Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kodaly Violin2
Kodaly Violin2
Kodaly Violin2
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Aesthetic Education
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Music and Mathematics: Modest Support for the
Oft-Claimed Relationship
KATHRYN VAUGHN
General Method
These searches yielded over 4000 initial references. Only studies testing
an association between music and mathematics were included. Advocacy
pieces and program descriptions (the vast majority) were excluded. In ad-
dition, studies had to have a measured math outcome, a control group, and
sufficient statistical information for an effect size to be computed (or the
authors had to be willing and able to supply needed missing statistical
information).
Three types of empirical studies linking music and math were excluded.
First, studies in which music was used as a reward for good performance in
math were excluded because they do not test whether there is anything
about music learning per se that improves mathematical aptitude. There
were many of these. Studies in which musical jingles were used as memory
aids to teach math were excluded because these studies did not provide au-
thentic music instruction.4 Finally, studies assessing whether individuals
who have a high musical aptitude also have a high mathematical aptitude
(or the reverse) were excluded because my primary interest was in the ef-
fects of music instruction/exposure, rather than on individual differences
in aptitude. However, a review of studies assessing the aptitude question
would be interesting. If aptitude in music predicts aptitude in math, such a
finding would suggest that training in music might result in improvements
in math, or the reverse (training in math leading to improvement in musical
ability). However, in what follows, only studies providing a direct test of
the hypothesis that training in music results in improvements in math were
included.
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Music and Mathematics 151
Correlational Studies
Coding Characteristics
Year. Dates of publication/appearance ranged from 1950-1999.
Sample Size. The total sample size of the studies analyzed was n=
5,788,132. Sample sizes ranged from n=34 to n=648,144, with a mean of
n=286,907 and a median of n=273,858.
Outcome. All outcomes but one were measured by standardized math
tests. One outcome was based on grade point average in math.
Age of Participants. Thirteen studies assessed students at the high schoo
level, and six studies assessed elementary-school-aged children (3rd - 6th
grades); one study assessed students at the college level.
Duration of Music Training. Duration of music training varied widely
Ten studies assessed the association between math performance and 1-4
years of music instruction; four assessed the association between math an
1-6 years of music; and one assessed the association between math and 1
years of music.
Outlet. Most of the studies were in the form of "fugitive" (unpublished
literature. Seven studies appeared as unpublished doctoral dissertations,
one was in the form of a conference presentation, and ten appeared in th
form of unpublished tabulated data (the College Board studies). Only two
studies were in published form: of these, one appeared as a chapter and on
appeared in a in peer-reviewed journal.
Results
As shown in the stem and leaf display in Table 2, the 20 effect size rs rang
from r = -.05 to r = .37. The mean effect size was r = .15. When weighted b
size of study, the mean effect size r= .14. Thus there is little difference betwe
the mean weighted and unweighted effect size, despite the fact that the SA
studies had far larger sample sizes (mean n over the ten years = 573,227
than did the other ten studies (mean n= 586).
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Table 1: Correlational Studies
Za Duration of Effect
Study/Yr. N r (p) Outcome b Age Music Training
Anello (1972) 326 .16 2.81* Math GPA 9th-12th gr 1- 4 years A-meth
Catterall (1999) 1476 .17 6.62* NAEP 12th gr 1 - 5 years X2 met
Ciepluch (1988) 80 .37 3.33* CTBS 9th - 12th gr 1 - 4 years X2 metho
College Board (1998) 362,853 .18 105.81* SAT Math 12th gr 1 - 4 years A-met
College Board (1997) 354,886 .21 122.52* SAT Math 12th gr 1- 4 years A-met
College Board (1996) 349,032 .18 103.50* SAT Math 12th gr 1- 4 years A-meth
College Board (1995) 346,737 .18 105.05* SAT Math 12th gr 1- 4 years A-meth
College Board (1994) 343,270 .15 85.13* SAT Math 12th gr 1- 4 years A-meth
College Board (1992) 356,258 .12 71.03* SAT Math 12th gr 1- 4 years A-meth
College Board (1991) 361,998 .11 68.17* SAT Math 12th gr 1- 4 years A-meth
College Board (1990) 361,272 .11 63.27* SAT Math 12th gr 1- 4 years A-meth
College Board (1989) 385,943 .10 61.13* SAT Math 12th gr 1- 4 years A-meth
College Board (1988) 437,206 .08 54.25* SAT Math 12th gr 1- 4 years A-meth
Engdahl (1994) 598 .11 2.59* CTBS 5th-6th grade 1- 2 years t-metho
Kvet (1982a) 34 .27 1.60 CAT 3rd - 6th gr 1- 6 years t-method
(p=.05)
Kvet (1982b) 84 .15 1.34 Stanford 3rd - 6th gr 1- 6 years t-metho
(p=.09) Ach. Test
Kvet (1982c) 142 .08 .91 CAT 3rd - 6th gr 1- 6 years t-method
(p=.18)
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Za Duration of Effect
Study/Yr. N r (p) Outcome b Age Music Training
Kvet (1982d) 90 .14 1.33 MAT 3rd - 6th gr 1- 6 years t-method
(p=.09) CAT
McCarthy (1992) 1061 .10 3.28* SRA 9th -12th gr 1- 4 years A-method
Wheeler & Wheeler 1969 -0.05 -2.39* ACE College Music Majors (At A-met
(1950)c least 2 years)
Notes:
a. * means p<.05.
