1 MozartCogDiss& Music Pleasure, Format BBR-Final

8/14/2019 1 MozartCogDiss& Music Pleasure, Format BBR-Final

1/21

Mozart Effect, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Pleasureof

Music

Leonid Perlovsky1*, Arnaud.Caanac!, Marie"Claude #onniot"Caanac$, Michel Caanac$.

1Athinoula A. Martinos Center for #io%edical &%aging, 'arvard (niversity, Charlesto)n, MA,

(A and Air +orce esearch Laoratory, Dayton, -', (A,leonidseas.harvard.edu

!

De ocheelle chool /C..D.D0, ueec, Canada, arnaud.caanaccsdecou.2c.ca.

$+aculty of Medicine, Laval (niversity, ueec, Canada, Marie"Claude.#onniot

f%ed.ulaval.ca3 Michel.Caanacf%ed.ulaval.ca.

*Corres4ondence to5 leonidseas.harvard.edu, 617"!89":197

;ords5


2/21


3/21

1. Introduction - Mozart effect, cognitive dissonance, and music

=he >Mozart effect? is a short"ter% i%4rove%ent on @s4atial"te%4oral reasoning 1, !F. =he idea

that >listening to Mozart %akes you s%arter? has een so %uch hy4ed y the %edia that %any

scientists conducted e4eri%ents to verify its validity. A short"ter% effect of any i%4rove%ent

)as illustrated, and s4ecificity to Mozart and %usic )as 2uestioned $,


4/21

Cognitive dissonance /CD0 is a disco%fort caused y holding conflicting cognitions 1$F. &t is

kno)n that this disco%fort is usually resolved y devaluing"discarding a conflicting cognition.

Any t)o ele%ents of kno)ledge contradict each other to so%e etent, leading to CD and to de"

%otivation of kno)ledge accu%ulation. &n 4articular, e%ergence of language and the follo)ing

accu%ulation of kno)ledge )ould e devalued. =herefore the current theory of CD 2uestions

%otivations for the entire hu%an evolution, unless a 4o)erful cognitive %echanis% )ould

e%erge in 4arallel )ith language, )hich )ould enale kee4ing in %ind contradictory cognitions.

A recent hy4othesis suggests that %usic originated in hu%an evolution to hel4 overco%ing

negative conse2uences of CD 1talk? to one another and estalish ehavioral 4riorities, it )as

natural to e4lore )hether 4leasure )ould also fulfill the sa%e function )ith CD )here t)o

cognitions are in conflict )ith one another in our %ind. A %usic aility to hel4 kee4

contradictory cognitions in %ind has een de%onstrated e4eri%entally in !:, !1F5 %usic has

hel4ed young children /< y.o.a.0 to avoid devaluing an attractive toy, )hile not 4laying )ith it.

=he funda%ental and road clai%s aout %usical role in cognition and hu%an evolution re2uire

%ultifaceted evaluation. 'ere )e a44roach relations et)een %usic and CD in a different setting

of student 4erfor%ance on acade%ic tests. ;e evaluate t)o hy4otheses5 first, that the hedonicity

/i.e 4leasure or dis4leasure0 fro% %usic could %odulate the aility to tolerate stress caused y


5/21

CD, and second, )hether the result )ould lead to an a44lied use of %usic during acade%ic

ea%ination tests.

2. Methods

=)o grou4s of 8th year high school /1


6/21

&t ha44ened that so%e of the 4artici4ants in the Mozart grou4, found that %usic (nPleasant, and

so%e fro% the koto grou4 found it Pleasant. =herefore the results )ere sorted, not on the account

of the %usic heard, ut on the 4leasure or the dis4leasure e4erienced5 $: rated their %usic as

Pleasant, and !1 as (nPleasant. Also, in oth grou4s /1$ 4artici4ants altogether0, rated on

uestionnaire 4age # /see elo)0 the %usic they heard as indifferent /zero hedonicity0. =hese 1$

4artici4ants served as a control and )ere laeled the >(n'edonic? grou4.

uestionnaires

At the end of their acade%ic tests the 4artici4ants ans)ered t)o short 2uestionnaires on se4arate

4ages, the first one, Page A, 4roed their ehavioral 4erfor%ance and the second one, Page #,

4roed their e4erience. =his 4rotocol )as arranged that )ay in order to avoid dra)ing the

4artici4ants? attention on the environ%ental %usic and on their a)areness aroused y the

4revious 2uestions on face A. =he %usic had een sto44ed at the end of the test, i.e. efore these

final 2uestionnaires )ere o4ened.

-n Page A the 4artici4ants )ere re2uested to5

" )rite the eact ti%e of their co%4letion of the acade%ic test3 thus 4roviding their individual

duration

" rate fro% : to 1: ho) difficult they had found the test

" )rite fro% : to 1:: the grade they e4ected to have earned

" rate fro% : to 1:, the intensity of their stress

-n Page # the 4artici4ants ans)ered the follo)ing t)o 2uestions5

" 'ave you een a)are that %usic )as 4layed during the testB Ans)er JI

6


7/21

" Did you like itB ate your 4leasureJdis4leasure e4erience, as a nu%er et)een "8 and 8,

)ith the follo)ing land%arks5 "8 very un4leasant, "$ un4leasant, : indifferent, $ agreeale,

8 very agreeale.

3. Results

$.1 Nrade 4erfor%ance and hedonicity of %usic

Nrades earned y students in Pleasant %usic condition )ere higher than for (nPleasant or

(n'edonic. =he differences are statistically significant. /=his is si%ilar to the >Mozart effect?03

elationshi4s for (nPleasant vs. (n'edonic are not statistically significant, =ale 1. 'ere and

elo) M; and = denote Mann";hitney and tudent ="tests3 arro)s O""Q indicate the

co%4ared 4air of conditions3 re4orted nu%ers for each 4air of conditions sho) the 4roaility

of acce4ting null hy4othesis, 4 /4 K 1 corres4onds to no difference, 4 O :.:8 is usually

inter4reted as statistically significant difference et)een the 4air of conditions0.

Table 1.Nrades earned /fro% : to 160. Nrades y students in Pleasant %usic condition )ere

aove the t)o other grou4s. 'igher grades under 4leasant %usic than under un4leasant or

indifferent %usic, )ere statistically significant.

Pleasant (nPleasant (n'edonic

%edian 1


8/21

$.! -ther variales

Table 2.Duration )as shorter under Pleasant %usic than under (n'edonic %usic and

(nPleasant condition. =he difference did not reach statistical significance for Pleasant vs.

(nPleasant, ut significant for Pleasant vs. (n'edonic.

Pleasant (nPleasant (n'edonic

%edian 11.:: 11.:: 1$.::

%ean 11.1$ 11.76 1!.69

st.dev. !.


9/21

%ean H:.7: 7


10/21

=he advantage of using nor%alized variales is that results are inde4endent of units of

%easure%ents of individual variales. Coefficient a1 gives a di%ensionless isolated effect of

@Difficulty on Duration, and coefficient a! gives a di%ensionless isolated effect of tress on

Duration. SDifficultyS can e esti%ated as /suGective Difficulty0, or as /"Nrade0, or as /"

E4ected Nrade0. A higher grade %easures @easiness rather than @difficulty, therefore to

%easure @difficulty )e took negative values /"Nrade, or TE4ected Nrade0. ;e co%4uted all

three regressions for each condition, and evaluated statistical significance of the effects of

@difficulty and stress on duration for each condition, as given y the coefficients a1 and a!,

di%ensionless %easures of @Difficulty and tress effects on Duration, isolated fro% each other.

=he results are su%%arized in =ales 6 and 7.

Table !=he coefficient a1, a di%ensionless isolated %easure of @difficulty effect on Duration,

for each %easure of @difficulty, and its statistical significance /4, a 4roaility of acce4ting

a1K:0.

The coefficient a1 Pleasant (nPleasant (n'edonic

Difficulty :.$1< ":.179 :.H77

/"Nrade0 :.!!1 :.:$7 :.6$9

/"E4ectedRNr0 :.189 :.:


11/21

Difficulty :.!H :.$7 :

/"Nrade0 :.19 :.7$ :

/"E4ectedRNr0 :.!! :.76 :

&iscussion

=he first funda%ental result of the current re4ort de%onstrates that %usic affects 4erfor%ance.

=ale 1 sho)s that the test 4erfor%ance as %easured y Nrades confir%ed the hy4othesis5

Nrades for Pleasant %usic condition are higher than for (nPleasant or (n'edonic conditions.

=hese differences are statistically significant.

i%ilar differences in the 4ast )ere called the >Mozart effect? and eventually dis%issed as short"

ter% effect, non"s4ecific to %usic


12/21

)hich is seen fro% the $rdcolu%n in =ale 7. ;hereas naively one could e4ect that %ore

stressful tests should re2uire %ore ti%e, these results de%onstrate that )hen the effect of

difficulty is se4arated, the effect of stress is o44osite fro% this naUve e4ectation. tress reduces

duration ecause stress is un4leasant and tolerating stress is difficult. &f hu%ans in their

evolutionary develo4%ent )ould not e ale to overco%e this %orid conse2uence of CD,

hu%an culture )ould not evolve to %ore kno)ledge and to aility for thinking.

