| Course | SBS 105 Introduction to Psychology |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Research methods paper |
| Length | About 1,037 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for SBS 105 Module 1
Does Mozart Make Babies Smarter? Testing a Famous Claim With the Methods of Psychological Science
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
SBS 105: Introduction to Psychology
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Does Mozart Make Babies Smarter? Testing a Famous Claim With the Methods of Psychological Science
A friend recently gave a new parent a gift box of classical music recordings. The box promised that playing Mozart to a baby would boost the child's intelligence and help with math and reasoning later. The claim sounds scientific, and many parents have heard it. This paper asks how a psychologist would decide whether it is true. Answering the question shows what makes psychology a science and how its methods sort solid findings from appealing stories. The gift box and the parent are invented; the studies are real.
Psychology as a Science
Psychology is the scientific study of behavior and mental processes. What makes it scientific is not its subject but its method: claims are stated so they can be tested, evidence is gathered systematically, results are reported publicly and other researchers try to repeat them. A belief that survives repeated testing gains confidence; one that does not is revised or abandoned. This approach protects against the ways ordinary thinking goes wrong, such as remembering the cases that fit a belief and forgetting those that do not.
Three Kinds of Studies
Psychologists use several research designs, and each can answer some questions and not others. Descriptive studies, such as surveys and case studies, describe what people do. Correlational studies measure whether two variables go together, such as hours of music lessons and test scores, but cannot show that one causes the other, because a third factor, such as family income, might affect both. Experiments manipulate one variable, randomly assign participants to conditions and measure the effect on another variable. Random assignment makes the groups similar in every way except the manipulated variable, so differences in the outcome can be attributed to it.
Where the Claim Began
Rauscher et al. (1993) conducted an experiment with thirty-six college students. Each student completed spatial reasoning tasks, which involved imagining how a folded and cut piece of paper would look when unfolded, after each of three conditions: ten minutes of listening to a Mozart sonata for two pianos, ten minutes of relaxation instructions and ten minutes of silence. Scores were higher after the Mozart condition. The researchers reported that the improvement was temporary, lasting only about ten to fifteen minutes.
The study was an experiment, so it supported a causal claim, but a narrow one: a brief improvement on one kind of spatial task, in college students, right after listening. It said nothing about babies, general intelligence or long-term effects. Yet within a few years, the finding had become the Mozart effect, and products promised smarter children.
Testing the Claim Again
Science does not rest on a single study. Chabris (1999) gathered the experiments that had tried to repeat the finding and combined their results in a meta-analysis. The average effect was small, and it appeared mainly on one type of spatial task. Chabris suggested that the improvement could be explained by enjoyment arousal: people who listen to music they find pleasant may simply be more alert and in a better mood for a short time, which helps on demanding tasks.
Pietschnig et al. (2010) conducted a larger meta-analysis of about forty studies with more than three thousand participants. They found a small effect of listening to Mozart compared with silence, but a similar small effect for other music, and they found that studies by the original research group reported larger effects than studies by independent researchers. Their conclusion was that there was little evidence for a specific Mozart effect on spatial ability.
What Each Study Could Show
| Study | Design | Participants | What it could show | What it could not show |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rauscher and colleagues, 1993 | Experiment | 36 college students | A brief gain on one spatial task after Mozart | Effects on babies, intelligence or the long term |
| Chabris, 1999 | Meta-analysis of experiments | Many studies combined | The size of the effect across studies | Effects in infants |
| Pietschnig and colleagues, 2010 | Larger meta-analysis | About forty studies | Whether Mozart differs from other music | Any lasting intelligence gain |
Why the Claim Spread
Several features of psychology and of people help explain why the Mozart claim spread so widely. It was simple, it promised parents an easy way to help their children and it came from a prestigious scientific journal. News reports rarely mentioned that the participants were college students or that the effect lasted minutes. Once the idea was popular, products and even some public programs adopted it, and each new mention made it seem more established. Psychologists call the tendency to look for and remember information that supports what we already believe confirmation bias, and it works on readers as well as on researchers. A parent who plays Mozart and later sees a bright child may credit the music, without considering the many other influences on the child's development. Scientific methods exist precisely to guard against this kind of reasoning, by comparing groups, controlling other factors and repeating studies.
How the Claim Grew
The gap between the evidence and the gift box shows how claims about psychology can drift from their source. Each retelling dropped a qualification: college students became people, then children, then babies; a brief gain on one task became intelligence. Arousal and mood offer a simpler explanation for the small effects than anything special about Mozart, and simpler explanations deserve to be tested first.
Questions for Judging Any Claim
The case suggests five questions for any psychology headline. Who was studied, and does the claim apply to them? What exactly was measured? How long did the effect last? Has it been repeated by independent researchers? And does the claim match what the studies found, or has it grown in the retelling? Asked of the gift box, each question points to the same answer.