b.
Test Name Abbreviation
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
154 Kathryn Vaughn
Table 2: Stem and Leaf Display of 20 Effect Size rs from Correlational Studies
Stem Leaf
+.3 7
+.2 1, 7
+.0 8,8
-.0 5
Discussion
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Music and Mathematics 155
Coding Characteristics
Year. Dates of publication/appearance ranged from 1959-1997.
Sample Size. The total sample size of the studies analyzed was n= 357.
Sample sizes ranged from n=28 to n=128, with a mean of n=60 and a median
of n=48.
the outcome, and three used a test designed by the researcher. In the study
by Graziano and her colleagues, a computerized interactive test was used
as the assessment. Children were given 16 nonverbal items assessing their
understanding of proportions and ratios. Children saw pictures of shapes
and objects on a computer screen and were asked how many of certain
shapes (e.g., blocks or triangles) would fit into a larger shape. In the two
studies by Neufeld, children were given a test assessing prenumber con-
cepts related to proportions and ratios. The test consisted of tasks such a
seriating objects by size or length (showing an understanding of a progres-
sion from less to more), and completing patterns given a choice of missing
pieces.
Age of Participants. All six studies assessed students at the preschool or
elementary school level.
Duration of Music Training. The amount of time spent on music training
ranged from four months to two years.
Instrument. In two studies, children were trained on the keyboard; in two
they were trained vocally (Kodaly method); in one study, children were
trained on the violin (Suzuki method); and in one they were trained on a
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Table 3: Experimental Training Studies
Duration of
Za Math Music Eff
Study/ Yr. N r (p) Design Outcome Age Training Instrument N
Costa-Giomi 128 .20 2.24* True- Canadian 4th gr. 2 Years Keyboard Trad
(1997) Experimental/ Achievement Notat
Unmatched Test
Friedman 28 .09 .46 True- Stanford 5th - 6th gr. 1-2 years School Band Tr
(1959) (p=.32) Experimental/ Achievement Instruments
Matched Test
Graziano, 55 .31 2.32* True- Researcher 2nd gr. 4 Months Keyboard Tra
Peterson, & Experimental/ Designed Not
Shaw (1999) Unmatched Math T
Neufeld 40 -.04 -.25 Quasi- Researcher Pre-K 1 Year Kodaly Method Non-Tr
(1986) (p=.40) Experimental/ Designed (Primarily Vocal
Matched Math Test Hand Sy
Weeden 66 .17 1.40 Quasi- Stanford 1st - 2nd gr. 4 Months Violin (Suzuki No
(1971) (p=.08) Experimental/ Early School Me
Matched Achievement
Test
Notes
a. * means p<.05.
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Music and Mathematics 157
Results
As shown in the stem and leaf display in Table 4, the effect sizes ran
from r = -.04 to r =.31. The mean effect size was r=.13. When weighted
size of study, the mean effect increased to r=.16, indicating that larger s
ies had higher effect sizes. The combined Zs yielded a Stouffer's Z= 2.
p=.004, indicating that it is highly unlikely that the positive effect size fo
was due to chance. The more conservative t-test of the mean Zr = 2.49,
nearly significant at p=.06. The 95% confidence interval did not span zero,
but ranged from r=.03 to r=.23. This tells us that in another sample of six
similar studies, the mean effect size is not likely to be at zero or below. A
file drawer analysis revealed that nine studies would need to be found av-
eraging null results to bring the Stouffer's Z down to just significant at
p=.05. Effect sizes were not significantly heterogeneous, X2= 3.79, df=5, p = .58.
Table 4: Stem and Leaf Display of 6 Effect Size rs from Experimental Training Studies
Stem Leaf
+.3 1
+.2 0
+.1 7
+.0 4, 9
-.0 4
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
158 Kathryn Vaughn
Discussion
Coding Characteristics
Year. Dates of publication/appearance ranged from 1958-1998.