=hese results confir% the 4reviously discussed hy4othesis 1


13/21

a 4ositive value5 difficulty increases duration /)hile a1 has lo) statistical significance, ece4t

one case, of suGective Difficulty, 4K:.:


14/21

kno)ledge contradicts instinctual drives1, other)ise the instinctual drive )ould e sufficient and

no kno)ledge )ould e needed. =he sa%e argu%ent a44lies to any t)o ele%ents of kno)ledge.

=hus kno)ledge i%4lies CD. o let us re4eat, accu%ulation of kno)ledge and aility to think

re2uires overco%ing CD tendency to devalue kno)ledge.

&t is interesting to note that Ancient Nreeks kne) aout CD and the hu%an tendency to devalue

contradictory cognitions. &n the Aeso4?s fale =he +o and the Nra4es a fo sees high"hanging

gra4es. A desire to eat gra4es and inaility to reach the% are in conflict. =he fo overco%es this

cognitive dissonance y deciding that the gra4es are sour and not )orth eating. ince the 198:s

cognitive dissonances eca%e a )ide and )ell studied area of 4sychology. Let us re4eat that

tolerating cognitive dissonances is difficult, and 4eo4le often %ake irrational decisions to avoid

contradictions 1$, $7F. &n !::! this research )as a)arded Ioel Prize in econo%ics

e%4hasizing the i%4ortance of this field of research. Ievertheless the 4sychological status of CD

e%otions have not een addressed5 are these e%otions si%ilar to asic e%otions, such as fear or

rage, or are they funda%entally different !6, $!, $$, $

%easuring vital needs of an organis%.

1


15/21

interesting 2uestion for future e4eri%ental studies. 'ere )e )ould suggest a theoretical

hy4othesis that the %ain contriution of %usic to culture could e in creating %usical e%otions,

overco%ing CD devaluations of kno)ledge, and sustaining hu%an cultural evolution. As

kno)ledge, cognition, and culture have evolved and e%otions are categorized in language,

a%usical 4eo4le can 4artici4ate in this cultural 4rocess. &f insensitivity to %usic affects cognitive

differences et)een %usical and a%usical 4eo4le, these differences should e searched in

s4ecifically creative as4ects of cognition, such as differences et)een decisions %ade using the

kno)ledge instinct and using language"ased heuristics


16/21

including students taking the tests dislike contradictions in their kno)ledge, e4erience it as

tress, and do not )ant to kee4 it in the %ind for long5 %ore tress less Duration !. =his is

reversed during the Pleasant %usic condition. The fundamentally important result is that

pleasant music helped tolerating stress for longer and resulted in better Grades.Pleasantmusic

helps overcoming CD (stress) and helps keeping in mind contradictory cognitions.

'onclusion

=he current 4a4er contriutes to understanding t)o unsolved 4role%s in 4sychology. =he first

is the origin and evolution of %usic. Consciousness is %uch evolutionary older than hu%an

%usic Mozart effect.? -ur 4a4er suggests that long"ter% e4osure to %usic

and sensitivity to %usical e%otions are likely to e i%4ortant for cognitive ailities, ut this

should e a se4arate field of study fro% the short"ter% >Mozart effect.?

!As kno)n e%4irically y any teacher

16


17/21

=he current 4a4er adds evidence to the e%erging theory that %usic evolved Gointly )ith language

for the 4ur4ose of overco%ing the %orid conse2uences of CD 1


18/21

6F Aristotle. =he co%4lete )orks5 the revised -ford translation. Princeton IV5 Princeton

(niversity Press3 1998.

7F ant &. ritik der (rteilskraft. Lei4zig5 + Meiner3 179:

HF Dar)in C. =he descent of %an and selection in relation to se. Ie) ork5 Vohn Murray3

1H71.

[9] Pinker S. How the mind works. New York: Norton;1997.

1:F Masataka I. =he origins of language and the evolution of %usic5 a co%4arative study. Phys

Life ev !::9, 6511"!!.

11F Editorial. #ountiful noise. Iature !::H3 16F #onniot"Caanac M"C, Caanac M. Pleasure in decision %aking situations5 Politics and

ga%ling. V isk es !::93 1!5619"


19/21

!1F Masataka I, Perlovsky L&. =he efficacy of %usical e%otions 4rovoked y MozartWs %usic

for the reconciliation of cognitive dissonance. cientific e4, !:1!3 !569< D-&5

1:.1:$HJsre4::69


20/21

$!F Perlovsky L.&. /!::60. Music T =he +irst Prici4le. Musical =heatre

htt45JJ))).ceo.s4.ruJlirettoJkonRlanJogl.sht%l

$$F Perlovsky L.&. /!::H0. Music and Consciousness Leonardo Vournal of Arts ciences and

=echnology

$7F =versky A. X ahne%an D. /197


21/21

Documents

1 MozartCogDiss& Music Pleasure, Format BBR-Final