Correct!

Incorrect!

Not!Sure!

Lyrical!

5!(31.3%)!

1!(6.2%)!

10!(62.5%)!

Instrumental!

9!(41%)!

3!(13.6%)!

10!(45.4%)!

Total!

14!(37%)!

4!(10.5%)!

20!(52.6%)!

Responses to the question, “Did the musical selection seem to interfere with your

reading?” are in Table 5. Most participants reported that the music selections interfered

with their reading.

17!

Table 5: Music Interference with Reading

Group!

Yes!

Slightly!

No!

Lyrical!

20!(83.3%)!

4!(16.7%)!

Instrumental!

17!(74%)!

6!(26%)!

Total!

37!(78.7%)!

10(21.3%)!

For those participants who stated that music interfered with reading, they were

asked to rate which elements of the music interfered most (Figure 2). Melody interfered

the most with the instrumental group, while rhythm, loudness, and other (tempo change,

lyrics, vocal intonation, & transitions) interfered the most with the lyrical group.

Figure 2: Elements of Music Interference

Other results of the present study are as follows: (1) The majority of participants

in the instrumental group seemed to enjoy the background music selection played during

the task, although many reported they do not usually listen to music while studying. Most

participants reported listening to this type of music monthly. (2) The majority of the

0.00%!

5.00%!

10.00%!

15.00%!

20.00%!

25.00%!

30.00%!

35.00%!

Lyrical!

Instrumental!

18!

participants in the lyrical group marked 4 on the rating scale for the question, “How much

did you like the music selection that was played?” Most participants reported they do not

usually listen to music while studying. However, many participants reported listening to

this type of music weekly.

19!

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The data from this study did not support the hypothesis that music would have a

detrimental effect on reading comprehension performance. The results of this study

showed no significant differences among groups. Although the hypothesis was not

supported, the results of the study are supported by previous research (Wolfe, 1983;

Tucker & Bushman, 1991; & Vaughn, 2000).

Despite the fact that results were not supportive of the hypothesis, participants

commented that the music was distracting. However, the music did not affect reading

comprehension scores when compared to the silence condition. It was observed that

participants were alert to background music as evidenced by song recognition, foot

tapping, head nodding, and statements included in the questionnaires. The majority of

participants noted they had heard the lyrical song previously, but only some correctly

stated the title of that music selection.

There are some limitations to this study. A considerable amount of time (3

minutes, 23 seconds) was given to read the article. It was observed that between 2

minutes and 2 minutes 30 seconds, participants appeared restless as evidenced by eyes

wandering, whispering amongst themselves, fidgeting with items such as purses or

backpacks, and a few stated, “Ok, I’m done.” At times, participants who were late

knocked on the door while testing was still in progress. This disruption may have had an

adverse effect on concentration.

Further research could extend the musical selection during both the reading and

testing conditions. Fill in the blank answers could also be inserted into the reading

comprehension test. Future research could shorten the study and test the progression of

boredom felt by participants. Further research in the area of background music and

reading comprehension is important.

20!

APPENDIX A

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

Name________________________________________________Date_______________

1. Age____________________________________________________________________

2. Gender _________________________________________________________________

3.Year in School ___________________________________________________________

4. Have you had any musical training?_________________________________________

5. If answered yes to above question, how many years and which instruments?

________________________________________________________________________

6. Do you usually listen to music while studying? ________________________________

7. If answered yes to above question, what kind of music?

________________________________________________________________________

21!

APPENDIX B

MUSIC QUESTIONNAIRE

NAME________________________________ DATE____________________________

1. Did you recognize the selection played during the reading test? _____________________

2. If you answered yes to question number one, list the title of the selection.

____________________________________________________________________________

3. Did the musical selection seem to interfere with your reading? _____________________

4. If answered yes to question number three, circle one or more of the following musical elements:

o Melody

o Rhythm

o Loudness

o Dynamics

o Instrumentation

o Personal association to music

o Other (please specify)

________________________________________________________________________

22!