Sample Size. The total sample size of the studies analyzed was n= 1,652.
Sample sizes ranged from n=10 to n=320, with a mean of n=110 and a
median of n=95.
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Table 5: Background Music Studies
Za
Special Condi
Study N r (p) Outcome Design Age Needs (weights
Abikoff 20 .05 .22 Wide Range Repeated 2nd - 6th Attention Deficit/ Sile
(1996a) (p=.41) Achievement Measures gr Hyperactivity Speech
Test Disorder Rap/Rock (
Abikoff 20 -.05 -.22 Wide Range Repeated 2nd - 6th No Silence
(1996b) (p=.41) Achievement Measures gr Speech (-1
Test Rap/Rock (-
Anno 63 .19 1.52 California Unmatched/ 3rd gr No Silence (-1)
(1958) (p=.06) Achievement Between Classica
Test Subjects Muzak (+
Hallam & 10 .82 2.59* Teacher Repeated 9-10 yrs Emotionally/ Silence
Price Designed Test Measures Behaviorally "Mood
(1997a) ing" music (+
Hallam & 31 .05 .29 Teacher Repeated 10-11 yrs No Silence (-1
Price (p=.39) Designed Test Measures "Mood ca
(1997b) ing" music (+
Hardie 200 .20 2.81* College Board Unmatched/ College No Silence
(1990) Comparative Between Classical (+
Guidance Exam Subjects
Kopp 95 .05 .51 Unspecified Unmatched/ 4th gr No Silence (-
(1958a) (p=.30) Standardized Between Class
Test Subjects ("relaxing")
Kopp 96 -.15 -1.44 Unspecified Unmatched/ 4th gr No Silence (
(1958b) (p=.07) Standardized Between Class
Test Subjects ("stimulating"
Manthei & 66 .03 .24 Customized Repeated College No Silence (-1)
Kelley (p=.41) Math Placement measures Classical
(1998) technical
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
za
Special Conditi
Study N r (p) Outcome Design Age Needs (weights
Miller & 198 .08 1.13 Differential Unmatched/ College No Silence
Schyb (p=.13) Aptitude Test Between Classical (Mozart) (+
Battery Subjects Disco (+1)
Rock (
Notes:
a. * means p<.05
b. MPC-F = Maximum Possible Contrast F
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Music and Mathematics 161
Special Needs. Two of the studies assessed the effect of music on spec
needs students: attention deficit/hyperactivity, and emotionally/behavi
ally disturbed. All other studies assessed the effect of music on typica
children.
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
162 Kathryn Vaughn
Results
As shown in the stem and leaf display in Table 6, effect sizes ranged from
r = -.18 to r = .82. The mean effect size was r = .14 (Stouffer's Z= 2.77, p=.003;
t-test of the mean Zr=1.71,, p=.11, only nearing significance). The weighted
mean effect size was r=.07. The 95% confidence interval ranged from r=.02
to r=.26, and thus did not span zero. The file drawer measure indicated that
27 additional studies averaging null results would need to be found to con-
clude that the findings overestimate the effect of soothing or relaxing back-
ground music. Effect sizes were significantly heterogeneous, however, X2=
37.56, df=14, p=.0006, suggesting that the sample may come from more than
one population of studies.
Table 6: Stem and Leaf Display of 15 Effect Size rs from Background Music Studies
Stem Leaf
+.8 2
+.7
+.6
+.5
+.4
+3 5
+.2 0
+.1 2, 9
+.0 3, 5, 5, 5, 7, 8, 8
-.0 5
-.1 5, 8
When I eliminated these two studies from the analysis, in order to ren-
der studies more similar to one another (all based on typical children), a
mean effect size of r=.07 was found (Stouffer's Z= 2.19, p=.014; t-test of the
mean Zr=1.71, p=.11, only nearing significance), and a weighted mean effect
size of r= .06. The 95% confidence interval spanned zero, ranging from r =
-.01 to r = .15. The file drawer measure dropped to 11, meaning that only 11
additional studies averaging null results would need to be found to negate
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Music and Mathematics 163
the findings here. With these studies excluded, the effect sizes were
significantly heterogeneous, X2= 21.77, df=12, p=.04.
Discussion
General Discussion
What are we to make of the oft-cited relationship between music and math?
