Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 21:55:08 +0000
To: rusin@math.niu.edu
Subject: Mozart effect

Before I start, may I congratulate you on your site 'Maths and Music'.
It has been SO much help when it comes to researching my dissertation. I
am a final year music student and whilst looking at the subject of Music
and Maths, became interested in the research into the 'Mozart effect' I
have looked at the links relating to this on your site and I was
wondering if you had any feelings about Don Campbell and Steven Halpern.
They obviously contradict each other and I find it quite difficult who
to accept since both are running commercial web sites with products to
sell. Whilst I find Don Campbell a little 'slimy' for want of a better
word, I have my suspicions that Steven may only be against the Mozart
effect for fear it may hamper his CD sales. Any thoughts? 

As a music student and soon to be teacher, I am very interested in the
benefits of music on other curriculum areas and would love the findings
to be true but as I have said, I'm a bit flummoxed and don't know what
to believe. I hope you can help.

Many thanks
Eleanor
==============================================================================

From: Dave Rusin <rusin@math.niu.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:17:04 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re:  Mozart effect

Thanks for your comments. You're right, both Campbell and Halpern have
something to sell and so it's probably wise to discount what each of them
has to say. The truth is somewhere between them, I suppose.


Mathematicians know that 90% of the battle is often won by defining one's
terms appropriately. (E.g. all of Euclid's Elements follow from just five 
axioms which contain all the assumptions used in further statements about
"point" "line" etc.) Most public debates would go much more smoothly if the
statements being debated were made more clear. (E.g. "Does God exist?" One
cannot really answer that question without making it clear what "God" is
supposed to be.) 

So too in this case. We have heated debates about the "Mozart Effect".
But what is this supposed to be? Consider this claim from Campbell's site:
    "Students who study music scored higher on both the verbal and
    math portions of the SAT than non music students"
This is a fine, incontrovertible statement: Have a checkbox on the SAT
(that's a national [USA] standardized test used to screen college applicants)
which asks, "did you study music [outside of school]", and then compute
mean SAT scores for those who self-report "yes" or "no". With a little
statistics one can state that the probability that such a difference in
scores is just the result of ordinary random fluctuation is, say, less
than 1 in 100. (I'm making up that number.) By the standards of science,
we would accept that the indented statement is True (tm).

Now what? Well, the number of statements which can be demonstrated in such
a convincing manner is probably large, although each individual statement
makes a very tiny claim. Taken in aggregate, we eventually accept a broader
statement:
    "Students who study music generally perform better on scholastic
    tasks than non music students"
This statement is too broad to be "proved" in the same way as the previous
one, but that's OK -- this is inductive science (inferring a general principle
after repeatedly verifying specific instances of it).

If the "Mozart Effect" is supposed to be this last indented statement, I
have no qualms accepting it. Not only are there plenty of data to support
it, but it rings true with my experience.

On the other hand, one must be careful not to misread the statement. It
does NOT say,
   "Studying music will generally make a student succeed at scholastic tasks"
This statement MIGHT be true, but that's not a valid inference from the
previous one. It might just as well be true that only students who are
scholastically gifted in the first place decide to study music. It might
just as well be true that only rich families (say) provide music lessons
and that these same families get tutors for their children. So if the
"Mozart Effect" is supposed to be this last statement, sorry, I don't buy it.
It hasn't been proven to my satisfaction.

Now, in point of fact, I would (if pressed) wager that that last statement
is true, anyway! I'd bet that if I took some students at random from 
many types of school, and gave them music lessons, and then compared their
scholastic success rates five years later to those of a control group, I
would find the music students would do better. (I hasten to point out that
as far as I know such an experiment has not been tried.) Why do I feel this
way? Much as I like Mozart, I don't think his music has anything to do with
this. Rather, I think the students benefit from two incidental features
of music education: (1) The study of music requires discipline and attention
to precision (2) A program of music study implies interaction with a caring
teacher. Both (1) and (2) are surely positive indicators for success in school!
So this as yet unproven incarnation of the "Mozart Effect" has, at best,
a tenuous connection to Mozart.

There are other statements which I believe have been made and termed
the "Mozart Effect". One had to do with _short-term_ improvement in
performance after _brief_ _exposure_ to Mozart's music. I'm not qualified to
speak on this, but I suppose it's believable. Probably one would discover
that the effect is minor on average and zero or negative in a large number
of cases. In any event, I don't think short-term improvements are particularly
useful in school. Rather, the significance of this work would be that it
says something about the ability of the human mind to marshall resources
as needed.

Another statement I have heard is that _early_ and _prolonged_ _exposure_
to Mozart's music enhances school performance much later. This would be
valuable information if true, but I don't know that it has been seriously 
studied. Again it's far more likely that any observed differences in 
populations is due primarily to the fact that it is success-oriented parents 
who would try such a scheme in the first place, and they are the ones most 
likely to make other resources available to their children. 


Having said all this, I have to say I think it's rather silly to get worked
up about it. I think it's an insult to music generally to 
have people pursue it as a means to improving something else. It has
value in its own right and as a key part of our culture it deserves more
attention in the home and in the schools. If some people find it helps
them study, or helps them heal, or whatever -- fine, more power to them.
[A local music professor here, Ron Price, has had success rehabilitating
victims of some neurological disorders by training them to play harp.]
But it's unlikely that there is a significant, widespread connection.
Study music for its own sake! (I sing the same song about math, by the way.
I don't think it ought to have to justify its presence in the curriculum
by pretending that everything in the discipline is going to be used daily
to make the student wealthy, or whatever.)


Good luck in your work.
dave