5. How much did you like the music selection that was played? (please mark X above the number)

Dislike very much Like very much

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. How often do you listen to music while studying? ( please mark X above the number)

Never Regularly

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. How often do you listen to this type of music? ( please mark X above the number)

Never Yearly Monthly Weekly Twice a week Daily

1 2 3 4 5 6

23!

APPENDIX C

HEALTH ARTICLE

Immune Response Better With Skin Scratch Vaccination

NDAY, Jan. 17 (HealthDay News) -- Giving a vaccine through a scratch

the skin (scarification) triggers a stronger immune response than

jected vaccines, say U.S. researchers, who also found that scarification

quires 100 times less vaccine to prompt an immune response.

arification was first used nearly two centuries ago to give the first

allpox vaccinations. Nearly all modern vaccines are given via injection,

cording to background information in a news release about the study,

ich is published in the Jan. 17 issue of Nature Medicine.

a series of tests, the Brigham and Women's Hospital researchers also

und that the memory of T-cells -- the cells that mount an immune

sponse against invading viruses -- may be more important than the

tibodies generated by injected vaccines. T-cells are located in lymph

des and blood, as well as in peripheral tissues such as skin and lung.

his research illustrates the remarkable capacity of the most superficial

yer of skin to generate powerful protective immune responses after

ccination," study senior researcher Dr. Thomas Kupper, chairman of the

rmatology department at the hospital, said in a news release from the

spital.

he ability of vaccination through injured epidermis -- or scarification -

to generate such powerful tissue-resident protective T-cells is a

mpletely novel observation that should make us reconsider the way we

ink about vaccine delivery for all infectious diseases, as well as cancer.

ter all, our immune system evolved over millions of years to respond to

fections of injured skin, not vaccines delivered by hypodermic syringe

24!

into muscle," he noted.

In their experiments, Kupper and colleagues found that scarification with

the vaccinia virus offered much greater protection against smallpox than

injecting the vaccine. They also found that a melanoma vaccine delivered

by scarification was much more effective than injected vaccines in

protecting animals against melanoma tumor growth.

"The lessons we are learning from these studies of vaccination by

scarification could help us develop new and more powerful vaccines for

influenza, HIV, malaria and other infectious diseases," Kupper explained.

"We should also continue to explore the implications for developing

powerful cancer vaccines, like the one demonstrated by melanoma

vaccine results in this study."

*(2010, January 17). Immune response better with skin scratch vaccination.

U.S.

Newsand World Report

. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com .

25!

APPENDIX D

READING COMPREHENSION TEST

Name_________________________________________Date_________________

Questions below are based on the reading material. Please circle the your answer

1. Giving a vaccine through a scratch on the skin called_____________________________

a. Intradermal c. Scarification

b. Prophylactic d. Epicutaneous

2. This scratch on the skin triggers a/the________________ response than injected vaccines.

a. Stronger c. Different

b. Weaker d. Same

3. This technique, referred to in question # 1, was used nearly two centuries ago to give vaccination for

what disease?

a. Measles c. Mumps

b. Skriljevo (form of syphilis) d. Smallpox

4. Researchers found that T-cells may be more important than_________________ generated by

injected vaccines.

a. Antipyretics c. Antigens

b. Antibodies d. Isomorphs

5. T- cells located in all of the following except:

a. Blood c. Lymph nodes

b. Skin d. Kidneys

26!

6. T-cells are cells that mount an immune response invading viruses.

a. True

b. False

7. Researchers found that injecting the vaccinia virus offered greater protection than the new technique

against small pox.

a.! True

b. False

8. A melanoma vaccine delivered by this new technique was more effective than injecting vaccines in

protecting animals against melanoma tumor growth.

a. True

b. False

9. This new technique could help develop new powerful vaccines for influenza, malaria, HIV and

emphysema.

a. True

b. False

10. In a recent study, giving a vaccine through a scratch on the skin shows promising results and

researchers would like to explore implications for developing powerful cancer vaccines.

a. True

b. False

27!

