effects of performing conditions on music performance anxiety and performance quality

Effects of Performing Conditions on Music Performance Anxiety and Performance Quality’

Melissa Brotons

Willamette University

The purpose of this study wee twofold: (a) To determine if there is a difference in physiological and psychological responses that measure performance anxiety between nonjury and jury conditions, and (b) to examine how open and double-blind jury conditions affect physiological, psychological, and behavioral components of performance anxiety and performance quality of music students. Sixty-four college music students in each of five instrumental areas and one vocal area participatedin this study. The experiment was a pretestposttest control group design with matching. Dependent variables were heart rate, scores of the State Anxiety scale of the State-Trait Anxiety inventory (STAI), performance quality ratings by judges, and behavior analysis of videotaped students’ performances. Results showed significant increases in heart rate (F = 130.01, df = 1, p = .0001) and STAI scores (F = 23.92, df = 1, p = .0001) between non-jury and jury conditions, but no significant differences (F (4, 59) = .95, p = ,444) occurred in heart rate, STAI scores, behavior, and performance quality due to open and blind jury conditions. Further analysis showed no association among variables suggesting that there may be different types of performance anxiety.

Performing arts medicine, as a new medical specialty, started receiving public attention in the last decade when research began to show that performers, among them musicians of all levels of training and expertise, probably suffer from a variety

This paper is a report of the author’s dissertation research completed at The University of Oregon.

Please address correspondence regarding this article to Dr. Melissa Brokons, Music Department Willamette University, Salem, OR 97301.

by guest on Decem

ber 3, 2014http://jm

t.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

http://jmt.oxfordjournals.org/

64 Journal ofMusic Therapy

of physical, psychological, and occupational stress problems (Lederman, 1989). Beethoven, Paganini, and Robert Schumann are examples of great musicians affected by these types of illnesses. In some cases, these problems become so severe that professional musicians must terminate their performing careers (Lockwood, 1989; Pearson, 1990).

A review of Arts Medicine literature indicates that performance anxiety is one of the most often cited problems that musicians suffer (Goode & Knight, 1991). Performance anxiety, also known as stage fright, is a serious, debilitating problem which functionally impairs a large number of musicians. Some degree of stress and tension (adaptive anxiety) is experienced by most musicians, and some stress appears to be necessary to reach peak performances (Caldwell, 1990; Plaut, 1990). Excessive stress, however, becomes debilitating and leads to inefficient use of musical skills. When sufficiently adverse during performance, such anxiety can discourage performers from further study of music (James, 1988; Wolfe, 1989).

Ely (1991) and Salmon (1991) identified four different manifestations of performance anxiety:

1. Physiological changes that take place within the body might include one or more of these characteristic traits: increased heart rate, sweating, shortness of breath, shaking, numb fingers, clammy hands, dry mouth, upset stomach, headache, dizziness, nausea, and diarrhea.

2. Psychological/emotional conditions, such as exaggerated feelings of apprehension, fear of failure, irritability, and generalized panic are the most common symptoms experienced at this level.

3. Cognitive problems, such as loss of confidence, lack of concentration because of the thoughts and worries about the performance situation, memory lapses, and inability to infuse life and color into the music are examples of disturbing mental processes that take place under stage fright (Hingley, 1985).

4. Behavioral changes, such as lips moistening, knees and hands trembling, arm and neck stiffness, shoulder lifting, and deadpan face are representative behaviors exhibited by performers with stage fright.

Stage fright appears to have different origins and meanings depending on what components are emphasized and how they

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


Vol. XXXI, No. 1, Spring. 1994 65

are interpreted according to the different psychological theories. For instance, physiological theory has catered on the problem of unpredictable motor coordination as a result of the release of excessive adrenaline in an anxious situation (Havas, 1973; Nagel, 1990).

Cognitive-behavioral theory attributes performance anxiety to negative thoughts and self-statements such as, “I must be approved by the audience in order to feel good.” These persistent thoughts psychologically enfeeble self-confidence and negate hours of preparation (Nagel, 1990). Several studies have been conducted which support this theory (Lehrer, Goldman, & Strommen, 1990; Tobacyk & Downs, 1986). Their results indicate that the degree of performance anxiety and its effects during performance are the result of the frequency and intensity of negative, even paranoid, types of thoughts before performance.

Psychoanalytic theory views performance anxiety as a cluster of attitudes, traits, and unconscious conflicts that are developed during childhood and that become ignited in particular circumstances such as anticipating or giving a concert (Nagel, 1990; Plaut, 1990; Weisblatt, 1986). Furthermore, Brandfonbrener (1990) stated that “performance anxiety is simply a manifestation of psychological problems and cannot be discussed appropriately in isolation.. Each symptom of every person must be evaluated within the context of that individual’s psychological make-up” (p. 1).

Other variables not directly linked to any psychological theory are mentioned in the literature since they appear to have a relationship with performance anxiety. These variables are: types of musicians and jobs, type of instrument and repertoire typically associated with it, age, years of experience, and level of preparation (Ely, 1991).

Several treatment modalities that ameliorate negative consequences of performance anxiety have been investigated and are described in the literature. Pharmacological forms of treatment, specifically beta-blockers, have been prescribed over the years mainly to reduce the adverse physiological symptoms of performance anxiety such as palpitations, hyperventilation, tremor, and nausea (Dubovsky, 1990; Hingley, 1985). The results of studies examining the effect of beta-blockers to reduce

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


1 66 Journal of Music Therapy

performance anxiety show that beta-blockers are effective as one means of temporarily controlling the negative somatic symptoms of performance anxiety (Nub&, 1991). This appears to be especially true when the medication is taken immediately before or at the beginning of a performance (Nettel, Kaser, & Vorkauf, 1982) and small doses are administered (Gates, Saegert, Wilson, Johnson, Shepherd, & Hearned, 1985). Furthermore, the results of a study conducted by Lehrer, Rosen, Kostis, and Greenfield (1987) show that beta-blockers can enhance different dimensions of performance such as intonation, evenness of vibrato. bow control, dynamic control, accuracy, memory, rhythm, and tempo. Although this type of medication has been shown to be safe for many musicians, there are potential risks in taking beta-blockers over long periods of time (Nies, 1990).

Other studies have focused on examining the effect of different psychological treatments to reduce cognitive, behavioral, and physiological components of performance anxiety, especially among professional musicians. Behavioral techniques such as systematic desensitization, cognitive/attentional intervention, and biofeedback have proven to be very successful in reducing physiological and cognitive symptoms of stage fright while improving performance (Appel, 1976; Fogle, 1982; Mansberger, 1988; Wardle, 1975). Other techniques mentioned as effective for particular individuals are movement/physical exercise (Ristad, 1982); imagery (Dunkel, 1989; Trusheim, 1987); planning the performance well in advance (Caldwell, 1990); and the combination of relaxation training with hypnosis (Plott, 1986). Individual and group music therapy interventions, alone and in combination with other behavioral techniques, have also been shown to have a positive effect in reducing the performance anxiety of professional musicians (Mantello, Coons, & Kantor, 1990; Rider, 1987).

It is interesting to note that up to the present time the focus of interest among researchers has been on professional musicians and their performance situations: concerts and recitals. The effect of different treatment interventions to ameliorate this problem has also been investigated with professional musicians. However, few studies have been conducted with music students or have examined performance situations other than concerts.

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


Vol. XXX/, No. 1. Spring, 1994 67

Researchers consistently have found that performance anxiety occurs because performers feel constantly evaluated and compared against a perfect standard (Gabbard, 1980). However, concerts and recitals have other aims besides being technically perfect. One of the purposes of concerts is to bring enjoyment to an audience. However, performances that are entirely aimed at evaluation are exams or juries that are commonly practiced throughout the musical world. Juries are periodic evaluations of performance that determine grading and advancement. Two types of juries commonly used in academic and professional settings are open and double-blind juries. In an open jury, the performer plays in front of judges, and both parties (performers and judges) know each other. This type of jury is widely used in colleges and universities as an audition procedure for acceptance into music programs and competitions for scholarships, chairs, and solo parts. In a double-blind jury, musicians perform behind a screen so that neither they nor the judges know each others’ identities. Sometimes audio recordings are used for evaluation purposes instead of live performances for this type of jury situation. This modality of jury is also used in colleges and universities for admission purposes and/or to grant scholarships, and mostly in job auditions.

Limited objective information is available about the effect of stage fright on jury performance, and specifically how these two types of juries affect performance anxiety. Only one study was found that compared the effect of two simulated jury conditions on perceived anxiety and performance quality (Hamann, 1982).

The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) To determine if there is a difference in physiological and psychological responses that measure performance anxiety between non-jury and jury conditions, and (b) to examine how open and double-blind jury conditions affect physiological, psychological, and behavioral components of performance anxiety and performance quality of music students.

Method

Subjects

Subjects for this study were 64 music students representing five instrumental areas (woodwinds, brass, strings, piano, and

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


66 Journal of Music Therapy

percussion) and one vocal area enrolled in undergraduate and graduate music programs at a large state university. There were 32 males and 32 females in the sample. Their age range was 18-64 years (M = 24.02; SD = 8.24). Subject selection criteria were based on each subject’s willingness to participate and their commitment to pass juries during the school year.

Facilities, Apparatus, and Materials

All testing was done in the School of Music of a large state university. Heart rate was measured by using the Polar Vantage XL heart rate monitor model #45900. This piece of equipment had been used in previous studies and had shown to be suitable specifically to measure musicians’ heart rates while in a performing situation (LeBlanc, Campbell, & Codding, 1991).

Perceived anxiety was assessed with a modified version of the State scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI, Form Y-1) (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs, 1980). The pre-jury form included the phrase, “During practice time ... ,” before the 20 items of the questionnaire. The post-jury form had two items added. The first one was, “During the jury

...,”before the 20 items of the questionnaire, and the second at the end which asked the subjects to evaluate how well they had played for the jury. Items 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17, and 18 of both forms were scored in reverse order.

Performance quality was measured on a researcher-designed observation form that included eight items that were rated on a five-point rating scale (“1” being excellent and “5” fair). Seven of these items referred to specific characteristics of music performance: (a) intonation, (b) rhythmic accuracy, (c) technical competency, (d) dynamics, (e) phrasing, (f) expressiveness/musicianship, and (g) tone quality. The eighth was a total performance rating in which a global assessment of the students’ performance was given.

Subjects’ behavior was observed on a researcher-developed behavior observation form. It included a total of 23 behavioral indicators of nervousness in the following six categories: (a) feet and legs, (b) body, (c) arms and hands, (d) face, (e) instrument behavior, and (f) vocalizations. Subjects were observed from the time they started playing until the end of their performance. The procedure used was observation for 20 seconds followed

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


Vol.XXXI, No. 1, Spring, 1994 69

by a lo-second interval during which the observer(s) recorded the observations. Independent observations were obtained for 58% of the cases selected randomly. The Pearson product-moment correlation as a measure of interobserver reliability was calculated to be .99.

Design and Procedure

The experimental design used in this study was a pretestposttest control-group design with matched groups (one receiving an open jury condition and the other a double-blind condition). The pretest was the studio practice and the posttest the jury performance. Subjects were matched according to age, gender, years of formal training, and instrument, and then were randomly assigned to one of the two jury conditions (see Table 1 for groups’ equivalency).

Two pretests were given to the music students. Subjects’ heart rates were measured at 5-second intervals during three 7 to 13-minute periods while practicing alone in a studio in order to obtain a heart rate baseline for subjects in a relaxed performing situation. During these three intervals, students also had the opportunity to learn how to wear the heart rate monitor properly and become accustomed to it while performing. The second pretest was a modified version of the STAI to get a score on how anxious they felt during practice (non-jury) time (Spielberger et al., 1980). This questionnaire was filled out after each practice period. After the last pretest period, subjects were told the condition to which they had been assigned to perform their jury (open or double blind).