Conclusion
The claim that Mozart makes children smarter grew from one small experiment with college students and a brief, narrow effect. Rauscher, Shaw and Ky's study, read accurately, showed only that; Chabris's review found the effect small and short-lived; and Pietschnig, Voracek and Formann found little evidence that Mozart mattered at all. Playing music to a baby may be enjoyable, but as a way to raise intelligence the claim fails the tests of psychological science.
References
Chabris, C. F. (1999). Prelude or requiem for the "Mozart effect"? Nature, 400(6747), 826-827. https://doi.org/10.1038/23608
Pietschnig, J., Voracek, M., & Formann, A. K. (2010). Mozart effect-Shmozart effect: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 38(3), 314-323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.03.001
Rauscher, F. H., Shaw, G. L., & Ky, C. N. (1993). Music and spatial task performance. Nature, 365(6447), 611. https://doi.org/10.1038/365611a0
What the SBS 105 Module 1 instructions ask for
SBS 105 begins with psychology as a science, and the first paper usually asks students to explain how psychologists study behavior and to apply research methods to a question or claim. The Module 1 prompt in your Aspen classroom governs; the example here is built around a public claim. Explain what makes psychology a science. Describe the main research methods and what each can show. Apply them to a specific claim or question. Show how the evidence developed over time. Draw conclusions about how to judge claims about behavior. Cite the original studies, not news coverage, in APA 7 style, and keep your own explanation of each design in plain words.
How this SBS 105 Module 1 example is built
The paper begins with a gift box of classical music sold to new parents with the promise that it builds intelligence. It then explains the scientific method and three designs: descriptive studies, correlational studies and experiments. Rauscher, Shaw and Ky's letter in Nature describes the experiment with thirty-six college students that began the claim. Chabris's review in Nature combined later studies and found a small, short-lived improvement on one kind of task. Pietschnig, Voracek and Formann's meta-analysis in Intelligence pooled about forty studies and found that music in general, not Mozart in particular, produced the small effects, consistent with arousal or mood. A table sets out the reach and the limits of each study's design. The conclusion lists five questions: who was studied, what was measured, how long the effect lasted, whether it was replicated and whether the claim matches the evidence.
Where the marks sit in the SBS 105 Module 1 rubric
Research methods papers in introductory psychology are graded on accurate explanation of methods and on applying them to a real question. This example explains why experiments can show cause while correlational studies cannot, then uses that distinction to trace how a modest laboratory finding about college students became a claim about babies. It reports what each study actually found, including sample and task, rather than repeating headlines. Using two meta-analyses shows how science corrects itself through replication. The closing questions turn the analysis into a skill readers can use, which demonstrates understanding beyond the single example. The paper also stays fair to the original researchers, who reported a modest, temporary effect and did not make the claims later attached to their work.
SBS 105 Module 1 help from the desk
First papers in psychology often summarize a study without explaining its design, or treat a single finding as settled. Name the design, the participants and the measure. Another frequent problem is confusing correlation with causation; explain why an experiment supports a causal claim and other designs do not. Look for later studies and reviews, since early findings often shrink. Distinguish what was found from what was claimed in the media. Cite the original research rather than news stories. Finally, end with what the reader should conclude, stated as plainly as the evidence allows. A short list of questions a reader can reuse, as this example offers, shows that you understand the method and not only the case.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More SBS 105 and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- SBS 105 Module 2: The Biology of Behavior
- SBS 105 Module 3: Sensation, Perception and Consciousness
- SBS 105 Module 4: Learning
- SBS 105 Module 5: Memory and Thinking
- SBS 105 Module 6: Development, Motivation and Emotion
- SBS 105 Module 7: Personality and Psychological Disorders
- SBS 105 Module 8: Social Psychology
- PAC 310 Module 2: Ethical Decision-Making Model
- SBS 200 Module 3: Early and Middle Childhood
- PAC 415 Module 5: Confidentiality and Its Limits
- PAC 115 Module 7: Abbreviations and Safe Use
SBS 105 Module 1 questions, answered
What does SBS 105 Module 1 usually ask for?
Aspen's SBS 105 opens with psychology as a science, so explaining research methods and applying them to a question or claim is typical. Read your Module 1 prompt.
Does listening to Mozart make you smarter?
Not in any lasting way. The original effect was a brief gain on one spatial task in college students, and later reviews found music in general had similar small effects.
What is a meta-analysis?
A study that combines the results of many studies on the same question to estimate the overall effect.
Where can I find a free SBS 105 Module 1 sample paper?
This page has one, free: a research methods paper testing the claim that Mozart makes children smarter.
Why are experiments important in psychology?
Because random assignment and control let researchers conclude that one variable caused a change in another.