APPENDIX E

HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL LETTER

Office of the Vice President For Research

Human Subjects Committee

Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742

(850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM

Date: 3/12/2010

To: Amanda Gillis

Address: 1836 Falconcrest Drive, Tallahassee, FL 32303

Dept.: MUSIC SCHOOL

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research

The Effects of Background Music on Reading

Comprehension and Self-Report of College-Aged Students

The application that you submitted to this office in

regard to the use of human subjects in the proposal

referenced above have been reviewed by the Secretary,

the Chair, and two members of the Human Subjects

Committee. Your project is determined to be Expedited

per 45 CFR § 46.110(7) and has been approved by an

expedited review process.

The Human Subjects Committee has not evaluated your

proposal for scientific merit, except to weigh the risk

to the human participants and the aspects of the

proposal related to potential risk and benefit. This

approval does not replace any departmental or other

approvals, which may be required.

If you submitted a proposed consent form with your

application, the approved stamped consent form is

attached to this approval notice. Only the stamped

version of the consent form may be used in recruiting

research subjects.

28!

If the project has not been completed by 3/10/2011 you

must request a renewal of approval for continuation of

the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be

sent to you prior to your expiration date; however, it

is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to

timely request renewal of your approval from the

Committee.

You are advised that any change in protocol for this

project must be reviewed and approved by the Committee

prior to implementation of the proposed change in the

protocol. A protocol change/amendment form is required

to be submitted for approval by the Committee. In

addition, federal regulations require that the

Principal Investigator promptly report, in writing any

unanticipated problems or adverse events involving

risks to research subjects or others.

By copy of this memorandum, the Chair of your

department and/or your major professor is reminded that

he/she is responsible for being informed concerning

research projects involving human subjects in the

department, and should review protocols as often as

needed to insure that the project is being conducted in

compliance with our institution and with DHHS

regulations.

This institution has an Assurance on file with the

Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance

Number is IRB00000446.

Cc: Jayne Standley, Advisor

HSC No. 2010.4001

29!

APPENDIX F

CONSENT FORM

The!Effects!of!Background!Music!on!Reading!

Comprehension!and!Self;Report!of!College!Students!

You!are!invited!to!be!in!a!research!study!to!examine!the!effects!of!background!music!

reading!comprehension!skills!of!college‐aged!students.!You!were!selected!as!a!

possible!participant!because!you!are:!

o Between!the!ages!of!18!and!45!

o A!student!enrolled!at!The!Florida!State!University!

We!ask!that!you!read!this!form!and!ask!any!questions!you!may!have!before!agreeing!

to!be!in!the!study.!Researchers!contact!information!is!located!at!the!end!of!this!form.!

This!study!is!being!conducted!by!Amanda!Gillis,!from!The!Florida!State!University!

College!of!Music!

Background!Information:!

The!purpose!of!this!study!is!to!test!the!effects!of!background!music!on!reading!

comprehension!skills!of!college‐!aged!students.!

Procedures:!

If!you!agree!to!be!in!this!study,!we!would!ask!you!to!do!the!following!things:!

o Read!a!short!health!related!article!

o Complete!a!questionnaire!(demographic!and!music)!

o Complete!a!10!multiple!choice/true‐false!test!based!on!the!reading!

Risks!and!bene@its!of!being!in!the!Study:!

There!are!no!foreseeable!risk!or!bene[its!of!being!in!this!study.!

Compensation:!

There!is!no!compensation!for!participating!in!this!study.!

30!

Con@identiality:!

The!records!of!this!study!will!be!kept!private!and!con[idential!to!the!extent!

permitted!by!law.!!In!any!sort!of!report!we!might!publish,!we!will!not!include!any!

information!that!will!make!it!possible!to!identify!a!subject.!!Research!records!will!be!

stored!securely!and!only!researchers!will!have!access!to!the!records.!!