This analysis did not explore the possibility that individuals with high lev-
els of musicality are also particularly able in mathematics; nor did it explore
the reverse possibility that individuals with high mathematical ability are
particularly musical. Instead, this analysis explored three other questions:
1) Do individuals who voluntarily choose to study music (and these may be
individuals with high musical ability but I cannot say for sure) show higher
mathematical achievement than those who do not so choose? 2) Do indi-
viduals exposed to a music curriculum in school (not voluntarily selected)
show higher mathematical achievement as a consequence of this music in-
struction? 3) And does background music heard while thinking about math
problems serve to enhance mathematical ability at least during the music
listening time?
The meta-analyses of the existing data allow the following conclusions.
The answer to the first question is yes. A small association between the vol-
untary study of music and mathematics achievement was found when 20
studies with correlational designs were combined.
The answer to the second question is also yes. A small causal relation-
ship was demonstrated when six studies were combined, showing that mu-
sic training enhances math performance. However, it is worthy of note that
six studies is a very small number. Of these few studies, three produced
modest effect sizes, and three produced essentially zero effect sizes (two
positive and one negative). Only nine more studies averaging null results
would be needed to overturn the significant finding here. In short, there is a
dearth of existing evidence testing the hypothesis that music training en-
hances performance in mathematics, and I conclude that the hypothesis has
not yet been adequately put to the test.
Finally, the answer to the third question, when only studies that include
non-special-needs children were considered, is a very small and shaky yes.
The confidence interval included zero, and the effect size found was trivially
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
164 Kathryn Vaughn
small. Thus, we cannot conclude with any certainty that soothing music en-
hances math performance. Moreover, even if such a conclusion could be
drawn, we would need to examine the effect of soothing music on other
kinds of academic performance in order to determine whether background
music has a particularly enhancing effect on math, or whether it enhances
any academic task as a function, perhaps, of its relaxing effect. There does
exist a body of studies investigating the effect of music listening on reading
achievement, and a meta-analysis of these findings would help put the
background music and math meta-analysis into proper context.
NOTES
1. See Lois Hetland, this issue, for evidence that music enhances spatial temp
reasoning.
2. For such an argument, see Amy Graziano, Matthew Peterson, and Gordon
Shaw, "Enhanced Learning of Proportional Math through Music Training and
Spatial-Temporal Training," Neurological Research 21, no. 2 (1999): 139-52.
3. Igor Stravinsky, Conversations with Robert Craft (London: Pelican Books, 1971), p.
34, cited in Howard Gardner, Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences
(New York: Basic Books, 1983), p. 126.
4. Three such studies were found: K. Benes-Lafferty,"An Analysis of Using Musi-
cal Activities in a Second Grade Mathematics Class" (Doctoral diss., Indiana
University of Pennsylvania, 1995); A. Gregory, "The Effects of a Musical Instruc-
tional Technique on the Mathematical Achievement of Third-Grade Students"
(Doctoral diss., University of Alabama, 1988); and A. Traver-Holder, "At-Risk
Students and Math Achievement: The Effects of Manipulative-Based and
Music-Based Teaching Approaches" (Doctoral diss., Regent University, 1993).
5. Full reference for these studies can be found in Studies Used in Meta-Analyses.
6. Adjustments were made for the recentering of SAT scores that occurred starting
in 1996 such that all means were based on the original unrecentered scale.
7. Students taking the SAT were asked to respond to a questionnaire asking them
about courses taken. Further discussion of the SAT data can be found in the
article by Vaughn and Winner, this issue.
8. If the sum of the absolute value of the sum of the weighted squared differences
between each effect size (Zr) and the mean effect size Zr exceeds the upper-tail
critical value of chi-square at degrees of freedom equal to the number of studies
minus 1, then the effect sizes are heterogeneous. (See William R. Shadish and
Keith Haddock, "Combining Measures of Effect Size," in The Handbook of Re-
search Synthesis, ed. Harris Cooper and Larry Hedges (New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1994).
9. In calculating heterogeneity, the Fisher's Zr for a given study is treated as the
observed value, and the overall mean Fisher's Zr as the expected value for each
study. Even a small difference between the two values, when multiplied by
such large samples (n>500,000), yields a large value that adds to the weight of
the chi-square statistic.
10. One potentially relevant study (Madeleine Zulauf, "Three-Year Experiment i
Extended Music Teaching in Switzerland: The Different Effects Observed in a
Group of French-Speaking Pupils," Bulletin of the Council of Research in Music
Education 119 (Winter 1993/1994:111-12) could not be included because the ex-
perimental group received music training during regular math class time, while
the control group continued with its usual math studies. Hence, the experimen-
tal group received less instruction in math. This group yielded a negative effect
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Music and Mathematics 165
size (r=-.12), and this poor showing of the music students may well have be
due to the fact that they actually studied less math than did the control group
11. Full references for these studies can be found in Studies Used in Meta-Anal
12. In one study (by Abikov and his colleagues, 1996), rock and rap were compa
to silence and were predicted to enhance rather than depress math performa
However, since this was in conflict with the hypotheses of all the other studies
used this study only to test the hypothesis that rock and rap (both coded as
silence coded as +2) would interfere with math. Thus, the hypothesis for th
study that was tested by this meta-analysis was not the hypothesis tested b
these authors.
