The Effect Of Music On The Performance Of A Task

---

M e t h o d

Design:

A laboratory experiment was used with a repeated measures design.  This is used to control as many possible participant variables as possible.  There were 3 conditions – fast music, slow music and no music.

Participants:

There were 10 participants in the study, selected via an opportunity sample.  Each participant completed the three sets of anagrams.  The age range of the participants was varied from 16 – 19, as this will limit the possibility of age affecting the results.  However, generalisation of the results may be affected.

Procedures:

3 sheets of anagrams were created – one sheet for each condition.  Each sheet had 15 anagrams, containing everyday words.  Each sheet also had equal numbers of word lengths (between 4 and 10 letters).

Participants were given a sheet and a set of printed standardised instructions, which were also read out.  They follow in the appendix.  Once this had been done, the participants were asked to turn over the anagram sheet and start.  The music was also started at this point.  Once the 3 minutes was over, the papers were taken in and the next ones were given out.  Participants were told when to start the second and third sets of anagrams.

Controls:

Controls used included use of the same location, a 3-minute time limit, the experimenter reading out the standardised instructions (as well as being printed on the instruction sheet).  Also, the same dB (decibel) level was used for all music.

Measurement:

Measurement of the Dependant Variable (D.V) was the number of correct answers within the 3 minutes.  The Independent Variable (I.V) was the condition – either fast, slow or no music.  The reason for measuring the D.V in this way was because it enables easy-to-use, quantitative data – answers are simply right or wrong.  The data will be analysed using the Wilcoxon test, as this works best with repeated measures in comparing the conditions.

Ethics:

There are no real ethical considerations, however all participants were given a brief overview as to what the study was looking into before they started the tests.  The six ethics that needed to be considered were: debriefing, deception, protection from harm, consent, withdrawal and distress/embarrassment.

---

R e s u l t s

Standard Deviation:

Using   s =

Why use the mean & standard deviation:

The mean provides an average for each of the three conditions.  The same can be applied for the standard deviation, and this means that all ten results are taken into account, and can be analysed easily.  However, some clarity on the results will be lost via using averages.

Bar Chart:

---

What the results show:

Scores in the slow music condition were generally higher – the means of the fast and slow music were 6.2 and 8.1 out of 15 respectively.  This is also shown via the standard deviation, with scores of 2.482 and 3.270 for the fast and slow conditions.

The no music condition had results, which were slightly lower than that of the fast music condition.  The mean score in the no music condition was 5.8, compared to 6.2 for the fast music condition.

Test One:

For a two-tailed hypothesis where p <= 0.05, the value of W must be equal or less than 8.

Result: W = 3 – results between slow music and no music are significant.

Test Two:

For a two-tailed hypothesis where p <= 0.05, the value of W must be equal or less than 8.

Result: W = 0 – results between fast music and slow music are significant.

Test Three:

For a two-tailed hypothesis where p <= 0.05, the value of W must be equal or less than 8.

Result: W = 19 – results between fast music and no music are not significant.

Statement of Significance:

The results prove the given hypothesis.  However, it may be argued that there is not a significance difference in the results.

---

D i s c u s s i o n

What do the results mean:

Slow music increases performance & productivity.  Having no music produces the lowest performance & productivity.

Hypothesis /  rejection of Null Hypothesis:

The hypothesis can be retained, with the null hypothesis rejected.  However, the results are not of great significant difference, therefore the hypothesis is not altogether accurate.

Method:

Many methodological factors may have affected the results. The repeated measures design meant that fatigue and practice effects would have occurred – the first condition would have meant low scores, as the participants may not have been used to anagrams.  The second and third conditions would see practice effects increase scores, but especially in the last condition, fatigue would lead to a lowering of results.  This could have been overcome via counterbalancing in order to provide more accurate results.

It was also realised that the creation of anagrams was slightly dubious – Appendix Three’s anagram “heset” had multiple answers.

The sample was opportunistic, and therefore limits the generalisation of the results.  10 males, aged 16 to 19 were used in the experiment.  All studied AS or A2 levels, which may lead the results to be concluded in light of their academic ability, as opposed to the music.

The location may have been unfamiliar to participants.  This may have caused physiological arousal (as defined by Yerkes and Dodson), thus affected individual’s performance within the task.

It is impossible to control the experiment 100%.  For example, each individual’s ability to complete anagrams may have affected the results (despite taking averages for the analysis).  Individual’s arousal levels, the heat of the room and other extraneous variables may all account for anomalous results.  The pressure of the situation i.e. having the experimenter in the room may affect the results.

However, it must be argued that the I.Q level of each participant was matched across all three conditions, as all 10 participants completed all three of the anagram tasks.  Therefore, the same I.Q levels remain across all of the conditions, thus increasing the validity and conclusions of the results.