Voluntary!Nature!of!the!Study:!

Participation!in!this!study!is!voluntary.!!Your!decision!whether!or!not!to!participate!

will!not!affect!your!current!or!future!relations!with!the!University.!If!you!decide!to!

participate,!you!are!free!to!not!answer!any!questions!or!withdraw!at!any!time!

without!affecting!those!relationships.!

Contacts!and!Questions:!

The!researcher!conducting!this!study!is!Amanda!Gillis.!You!may!ask!any!question!

you!have!now.!!If!you!have!any!question!later,!you!are!encouraged!to!contact!her!at!

205‐240‐9868!or!amanda‐[email protected].!!You!may!also!contact!her!academic!

supervisor,!Jayne!Standley,!at!850‐644‐[email protected]!

If!you!have!any!questions!or!concerns!regarding!this!study!and!would!like!to!talk!to!

someone!other!than!the!researcher,!you!are!encouraged!to!contact!the!FSU!IRB!at!

2010!Levy!Street,!Research!Building!B,!Suite!276,!Tallahassee,!FL!!32306‐2742,!or!

850‐644‐8633,!or!by!email!at![email protected].!

You!will!be!given!a!copy!of!this!information!to!keep!for!your!records.!

Statement!of!Consent:!

I!have!read!the!above!information.!!I!have!asked!questions!and!have!received!

answers.!!I!consent!to!participate!in!the!study.!

______________________________________! ! ___________________________!

Signature!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!! Date!

________________!_______________________! ! ____________________________!

Signature!of!Investigator!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Date!

31!

REFERNCES

Banbury, S., and Berry, D.C. (1998). Disruption of office-related tasks by speech and

office noise. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 499-517.

Basil, M.D. (1994). Multiple resource theory I: Application to television viewing.

Communication Research, 21, 177-207.

Beentjes, J.W.J., Koolstra, C.M., and van der Voort, T.H.A., (1996). Combining

background media with doing homework: Incidence of background media use

and perceived effects. Communication Education, 45(1), 59-72.

Belojevic, G., Slepcevic, V., and Jakovljevic, B. (2001). Mental performance in noise:

The role of introversion. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 209-213.

Bourke, P.A., Duncan, J., and Nimmo-Smith, I. (1996). A general factor involved in

dual-task performance decrement. The Quarterly journal of Experimental

Psychology, 49, 525-545.

Boyle, R., and Coltheart, V. (1996). Effects of irrelevant sounds on phonological

coding in short-term memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 49A, 398-416.

Broadbent, D.E. (1958). Effect of noise on an “intellectual” task. The Journal of the

Acoustical Society of America, 30, 824-827.

Cassidy, G. and MacDonald, R.A.R. (2007). The effect of background music and

background noise on task performance of introverts and extraverts. Psychology

Of Music, 35, 517-537.

Cevasco, A. (2008). The effect of mothers’ singing on full-term and preterm

infants and maternal emotional responses. Journal of Music Therapy, 45(3),

273-306.

Chalmers, L., Olsen, M.R., and Zurkowski, J.K. (1999). Music as a classroom tool.

Intervention in School and Clinic, 35, 43-45.

Chan, A.S., Ho, Y.C., and Cheung, M.C. (1998). Music training improves verbal

memory. Nature, 396, 128.

Costa-Giomi, E. (2004). Effects of three years of piano instruction on children’s

academic achievement, school peformance and self-esteem. Psychology

of Music, 32, 139-152.

Daoussis, L., and McKelvie, S.J. (1986). Musical preferences and effects on music on a

reading comprehension test for extraverts and introverts. Perceptual and Motor

Skills, 62, 283-289.

32!