13. See Robert Rosenthal and Ralph L. Rosnow, Contrast Analysis: Focused Compari-
sons in Analysis of Variance (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1988), pp.
74-77.
Abikoff, Howard, Mary E. Courtney, Peter J. Szeibel, and Harold S. Koplewicz, "The
Effects of Auditory Stimulation on the Arithmetic Performance of Children with
ADHD and Nondisabled Children," Journal of Learning Disabilities 29, no. 3 (1996):
238-46.
Annello, John A., "A Comparison of Academic Achievement between Instrumental
Music Students and Non-Music Students in the El Dorado and Valencia High
Schools of the Placentia United School District" (Doctoral Diss., Brigham Young
University, 1972).
Anno, Janet Winkle, "The Effects of Background Music on a Group of Third-Grade
Children" (Masters Thesis, Ohio State University, 1958).
Catterall, James S., Richard Chapleau, and John Iwanaga, "Involvement in the Arts
and Human Development: General Involvement and Intensive Involvement in
Music and Theater Arts. In Edward Fiske, ed. Champions of Change: The Impact of
the Arts on Learning (The Arts Education Partnership and The President's Com-
mittee on the Arts and the Humanities, 1999), pp. 1-18.
Ciepluch, Gary Michael," Sightreading Achievement in Instrumental Music Per-
formance, Learning Gifts, and Academic Achievement: A Correlational Study"
(Doctoral Diss., University of Wisconsin, 1988).
"College Bound Seniors Profile of SAT and Achievement Test Takers," 1987-1998
(College Board).
Costa-Giomi, Eugenia, "The McGill Piano Project: Effects of Piano Instruction on
Children's Cognitive Abilities, Academic Achievement, and Self-Esteem" (Paper
presented at the 12th National Symposium on Research in Music Behavior, Min-
neapolis, 1997).
Engdahl, Pherbia Mathis, "The Effect of Pull-Out Programs on the Academic
Achievement of Sixth-Grade Students in South Bend, Indiana" (Doctoral Diss.,
Andrews University, 1994).
Friedman, Bernard, "An Evaluation of the Achievement in Reading and Arithmetic
of Pupils in Elementary School Instrumental Music Classes" (Doctoral Diss., New
York University, 1959).
Graziano, Amy B., Matthew Peterson, and Gordon L. Shaw, "Enhanced Learning of
Proportional Math through Music Training and Spatial-Temporal Training,"
Neurological Research 21, no. 2 (1999): 139-52.
Hallam, Susan, and John Price, "Can Listening to Background Music Improve Chil-
dren's Behaviour and Performance in Mathematics?" (Paper presented at the Brit-
ish Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of York,
September 11-14, 1997).
Hardie, Michael Howard, "The Effect of Music on Mathematics Anxiety and
Achievement " (Doctoral Diss., University of Nevada, 1990).
Kopp, George W., "The Effects of Stimulating and Relaxing Music on Children
Taking a Fourth Grade Arithmetic Test" (Doctoral Diss., Syracuse University,
1958).
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
166 Kathryn Vaughn
Kvet, Edward J., "Excusing Elementary Students from Regular Classroom Activities
for the Study of Instrumental Music: The Effect on Sixth-Grade Reading, Lan-
guage, and Mathematics Achievement" (Doctoral Diss., University of Cincinnati,
1982).
Manthei, Mike, and Steve N. Kelly, Effects of Popular and Classical Background Music on
the Math Test Scores of Undergraduate Students (University of South Florida School
of Music, 1998). Available at http://arts.usf.edu/music/rpme/effects.html.
McCarthy, Kevin, "Music Performance Group Membership and Academic Success:
A Descriptive Study of One 4-Year High School." (Paper presented at the Colorado
Music Educators Association 1992).
Miller, Leon K., and Michael Schyb, "Facilitation and Interference by Background
Music," Journal of Music Therapy 26, no. 1 (1989): 42-54.
Mowesian, Richard, and Margaret R. Heyer, "The Effect of Music as a Distraction on
Test-Taking Performance." Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance 6, no. 2 (1973):
105-10.
This content downloaded from 193.140.46.30 on Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:24:45 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms