Psychophysical Effects of Stimulative Music, Sedative Music, and Silence on a High-Weight Bench Press Jose Rangel, Allyn Byars Angelo State University Music has been known to have the ability to either relax or “pump up” a person based on its qualities. Previous studies have confirmed this phenomenon with respect to cardiovascular activity and grip strength. Athletes and recreationally-active individuals have long used music with rapid tempos and high-energy instruments to assist them in pushing their weight-training to a higher level than before. However, music with slow tempos have been neglected along with weight-training with silence. These variables have also proven to have an effect, either detrimental or beneficial, in previous studies. Methods Purpose of the Study Introduction Table 1 Ferguson, Albert R., Michael R. Carbonneau, and Catherine Chambliss. "Effects of positive and negative music on performance of a karate drill." Perceptual and motor skills 78.3c (1994): Karageorghis, Costas I., Kevin M. Drew, and Peter C. Terry. "Effects of pretest stimulative and sedative music on grip strength." Perceptual and motor skills 83.3f (1996): Pearce, Kathy A. "Effects of different types of music on physical strength." Perceptual and Motor Skills 53.2 (1981): Literature Cited Results Conclusions Figure 1 The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of four different musical variables on the power output (in Watts) of a bench press that is relatively heavy. The variables were heavy- metal music (Disturbed), classical music (Tbilisi Symphony Orchestra), silence, and a control. The silent variable was induced using a pair of Bose™ QuietComfort® 20 Acoustic Noise Cancelling® In-Ear earphones set to noise-cancellation mode with no music playing through them. The control variable consisted of the subject not wearing headphones. Volunteer subjects included eight recreationally active, college-age males (Table 1) from various majors. All subjects had no known injuries at the time of testing. At each of the four trials, the subjects performed a short warm-up routine that consisted of either two sets of eight reps of a light-weight barbell military press or overhead triceps extensions using a light resistance band. A load of approximately seventy-five percent of the subjects’ one-repetition maximum was placed on the barbell. The subjects then placed the earphones with the first musical variable playing into their ears. After listening to the music for forty seconds, the subjects then reclined onto the bench and performed one repetition as powerfully as possible. The bar was sequentially placed back onto the rack. The power output of the lift (in Watts) was measured using a Tendo Power Analyzer. The subjects were then allowed a three minute recovery period. Methods (cont.) This process was repeated for the remaining three variables. The variables were performed in a different order for each trial in order to account for “freshness” or fatigue. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to determine if significant differences existed in peak power and average power between the heavy metal, classical, silence, and control conditions. An alpha level of 0.05 was used for determining statistical significance. Results of the repeated measures ANOVA, (F3, 21) = 0.71, p =.558, for peak power indicated that no significant differences existed between heavy metal ( ± ), classical ( ± ), silence ( ±137.01) and control ( ± ) conditions (Figure 1). Repeated measures ANOVA, (F3, 21) = 1.06, p =.389, also revealed no significant differences in average power between heavy metal ( ± ), classical ( ± ), silence ( ± ), and control ( ± ) conditions (Figure 2). No significant differences in peak power output or average power output were found between the four different musical variables. This study may have been limited due to the small sample size that was used. The differences in activity level and confidence of the subjects may have also played a role in the absence of significance. Future studies regarding this research question are warranted due to a contradiction of findings between this study and previous studies in order to further our understanding and knowledge of the “pump up” phenomenon. (2016) Angelo State University, Undergraduate Research Symposium - San Angelo, Texas Figure 2 Age (years)21.5±1.05 Height (cm) ± Body Mass (kg)82.41 ± Body Fat (%)17.86 ± 5.32