Darrow, A.A., Johnson, C., Agnew,S., Rink,E. (2006). The effect of preferred music as

a distraction on music majors’ and nonmusic majors’ selective attention. Bulletin

of the Council for Research in Music Education, 17, 21-31.

Etaugh,C., and Michaels, D. (1975). Effects of reading comprehension of preferred music

and frequency of studying to music. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 41, 533-554.

Etaugh, C., and Ptasnik, P. (1982). Effects of studying to music and post-study relaxation

on reading comprehension. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55(1), 141-142.

Evans, G.W., and Johnson, D. (2000). Stress and open-office noise. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 85, 779-783.

Furnham, A., and Allass, K. (1999). The influence of musial distraction of varying

complexity on the cognitive performance of extroverts and introverts. European

Journal of Personality, 13, 27-38.

Furnham, A., and Bradley, A. (1997). Music while you work: The differential distraction

of background music on the cognitive test performance of introverts and

extroverts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1, 445-455.

Furnham, A., Gunter, B., and Peterson, E. (1994). Television distraction and the

performance of introverts and extroverts. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 8,

705-711.

Furnham, A., and Strbac, L. (2002). Music is as distracting as noise: The differential

distraction of background music and noise on cognitive test performance of

introverts and extraverts. Ergonomics, 45, 203-217.

Furnham, A., Trew, S., and Sneade, I. (1999). The distracting effects of vocal and

instrumental music on the cognitive test performance of introverts and

extroverts. Personality and Individual Differences, 27(2), 381-392.

Geen, R.G. (1984). Preferred stimulation levels in introverts and extroverts: Effects

on arousal and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,

1303-1312.

Giles, M. (1991). A little background music please. Principle, November, 41-44.

Hall, J. (1952). The effect of background music on the reading comprehension

of 278 eighth and ninth grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 45,

451-458.

33!

Hallam, S., and Price, J. (1998). Can the use of background music improve the behavior

and academic performance of children with emotional and behavioral

difficulties? British Journal of Special Education, 25(2), 88-91.

Hallam, S., Price, J., and Katsarou, G. (2002). The effects of background music on

primary school pupils’ task performance. Educational Studies, 28(2) 112-122.

Henderson, M.T., Crews, A., and Barlow, J. (1945). A study of the effect of music

distraction on reading efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29, 313-317.

Hetland, L. (2000). Learning to make music enhances spatial reasoning. Journal of

Aesthetic Education, 34, 179-238.

Hillard, M.O., and Tolin, P. (1979). Effect of familiarity with background music on

performance of simple and difficult reading comprehension tasks. Perceptual

and Motor Skills, 49(3), 713-714.

Ho, Y.C., Cheung, M.C., and Chan, A.S. (2003). Music training improves verbal but not

visual memory: Cross sectional and longitudinal explorations in children.

Neuropsychology, 17, 439-450.

Hurwitz, I., Wolff, P., Bortnick, B.D., and Kokas, K. (1975). Nonmusical effects of

kodaly music curriculum in primary grade children. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 8(3)., 167-174.

Kjellberg, A., Landstorm, U., Tesarz, M., Soderberg, L., and Akerlund, E. (1996). The

effects of non-physical noise characteristics, ongoing task, and noise sensitivity

on annoyance and distraction due to noise at work. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 16, 123-126.

Lang, A. (1995). Defining audio/video redundancy from a limited-capacity information

processing perspective. Communication Research, 22, 86-115.

Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing.

Journal of Communication, 50, 46-70.

Lin, M.F., Hsu, M-C., Chang, H-J., Hsu, Y-Y., Chou, M-H., and Crawford, P. (2009).

Pivotal moments and changes in the bonny method of guided imagery and

music for patients with depression. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 19 (7-8),

1139-1148.

Madsen, C.K., and Forsythe, J.L. (1973). Effect of contingent music listening on

increases of mathematical responses. Journal of Research in Music

Education, 21, 176-181.

34!

