New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Background Music Might Stifle Creativity

Volunteers who listened to music solved fewer word puzzles than others who worked in silence. Christopher Intagliata reports. 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Let's play a word game. What word can be put in front of the words "stick," "maker," and "point" to make three new compound words? Again…stick, maker, and point. 

Ready for the answer? "Match. So that would then combine to make the words matchstick, matchmaker, and matchpoint." Emma Threadgold, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Central Lancashire in England. And the point of tasks like these, she says, is to measure creativity. (If you didn't get it right away, don't worry, neither did I.)


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Maybe you had music playing as you thought about the words. And, of course, many listen to music while they work. So Threadgold and her colleagues recently used such word puzzles to investigate whether listening to music affects creativity

They asked volunteers to solve 19 puzzles, while listening to either a foreign-language tune ; an instrumental version of the same song ; a familiar English-language tune ; or silence.

The results? In every case, volunteers listening to music solved fewer puzzles than their counterparts in total quiet. Suggesting that background music does not really aid this kind of creative task. Maybe because these puzzles require some sort of mental speech rehearsal—trying out different word combos using your inner voice. 

"And therefore they're more susceptible to changing state sounds such as music, in comparison to steady state sounds such as library noise."

And in fact, the researchers tested library noise too, and the sounds of typing and rustling papers. None of those noises impaired volunteers' performance at all, compared to the silent control group. The results are in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology. [Emma Threadgold, Background music stints creativity: Evidence from compound remote associate tasks]

Still, if you do insist on listening to music while working, you might try something a little more low-key than Lady Gaga, says Threadgold's colleague John Marsh: 

"So if you have a sound with a lot of changing state information in it, changes in pitch or in timbre, that's more disruptive than a sound with fewer of those changes. If you compared a modern pop song with some classical music you'd expect less disruption from that classical music." 

Even better, though, would be the sound of silence. As in, actual silence.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe