Not only were the mean and total scores close together, they were also very low. Considering all scores were out of thirty, scores between eight and twelve were the most common of all three groups. This may have been due to the competition and time limit putting pressure on the participants. Graph one on page twelve shows the differences between the mean average test score for the three music styles. The performance with fast music playing falls below that with none at all and even further behind that of slow music which stands visibly ahead with the highest mean average score.
This study was not based on one single piece of previous research, but many associated studies. For this reason, my results cannot be directly compared with those of another study, although they can be linked to the study by Mayfield and Moss (1989). They found that fast music acted as a stressor to participants while slow music relaxed them, allowing them to perform the task quicker. When debriefing the participants, five that took the test with the slow music commented that they felt relaxed and believed it was because of the music. However, the group with the fast music did not believe it affected their performance. Interestingly, when asked whether they tried harder because of the presence of other people in search of the prize, four participants in the fast music group commented that they had, while no participants in any other group did. This may indicate that the fast music stimulates social facilitation, an addition to the studies by Triplett (1898) and Allport (1920). However, the low scores themselves may indicate the direct opposite to this; social loafing. This idea suggests that the presence of others in a group performing the same task elicits a poorer performance. However, to test this properly the participants must be tested individually to compare the scores, a study that would require concentration on social influence. The results of my study contrast those of Stough et al.(1994), who found that classical music did not affect the performance of an IQ test. However, an IQ test sets questions which the participant may not know the answer to no matter what music is played, whereas my study involved questions where the answers were constantly present, the music simply relaxed/stressed the participants thus affecting how they coped with the anagrams. One of the limitations of using only an anagram test was the unknown vocabulary of the participants – some may have only known the short words and never come across the longer ones. This was where the cross section of subjects became important (English students were present in every group). It was for this reason many short words were chosen, of which every participant correctly worked out nearly all of them. A major drawback with this type of study is that a researcher can never be sure whether they are measuring the influence of the music or the purely the intelligence of the participant (whether the music had any impact). The only way of being certain of this is to use the same students in the same test with the different music styles, but which would of course be pointless as after the first test they would know most of the answers. Therefore, the most accurate way of doing this is to use students close in intelligence, age etc.
Because of the size of the groups due to time constraints, I expected a very small difference in scores thus making analysis difficult. However, the results proved to be varied enough to notice the trends and I believe that larger groups would only emphasise these trends. Another limitation concerning the participants is the process of selection. An opportunity sample was the final selection process after the participants had been selected via systematic sampling, when a more representative sample may have offered a wider range of results. One major limitation is generalisation. It would be very difficult to generalise the findings of my study to other age groups or other tasks, but the results could be useful in relation to other studies on this subject. I had anticipated possible problems with availability of participants, but had a full compliment for all three experiments, thus eliminating any problems on this front. I would have preferred a more accurate way of sampling than combining random with opportunity, but as I received a full compliment of participants for all three experiments this is less of a consideration. Testing a number of bigger groups, about twenty per group, would have allowed me to use a number of ‘tests’ (anagrams, crosswords, maths questions) to examine whether it was indeed the music affecting performance, and not the difficulty or type of task (English style questions, maths style questions etc.).Overall, I was very pleased with the set up and running of the experiment. Because the experiment was carried out in an unnatural environment, ecological validity is also a limitation of the study. The best way to solve this is to incorporate the selected task, with music when necessary, into a normal school lesson as this represents a more natural environment for the participant. This study will impact students and, in fact, anyone looking for ways to increase their concentration on work or quality of work etc. It was aimed at students like myself- to make aware the potential of music as an aid to revision/work. However, a study like this will be totally disregarded by someone who only likes and only works to one specific music type. My study simply suggests that a slower type of music may improve performance of a task, of which homework could be one. With more research on different music types, different age groups and different tasks, it could be ascertained as to what types of music affect what types of task etc., but without this further research my study cannot stand alone and be generalised to these other areas. This study could be seen as the first step into investigating the subject of music aiding performance. With more published research in this area, the effect of music could be made more publicly aware. As music is such a huge industry with an even bigger following, people could learn about the types of music that would help them possibly improve their work though their interest for music. Ideally, my study would act as this stepping stone to further research. There are many directions to go with follow up studies, whether focusing on music or not. A possible future study following on from this could focus on social facilitation as an influencing factor. Future researchers could perform the same test but remove influencing factors and compare the results. For example, if the prize was removed you may expect the level of competition to go down; if the time limit was removed you may expect the pressure on participants to go down, thus yielding higher mean results. This may also help to identify the extent to which social facilitation/loafing affects the performance of the task. Alternatively they could investigate the music aspect, trying many different types of music (rap, dance, classical etc.) and seeing which genres of music give better results. A study involving personal preferences of music of participants could also be quite useful. The researcher could ask beforehand in a questionnaire the favourite music type of the participant. They could then perform a task listening to that music, and then perform another task listening to their least favourite music style and compare the results. This would indicate fully the amount to which music affects the performance of a task. It also would be sensible to undertake different types of task (maths, English etc.) to allow valid generalisation, in accordance with different age groups. For students, researchers could associate different types of music with revision for a test and compare performances. This may allow students to see which types of music may be useful for them in revision for exams. However, this may still depend heavily on personal preference.
Conclusion
Overall, the results of my study show that slow (classical) music can improve the performance of a task and fast (dance) music can worsen the performance, compared to none at all. It also suggests that fast music may encourage social facilitation.
Appendices
Appendix I – Participant Question/Response Sheet
sowhad-
konmey-
flufcitid-
wilrings-
noteaudic-
stainnoum-
sacslic-
nolcyba-
zigamane-
ningnigeb-
dicsedover-
dubliing-
cagedroune-
cadeox-
mipsle-
krow-
henop-
divoe-
pice-
rakcc-
tird-
kilm-
korf-
kalt-
wolb-
perap-
tighl-
dinwow-
heset-
verco-
Appendix II – Answer Sheet
sowhad-shadow
konmey-monkey
flufcitid-difficult
wilrings-swirling
noteaudic-education
stainnoum-mountains
sacslic-classic
nolcyba-balcony
zigamane-magazine
ningnigeb-beginning
dicsedover-discovered
dubliing-building
cagedroune-encouraged
cadeox-coaxed
mipsle-simple
krow-work
henop-phone
divoe-video
pice-epic
rakcc-crack
tird-dirt
kilm-milk
korf-fork
kalt-talk
wolb-bowl
perap-paper
tighl-light
dinwow-window
heset-sheet
verco-cover
Appendix III – Standardised Instructions All three groups were read this set of instructions: ? The task I would like you to perform is to work out a list of thirty anagrams. You have five minutes to work out as many as you can and there will be a prize for the person with the most correct answers.
? Is there anyone who feels uncomfortable with the task they have been asked to do?
? I will signal when you may start and after five minutes I shall ask you to stop and give me your answer sheets. I will request that from this point onwards there is no talking until all the papers have been handed in.
? If there is anyone who wishes to leave would they please indicate so now.
? (after the five minutes had elapsed) Could you please stop writing and hand in your sheets, making sure you have not written your name on the sheet.
? (after the sheets had been handed in, the results added up, the prize issued and the participants had seen th4e answers and been debriefed) Thank you for participating in this study. Please do not tell anyone about any details or aims of the study you have just undertaken.
Appendix IV – Raw Results
Appendix V – Mann Whitney U Test For Hypothesis One
U = 10 x 10 + 10 (10 + 1)
2 – 125 = 30U = 30 U’ = 10 x 10 – 30 = 70U’ = 70 Observed value of U = 30 Critical value of U = 23 at a significance level of p?0.05 and a two-tailed test. Therefore, as 30 > 23 the null hypothesis is rejected.
Appendix VI – Mann Whitney U Test For Hypothesis Two
U = 10 x 10 + 10 (10 + 1)
2 – 111.5 = 43.5U = 43.5 U’ = 10 x 10 – 43.5 = 56.5U’ = 56.5 Observed value of U = 43.5 Critical value of U = 23 at a significance level of p?0.05 and a two-tailed test. Therefore, as 43.5 > 23 the null hypothesis is rejected.
Appendix VII – Mann Whitney U Test For Hypothesis Three
U = 10 x 10 + 10 (10 + 1)
2 – 115.5 = 39.5U = 39.5 U’ = 10 x 10 – 39.5 = 60.5U’ = 60.5 Observed value of U = 39.5 Critical value of U = 23 at a significance level of p?0.05 and a two-tailed test. Therefore, as 39.5 > 23 the null hypothesis is rejected.
35f