There were no real ethical issues regarding the experiment, however all participants were asked to read and sign a consent form (included in the appendix) in order to make sure that they knew they could freely leave the experiment at any time etc.  Also, all participants were debriefed at the end of the experiment, and the conclusions from this investigation were given to them at a later date.

Mayfield & Moss’ study has told us that slower music meant a slower pace of work.  However, this investigation challenges this theory, instead supporting the hypothesis outlined in this investigation.

One major modification that could be implemented would be the use of counterbalancing.  This would increase the validity of the results.  A wider sample could have been used, in order to increase the ability to generalise results.

More care should have been taken in checking and re-checking the anagrams before being tested upon the participants.  The idea of running a test beforehand to check the validity of the anagrams may have been a good idea.

Future investigations could go on to isolate the various variables.  It is very difficult to conclude that music affects performance.  There are many other reasons as to why people may have performed well – some people can cope with stressful conditions; others just have a natural ability with particular tasks.  By isolating various variables e.g. I.Q, and conducting experiments, a more specific reason (or reasons) can be given as to how music affects our performance, productivity and accuracy.

---

A p p e n d i x    O n e

Instructions for Experiment

• In front of you there will be two sheets: this sheet of instructions and another sheet, turned face down.  ONLY turn the latter sheet over when asked to do so by the experimenter.

• This experiment consists of three separate tests, which will be taken one after another.

• It is asked that you stay seated in between the three tests, as well as during the tests.

• Put the answer to each anagram in the spaces provided to the right of the anagram.

• You will have three minutes in which to complete each test, with a short break in between tests.

• Once the three minutes is completed, the experimenter will let you know will collect in your answers.

• Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask the experimenter before the first test.

---

A p p e n d i x    T w o

Anagram Set One

sowhad -

konmey –

flufcitid –

wilrings -  

noteaudic –

stainnoum –

sacslic –

nolcyba –

divoe –

pice –

rakcc –

tird –

kilm –

korf –

kalt –

---

A p p e n d i x    T h r e e

Anagram Set Two

krow –

henop –

wolb –

perap –

tighl –

dinwow –

heset –

verco –

zigamane –

ningnigeb –

dicsedover –

dubliing –

cagedroune –

cadeox –

mipsle -

---

A p p e n d i x    F o u r

Anagram Set Three

tecpar –

repumoct –

osralnep –

moeh –

scae –

necres –

litfuubea –

equue –

xreim –

ioard –

koyrecr –

teolacohc –

teltob –

eprfoenamrc –

tecenmainna –

---

A p p e n d i x    F i v e

Anagram Answers

Fast Condition:

sowhad - shadow

konmey – monkey

flufcitid – difficult

wilrings -  swirling

noteaudic – education

stainnoum – mountains

sacslic – classic

nolcyba – balcony

divoe – video

pice – epic

rakcc – crack

tird – dirt

kilm – milk

korf – fork

kalt – talk

Slow Condition:

krow – work

henop – phone

wolb – bowl

perap – paper

tighl – light

dinwow – window

heset – sheet

verco – cover

zigamane – magazine

ningnigeb – beginning

dicsedover – discovered

dubliing – building

cagedroune – encouraged

cadeox – coaxed

mipsle – simple

No Music Condition:

tecpar – carpet

repumoct – computer

osralnep – personal

moeh – home

scae – case

necres – screen

litfuubea – beautiful

equue – queue

xreimm – mixer

ioard – radio

koyrecr – rockery

teolacohc – chocolate

teltob – bottle

eprfoenamrc – performance

tecenmainna – maintenance

---

A p p e n d i x    S i x

Consent Form

The experiment that you are about to take part in aims to investigate how music affects performance.  There are three sets of anagrams that you will be asked to complete.

All results will remain anonymous, as no name is requested at any stage.  Each individual will be told at the end as to their results.

Once the investigation has been completed, you will be fully debriefed on exactly what the investigation is looking into.

You have the right to ask any questions before the start of the test.

You can also leave the test at any time, without question.

In order to take part in the investigation, you must firstly consent to taking part.

If you agree with the above conditions, then please sign below.  If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask the experimenter.

Signed: ____________________________________

---

A p p e n d i x    S e v e n

Results Table:

A – J are the participants

Set 1 are the anagram results from the fast music condition

Set 2 are the anagram results from the slow music condition

Set 3 are the anagram results from the no music condition

---

A p p e n d i x    E i g h t

Wilcoxon Test Results

Slow Music & No Music

W = 3; at a significance level of p=0.05 and a two-tailed test, W must be equal or less than 8.  Therefore, the results are significance.

Fast Music & Slow Music

W = 0; at a significance level of p=0.05 and a two-tailed test, W must be equal or less than 8.  Therefore, the results are significance.

Fast Music & No Music

W = 19; at a significance level of p=0.05 and a two-tailed test, W must be equal or less than 8.  Therefore, the results are not significant.