Council for Research in Music Education
Effect of Preferred Music as a Distraction on Music Majors' and Nonmusic Majors' Selective
Attention
Author(s): Alice-Ann Darrow, Christopher Johnson, Shawn Agnew, Erin Rink Fuller and
Mihoko Uchisaka
Source: Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, No. 170 (Fall, 2006), pp.
21-31
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Council for Research in Music
Education
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319346
Accessed: 19-11-2019 07:38 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319346?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
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, Council for Research in Music Education are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Council for Research
in Music Education
This content downloaded from 130.105.31.183 on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:38:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Darow, Johnson, Agnew, Rink Fuller & Uhisaka Musical Distraction
Effect of Preferred Music as
a Distraction on Music Majors'
and Nonmusic Majors'
Selective Attention
Alice-Ann Darrow
me Florida Stote University
Tallahassee, Florida
Christopher Johnson
_i ... . . e . *
¡he University or Kansa
Lawrence, Kansas
Shawn Agnew
Kansas PublicSchools
Kansas City, Kansas
Erin Rink Fuller
Beverly Healthcare
Sioux Falls, South Dako
Mihoko Uchisaka
The University of Kansa
Lawrence, Kansas
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the present study was to determine if music compromises ones se
and to determine if music, as a competing stimulus, affects music majors and
differently. Eighty-seven undergraduate and graduate students served as participa
experiment, participants were asked to bring with them a CD that they typically
they are driving, studying, or engaged in other activities. Music used in the stud
musical periods and musical styles. Participants completed the d2 Test of Attentio
alternating music and no music conditions. Data were first analyzed to determ
any effects that could be attributed to whether the music condition was first or s
the music condition included vocals or was instrumental only. There were no signi
nonmusic majors; however, music majors who heard the music first completed sig
total items in the following nonmusic condition, and music majors who listened
music completed significantly more total items than those who listened to music
were also examined to determine differences based upon testing condition (mu
and musical training as defined by college major (music major and nonmusic
indicated that participants processed significantly more items under the mus
21
This content downloaded from 130.105.31.183 on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:38:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Fall 2006 No. 1 70
music majors processed significantly more items than nonmusic majors. There
differences based on condition (music or no music) for number of errors, item
errors, or concentration performance. However, there were differences for th
based on musical training. Music majors made significantly fewer errors th
majors, music majors processed significantly more items correctly (number proc
than nonmusic majors, and music majors' concentration performance scores
higher than nonmusic majors' scores.
INTRODUCTION
For much of the general population, music listening is an associative
listen to music while engaged in other activities. As an associative ta
generally serves to make the primary task more pleasurable. Engagi
requires selective attention - the capacity to focus on one or two imp
subordinating other competing stimuli (Van Zomeren & Brouwe
attention is easier when the stimuli do not compete for attention th
sory channel - which is why most people listen to music while engag
are primarily visual or physical. People hear music automatically; ho
listen to it requires attention. Music has an influence on peoples b
it is not the focus of attention. Music can serve as a positive distrac
it diverts attention from painful medical procedures. However, mus
a negative distraction when it interferes with attention to another
the present study was to determine if music compromises one's sele
to determine if music, as a competing stimulus, affects music m
majors differently.
Various factors have been examined in regard to music's distra
notable being music characterized as stimulative or sedative. The
theory that stimulative music is more distracting than sedative mus
more cognitive space (North & Hargreaves, 1999; Wolfe, 1983). No
(1999) explained the theory as follows:
If music and a concurrent task draw simultaneously on a limit
capacity, then performance should be worse in the presence
music than in the presence of less arousing music. Arousing
take up processing space that could otherwise have been devote
Moreover, the qualities of the music and task should interact w
are presented with several possible combinations of both: sub
performance might be worst on complex tasks carried out in
of highly arousing music, slightly better on complex tasks c
the presence of relatively unarousing music, and at a similar
latter example when a simple task is carried out in the presenc
music, (p. 286)
Besides stimulative and sedative musical influences, there are
ments that may affect task performance. One of the distracting m
22
This content downloaded from 130.105.31.183 on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:38:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Darow, Johnson, Agnew, Rink Fuller & Uhisaka Musical Distraction
be tonality. In Pearsall's (1989) study, first-year college students in an Englis
completed the Sequential Tests of Educational Progress Listening Comprehens
under three musical conditions: tonal music (Bruckner's Symphony No. 7, Mo
2 and 3), atonal music (Shoenbergs Five Pieces for Orchestra), and no music
results suggest that the tonal music used in the study had a negative effect on li
comprehension regardless of vocabulary level because the music attracted part
attention.
