What makes background music distracting? Investigating the role of song lyrics using self-paced reading

ABSTRACT

It has been suggested that listening to music during reading may be distracting, but the empirical results have remained inconclusive. One limitation of previous studies is that they have often had limited control over the number of lyrics present in the songs. We report 4 experiments that investigated whether song lyrics make music distracting. Participants read short paragraphs in a self-paced reading paradigm in three sound conditions: 1) silence; 2) lyrical songs at ∼150 words per minute; and 3) the instrumental version of the same songs. The results showed that listening to instrumental music either did not affect reading times or led to slightly faster reading times compared to silence. However, lyrical music led to an increase in reading times in three experiments. We conclude that instrumental music does not lead to distraction during reading. Song lyrics appear to be distracting, even if the observed distraction is quite mild.

KEYWORDS:

• Reading
• music
• distraction
• lyrics
• reading time

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability

The data and materials from this study are available at: https://osf.io/8zw4x/.

Notes

1 11 more participants were tested but excluded based on the pre-registered criteria: 3 failed one or more of the listening comprehension “trap” trials, 3 admitted to not wearing headphones, and 5 were discarded due to missing or invalid data. Additionally, 5 more participants were excluded due to chance-level comprehension (<60%). While the comprehension accuracy criterion was not pre-registered, it was deemed necessary to ensure that participants were reading for comprehension.

2 Prolific participants were, on average, more educated than the university pool, though they also had more varied educational backgrounds. They were also older (M_age=  30.7 years) than the university pool participants (M_age=  20 years). The Prolific participants also had a more balanced gender representation (48.5% female) compared to the university pool participants (82.5% female).

3 Another 6 participants were tested but excluded (2 because they failed one or more of the trap trials and 4 due to chance-level accuracy (<60%; accuracy criterion not pre-registered).

4 5 more participants were tested but excluded (3 because they failed one or more trap trials and 2 due to missing or invalid data).

5 8 more participants were tested but excluded based on the pre-registered criteria (2 participants admitted to not wearing headphones, 3 participants failed one or more of the trap trials, 2 participants had missing or incomplete data). Additionally, 2 more participants were excluded due to chance-level comprehension (<60%; comprehension criterion was not pre-registered).

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded in part by QR funds from Bournemouth University awarded to M.R.V.