Mitchell, A.H. (1949). The effect of radio programs on silent reading achievement of

ninety-one sixth grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 42, 460-470.

Mowsesian, R. and heyer, M.R. (1973). The effect of music as a distraction on test-taking

performance. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 6, 104-110.

North, A.C., Hargreaves, D.J., and O’Neill, S.A. (2000). The importance of music to

adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 255-272

Oldham, G.R., Cummings, A., Misonel, L.J., Schmidtke, J.M., and Zhou, J. (1995).

Listen while you work? Quasi-experimental relations between personal

stereo headset use and employee work responses. Journal of Applied Psychology,

80(5), 547-564.

Patton, J.E., Stinard, T.A., and Routh, D.K. (1983). Where do children study? The

Journal of Educational Research, 76(5), 280-286.

Pearsall, E.R. (1989). Differences in listening comprehension with tonal and atonal

background music. Journal of Music Therapy, 26(4), 188-197).

Pool, M.M., Koolstra, C.M., van der Voort, T.H.A. (2003). Distraction effects of

background soap operas on homework performance: An experimental

study enriched with observational data. Educational Psychology, 23(4), 361-380.

Pool, M.M., van der Voort, T.H.A., Beentjes, J.W.J., and Koolstra, C.M. (2000).

Background television as an inhibitor of performance on easy and difficult

homework assignments. Communication Research, 27, 293-326.

Ransdell, S.E., and Gilroy, L. (2001). The effects of background music on word

processed writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(2), 141-148.

Rauscher, F.H., and LeMieux, M.T. (2003, March). Piano, rhythm, and singing

instruction to improve different aspects of spatial-temporal reasoning in head

start children. Poster presented at the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive

Neuroscience Society, New York.

Savan, A. (1996). A study of the effect of music on the behavior of children with special

educational needs. Paper presented at the conference of the Society for Research

in Psychology of Music and Music Education, Institute of Education, University

of London, 30 May.

Savan, A. (1999). The effect of background music on learning. Psychology of Music,

27(2), 138-146.

Schellenberg, E.G. (2004). Music lessons enhance IQ. Psychological Science, 15, 511-

514.

35!

Scott, T. (1970). The use of music to reduce hyperactivity in children. American Journal

of Orthopsychiatry, 4, 677-680.

Tucker, A., and Bushman, B.J. (1991). Effects of rock and roll music on mathematical,

verbal, and reading comprehension performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills,

72, 942.

Vaughn, K. (2000). Music and mathematics: Modest support for the oft claimed

relationship. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34, 149-166.

Wolfe, D.E. (1983). Effects of music loudness on task performance and self-report

of college aged students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 191-201.

36!

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Amanda J. Gillis

Education

• Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL August, 2010

Master of Music in Music Therapy

• Samford University, Birmingham, AL August, 2007

Bachelor of Arts in Music

Certifications and Training

• Board Certification in Music Therapy March, 2010

• Music Together Teacher Training Workshop March, 2010

• Orff-Schulwerk Teacher Education Course, Level I July, 2008

• NICU-MT Certification July, 2008

Volunteer, Internship, and Practicum Experiences

• Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, Music Therapy Intern 2009

• Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, Main Hospital, Music Therapy Practicum

Student 2009

• Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, Surgery Buddy, Music Therapy Practicum

Student 2008

• Creative Child Learning Center, Music Therapy Practicum Student 2008

• Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare, Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, Music Therapy

Practicum Student 2007

• The Kids Center, Volunteer 2006-2007

• Exceptional Foundation, Volunteer 2003-2004

• Lakeshore Foundation, Volunteer 2002-2003

Professional Development

• American Music Therapy Association 2008-Present

• Alpha Mu Alpha, Music Therapy Student Organization 2007-2009

• Delta Omicron International Music Fraternity 2006-Present

Honors

• Golden Key International Honor Society 2008-2010

• Dean’s List, Samford University 2007