In addition to tonal or atonal music, another classification of music is instru
or vocal. Randsdell and Gilroy (2001) compared the distractibility of instrume
vocal music by using a measurement of writing quality and fluency. As back
music, they used a karaoke-style tape that contained both vocal and instrumenta
sions of three songs. The results showed that the instrumental and vocal vers
the same disruptive effect on writing. The researchers noted that even if songs are
instrumentally, the original melodies were written to accompany lyrics; therefo
possibility remains that people might recall the lyrics while listening to instr
versions. Instrumentally played pieces in a karaoke-style tape then may not f
exclusively as instrumental music. In the same study, Randsdell and Gilroy (2
stated that people's musical training background may be a factor in one's distrac
music. In their study, those participants with some musical training had higher
in writing quality than those who did not.
Other musical elements examined in regard to their distractability have be
volume of the music, the style of music, and the complexity of the music. The r
ship between task performance and the volume of background music was ex
in Wolfe's study (1983). Undergraduate nonmusic students computed mathem
problems under one of the following conditions: no music, background mus
sented at 60-70 db, background music presented at 70-80 db, or background
presented at 80-90 db. The musical element of loudness seemed to be the cont
factor for the distraction. Distraction was especially reported by the participan
group that listened to background music at 80-90 db. There were, however, no s
cant differences in task performance scores among the four groups.
Musical style seems to be an important element that affects task perform
well. For example, Cockerton et al. (1997) reported that the mean score for u
graduate psychology majors on the AH4 General Intelligence Test, a cognitiv
significantly improved while listening to Koan music. Koan music is compose
computer software and is based on Japanese Buddhist philosophy. It consists of
sounds that are free-flowing and nonrepetitive. The main purpose of Koan mu
enhance meditation; therefore, it would be considered low arousal music. No
Hargreaves (1999) tested performance on a driving game under high arousal
arousal music conditions. In addition to the driving game, backward counting
added as a concurrent task. Participants rated the difficulty of the driving gam
four conditions: mildly arousing music without backward counting, mildly a
23
This content downloaded from 130.105.31.183 on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:38:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Fall 2006 No. 1 70
music with backward counting, highly arousing music without back
and highly arousing music with backward counting. According to the
pants felt the driving game task performance was the most difficul
counting was required under highly arousing music, and the easiest
counting was not required under mildly arousing music. In the sam
and Hargreaves also stated that musical preference might be an imp
task performance because participants who did well on the driving gam
music used in the study.
In a similar study, Kiger (1989), compared the reading comprehe
high school students under silence, mildly and highly arousing mus
He categorized music based on information load, loudness, variety,
tonal range. The musical selections were Vangelis's "To An Unknown
repetitive synthesizer piece with a narrow tonal range, and "Toccat
Lake and Palmer, a dissonant, rhythmically varied and highly dyn
Vangelis selection was used for the low information load musical co
Emerson, Lake, and Palmer selection for the high information load m
The reading comprehension scores under the low information load m
were significantly higher than those scores under the silence and high
musical conditions. The results of Kiger's study indicate that the appro
background music can facilitate task performance.
In order to determine if music functions as a distraction to selectiv
seems logical to examine the style of music that participants would t
in their daily lives, rather than experimentally contrived music or m
The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine the effect of pre
selected) music on music majors' and nonmajors' performance on a t
assess selective attention. The measurement used for selective attent
was the d2 Test of Attention (Brickenkamp & Zillmer, 1998). Selectiv
unconscious focusing on and response to stimuli that are perceived to b
the exclusion of other stimuli. The d2 Test of Attention is considered to
instrument for measuring attention and concentration speed in Germa
cal and applied settings (Brickenkamp & Zillmer, 1998). First publish
currently in its 8th German edition, the d2 has recently been adapted f
speaking populations with US normative data (Brickenkamp & Zillm
traditional administrations of other cancellation tasks, the d2 measu
and speed of performance across the test condition. The d2 test has bee
studies to examine contrasts between the d2 test and intelligence m
Zillmer, 1998) and as a measurement to examine the treatment effect o
and Methylphenidate for children with attention-deficit and hyper
Birbaumer, Lutzenberger, Gruzelier, and Kaiser, 2003).
24
This content downloaded from 130.105.31.183 on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:38:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Darow, Johnson, Agnew, Rink Fuller & Uhisaka Musical Distraction
METHOD
Participants
Participants were college undergraduate and graduate students from a l
university and a small private Midwestern college (N = 87). Forty-thr
and forty-four nonmusic majors participated in the study. Twenty-six
sixty-one were females.
Independent Variable
Prior to the experiment, participants were asked to bring with them
typically listen to while they are driving, studying, or engaged in other
fore, the music condition was specific to the individual participant. Sinc
the study was to examine the distractability of music, using the partic
music most effectively addressed the role of music as a facilitator of att
tion in each individual situation. The participants' chosen music repr
range of musical periods and styles. Table 1 includes the number of
listened to each particular style of music during the music condition.
Table 1
Style of Music and Number of Participants
Style of Number of Style of Number of
Music Participants Music Participants
Alternative 18 Bluegrass 1
Classical 11 Chant 1
Country 7 Church Music 1
Soundtrack 7 Funk 1
Jazz 6 Gospel 1
Classic Rock 5 Hip-hop 1
Rap 5 New Age 1
Pop 4 Opera 1
Rock 4 Punk Rock 1
Metal 3 R&B 1
Soft Rock 3 Reggae 1
Latin 2
Dependent Variables
The dependent variables were the scores computed from the d2 test as the measurement
of distraction by music. The d2 test is designed to assess selective attention as well as
sustained attention and speed of processing (Brickenkamp & Zillmer, 1998). The d2
25
This content downloaded from 130.105.31.183 on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:38:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Fall 2006 No. 1 70
test is basically a letter cancellation task using paper, pencil and a st
test sheet, there are 14 printed lines of letters. Each line consists of 47
ous combinations but there are always more d's than p's (e.g. 30 d's
d's and 19 p's). There may be a short dash above or below the letters. So
two dashes above or below them. Some letters have no dashes. The p
instructed to cross out only d's with two dashes above or below them.
crossed out nor d's with fewer than two dashes. Examinees are not allo
mistakes that may be made.
According to the authors of the d2 test (Brickenkamp & Zillmer, 19
of the d2 test is described as follows:
The reliability was tested on difference scoring indices and with a
methods. The internal stability of test indices TN (Total Number
Processed), TN-E (Total Number of Items Processed Minus Err
CP (Concentration Performance) proved to be very high (r > .9
ability coefficient of E (Errors) % is less affected in test-retest exp
and thus can be improved with re-testing. In a series of test-re
intervals of up to 40 months, d2 Test indices TN, TN-E and C
strated satisfactory to good reliability (r > .70). (p. 1)
Validity of the test is explained as follows:
A large volume of research documents the validity of the techniq
them are research studies in the areas of clinical psychology and ps
educational psychology, vocational counseling, industrial psycholog
psychology and driver psychology. The research supports the
clinical and empirical applications of the d2 Test. (Brickenkamp
1998, p. 1)
Although as many as six different scores may be obtained, three scores, explained
as "highly reliable" in the manual (p. 1), were computed. In addition, the raw score for
errors served as a preliminary statistic for computing other measures. Therefore, there
were four different scores: 1) the total number of items processed (TN), 2) the number
of errors (E), 3) the total number of items processed minus errors (TN-E), and 4)
concentration performance (CP). The following are more detailed descriptions of these
scores found in the manual of the d2 test (p. 11).
1) Total Number of Items Processed: TN = ZN
TN is a quantitative measure of performance of all items that were pro-
cessed, both relevant and irrelevant ones. TN is a measure of attentional
allocation (selective and sustained), processing speed, amount of work
completed, and motivation.
2) Errors : E = Z (El + E2)
The raw score E is a preliminary statistic for computing other measures. It
is the sum of all mistakes, which includes errors of omission (El) and the
less common errors of commission (E2). Errors of omission (underinclu-
26
This content downloaded from 130.105.31.183 on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:38:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Darow, Johnson, Agnew, Rink Fuller & Uhisaka Musical Distraction
sion) occur when relevant items ("d" with two dashes) are not crossed ou
El is sensitive to attentional control, rule compliance, accuracy of visua
scanning, and quality of performance. Errors of commission (overinclusion
occur when irrelevant letters are crossed out in violation of the instruction
E2 is related to inhibitory control, rule compliance, and accuracy of visu
scanning, carefulness, and cognitive flexibility. The raw score for errors is
preliminary statistic for computing other measures.
3) Total Number of Items Processed Minus Errors: TN - E = (N) - (El + E
TN - E is the total number of items scanned minus error scores (El + E2
It is a measure of the quantity of work completed after a single correction
for errors. TN - E provides a measure of attentional and inhibitory contro
and the relationship of speed and accuracy of performance.
4) Concentration Performance: CP = NC - E2
CP is derived from the number of the correctly crossed out relevant item
("d" with two dashes) minus the errors of commission. CP provides an
excellent index of the coordination of speed and accuracy of performanc
performance.
PROCEDURES
After completing a pre-experimental questionnaire for demographi
procedures were explained to participants. The experimenter informe
the d2 test was to measure concentration and attention as suggest
Participants were also told that they would take the test under two co
the music they brought with them, and one without music. The e
reviewed the directions on how to complete the d2 test with the part
In order to ensure participants understood the task, they compl
items before beginning the test. According to the test manual, the t
to work on each line of the test is 20 seconds. In an earlier study
(Uchisaka, 2003) lines of the test were randomly assigned to the m
condition. Participants reported that the frequent change from musi
dition was more distracting than the music or silence. Therefore, in
participants completed half of the d2 test with background music
music. The conditions of music and no music were alternated between
the second half of the test for all participants. Half of the participan
during the first half of the d2 test, while the other half listened to the
second half. The d2 test consists of 14 lines; therefore, participants co
first or the second seven lines under each condition.
A 2 x 2 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted using the th
d2 Test of Attention (d2 test) to investigate the two research questio
27
This content downloaded from 130.105.31.183 on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:38:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Fall 2006 No. 1 70
1. Is music more distracting for music majors than nonmusic m
timed test designed to assess selective attention?
2. What is the effect of the conditions (music and no music) on p
attention scores?
RESULTS
Eighty-seven students completed the d2 Test of Attention. Data colle
demographic information regarding participants' gender and major, or
tions, and the musical selection brought by the participant. The dependen
ed the total number of items processed, total number of errors, percenta
total number of items minus errors, and calculated concentration perform
Two ¿-Tests were completed to determine if there were any effects th
attributed to the order of conditions (music and no music). There were
effects found for the nonmusic majors. There was one significant effect
majors. Music majors who had the music condition first completed signifi
total items in the following nonmusic condition (t (41) = -2.35, p - .024
A second i-Test was completed to determine if any effects could be a
whether the musical selection had lyrics or whether it was solely instrum
seven participants brought music with lyrics, while twenty brought strictly
selections. Of these twenty participants, nineteen were music majors. It w
decided that this analysis should only include music majors. Results indica
was one significant effect for vocal versus instrumental only music. Musi
listened to instrumental music completed significantly more total items th
listened to music with lyrics {t (41) = -2.14, p = .038).
The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effect of the t
variables (music and no music) and effect of participants' musical train
by college major (music major and nonmusic major). In order to make stat
minations, a series of General Linear Model Repeated Measures ANOV
completed. The repeated measures within variables were for the two musi
and the between factors were the students' major.
Means and standard deviations for all participants and independent m
reported in Table 1 . Results for the ANOVA examining the variable To
Items Completed indicated two main effect differences. There was a diffe
music condition (F{\, 85) = 4.76, /> = .032), with music majors processing
more items under the music condition than the no music condition. Th
significant difference between the music and nonmusic majors (F (1, 8
.003). Examination of Table 1 indicates that music majors processed signi
items than nonmusic majors. There was not a significant interaction.
28
This content downloaded from 130.105.31.183 on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:38:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Darow, Johnson, Agnew, Rink Fuller & Uhisaka Musical Distraction
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Music and Nonmusic Majors for all Conditions and
Dependent Measures
Major Variable No Music Music
Mean SD Mean SD
Music majors Total Number Processed 280.02 33.24 287.05 30.82
Nonmusic majors 260.55 35.91 263.52 37.57
Music majors Errors 13.56 14.85 14.33 12.82
Nonmusic majors 25.00 23.00 26.43 22.93
Music majors Total - Errors 266.47 33.92 272.72 32.91
Nonmusic majors 235.55 41.78 237.09 40.24
Music majors Concentration 112.00 26.16 112.16 20.60
Nonmusic majors 87.70 29.65 87.45 27.32
NOTE: Solid line indicates a significant difference, p < .05.
Results for the ANOVA examining the variable Number of Errors indicated no
within subject differences (music condition), but indicated a significant difference
between the music and nonmusic majors (F(l, 85) = 8.91, /> = .004). Music majors made
significantly fewer errors than the nonmusic majors. There were no interactions found.
Results for the ANOVA examining the variable Total Number of Items Completed
minus Number of Errors indicated no differences with regard to music condition, but
again indicated a significant difference between the music and nonmusic majors (F (1,
85) = 18.83,/> < .001). Music majors processed significantly more items correctly than did
nonmusic majors. There were no interactions found with regard to this variable either.
Results for the final ANOVA examining the variable Concentration Performance
indicated no differences with regard to music condition. There was, however, a sig-
nificant difference indicated between the music and nonmusic majors, with the music
majors scoring significantly higher on Concentration Performance CF(1, 85) = 4.88, p
= .030). There was no interaction.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the present study was to determine if music com
attention, and to determine if music, as a competing stimulus, af
nonmusic majors differently. Results indicated that both musi
majors achieved higher scores under the music condition than th
29
This content downloaded from 130.105.31.183 on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:38:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Fall 2006 No. 1 70
although only significantly higher for music majors. These data ind
may have been somewhat facilitative rather than distracting. Results a
individuals with music training achieved significantly higher scores on
attention than did those without musical training; thus, corroborating
Randsdell and Gilroy (2001) who suggested that having musical training
less susceptible to musical distractions.
All participants in the present study completed half of the d2 test w
music and the other half of the test without music. Music majors wh
condition first processed significantly fewer total items in the nonmus
followed; however, there was no significant difference between cond
no music condition preceded the music condition. It seems that mus
absence of the music when it was removed, and that the removal of
distracting than the presentation of music.
These results would also indicate that music actually facilitates pr
data corroborate the findings of Uchisaka (2003) who also found t
processed more items under the music condition than the no music
data also suggest that instrumental music is perhaps more facilitating
or that the presence of words or lyrics may be a distracting feature
certainly a variable that deserves further investigation. Another que
nearly half of the music majors brought instrumental music and only
music majors brought instrumental music, could most of the music
differences be attributed to the style of music and not the effect of m
This does not appear to be the case since participants who brought inst
also tested higher in the no music condition. When music major and
participants who brought vocal music are compared, differences bet
majors and nonmajors disappear on the total number of items pro
difference found between the music and no music conditions was in
of items processed. Individuals in both groups completed more ite
condition than the no music condition; although music majors signif
studies indicate that music can be distracting (North & Hargreaves
1989; Randsdell & Gilroy, 2001); however, in this study and others (
music appeared to facilitate selective attention.
Since musicians performed significantly better than the nonmus
measure, it may be that because of experiences with practicing music a
details in the music, musicians are more adept at detail oriented test
that the study of music nurtures one's ability to concentrate. The findi
suggest that music may facilitate selective attention rather than serve a
30
This content downloaded from 130.105.31.183 on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:38:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Darow, Johnson, Agnew, Rink Fuller & Uhisaka Musical Distraction
REFERENCES
Brickenkamp, R., & Zillmer, E. (1998). The d2 Test of Attention. (1st US ed.). Seat
& Huber Publishers.
Cockerton, T., Moore, S., & Norman, D. (1997). Cognitive test performance and background
music. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 1435-1438.
Davis, K. L, & Zillmer, E. A. (1998). Poster presented at the National Academy of Neuropsychology
annual conference, Washington, DC.
Fuchs, T., Birbaumer, N., Lutzenberger, W., Gruzelier, J. H., & Kaiser, J. (2003). Neurofeedback
treatment for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children: A comparison with
Methylphenidate. Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 28, 1-12.
Kiger, D. M. (1989). Effects of music information load on a reading comprehension task. Perception
and Motor Skills, 69, 531-534.
North, A. C, & Hargreaves, D. J. (1999). Music and driving game performance. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 40, 285-292.
Pearsall, E. R. (1989). Differences in listening comprehension with tonal and atonal background
music. Journal of Music Therapy, 26, 188-197.
Ransdell, S. E., & Gilroy, L. (2001). The effects of background music on word-processed writing.
Computers in Human Behavior, 17, 141-148.
Uchisaka, M. (2003). The effect of pitch sensitivity and music condition on participants' selective
attention. Unpublished masters thesis, The University of Kansas, Lawrence.
van Zomeren, A.H., & Brouwer, W.H. (1994). Clinical neuropsychology of attention (Chapter 2:
Theories and concepts of attention). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wolfe, D. E. (1983). Effects of music loudness on task performance and self-report of college-aged
students. Journal of Research in Music Education, 31, 191-201.
31
This content downloaded from 130.105.31.183 on Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:38:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