For the open jury condition, subjects (N = 32) performed a 5 to 10-minute composition during a normal jury situation. Prior to beginning the jury, the subjects completed a short prejury interview that included three questions: (a) Normally how do you feel in a jury situation? (b) How do you feel about the open/double-blind jury condition? (c) How prepared do you feel for this jury? They were rated on a four-point rating scale (“I” being very relaxed/prepared and “4” very nervous/not prepared). During the jury, their heart rate was measured, at 5-second intervals, starting 2 minutes before their performance and lasting until the end of the performance. These jury performances were videotaped in order to do a post-hoc analysis

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


70

Table 1 Subject Demographics

Journal of Music Therapy

Open Blind

M Age Gender M YFT Inst. M Age Gender M YFT Inst.

22.94 M: 15 7.73 v: 9(28%) 25.09 M: 17 8.33 v: 9 (28%) F: 17 w: 11(34%) F: 15 w: 7 (22%)

B: 6 (19%) B: 6 (19%) P: 1(3%) P: 2 (6%) Perc: 2 (6%) Perc: 3 (9%) s: 3 (9%) s: 5 (16%)

M: male; F: female; YFT: years of formal training; Inst.: instrument; V: voice: W: woodwinds; B: brass; p: piano; Perc: percussion: s: strings.

1t(31)= 1.051, p = .30. 2t(31) = 0.525, p = .60.

of performance behavior. Immediately after their performance, subjects filled out another modified version of the STAI in order to get a measure of how anxious they felt during their jury, and they answered the questions of a post-jury interview, mostly for discussion purposes. The specific questions were: (a) How do you feel about the jury you just performed? (b) Were you nervous? (c) What aspects of the jury made you feel nervous? (d) Had you ever performed for a double-blind/open condition before? (e) (for subjects in the double-blind condition only) Did the blind condition have an effect on your nervousness? (f) Did the heart rate monitor bother you? (g) Did the video-camera bother you?

In addition, two judges (own teacher of applied instrument and another teacher in the area) rated the quality of each student’s performance on a performance quality form. Interrater reliability for each questionnaire item ranged from .28 to .50.

For the double-blind jury condition, the subjects (N = 32) completed the same pretests and posttests as the subjects in the open condition. In addition to having in-house judges, the subjects’ performances were audio-recorded, and they were informed that their performances also would be rated by unknown external judges. Neither the subjects nor the judges had any information about each other. The external judges evaluated the subjects’ performances using the same type of performance quality form that the in-house judges used.

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


Vol. XXX/, No. 1, Spring. 1994 71

Results

To determine if there was a difference in subjects’ heart rates and STAI scores between non-jury and jury conditions, the three baseline periods were first averaged to obtain a single baseline score for heart rate and STAI scores for each of the 64 subjects. Also, a mean was calculated from the heart rate sample taken during jury performance, and a total score was obtained from the STAI questionnaire completed after the jury performance. A one-way ANOVA was calculated for each of these two dependent variables. Results revealed a significant difference in heart rate (F = 130.01, df = 1, p = .0001) and STAI scores (F = 23.92, df = 1, p = .0001) between non-jury and jury conditions. Heart rate increased from a mean of 98.79 (SD = 13.85) during non-jury to 130.68 (SD = 17.90) during jury condition. STAI scores increased from a mean of 35.92 (SD = 9.70) during non-jury to 45.97 (SD = 13.26) during jury condition. These results indicate that juries were perceived as more stressful than practice time by these music students. Results of this study resemble findings from studies in the area of test anxiety, particularly in the sense that the context of test-taking is similar to that of a jury performance. Test anxiety appears to affect physiological (also referred as emotionality) and psychological (cognitive, evaluative) aspects of human response (Morris & Liebert, 1973). The same can be stated about musical performance anxiety, according to the results of this study.

To determine if a difference in heart rate, STAI scores, behavior, and performance quality existed between jury conditions, data were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance or MANOVA (MLGH module of the SYSTAT statistical package, Wilkinson, 1990). Evaluative results on the assumptions of normality, linearity, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices and multicollinearity were satisfactory. Data points for analysis included: percentage of heart rate change between nonjury and jury conditions, difference scores between STAI prejury and post-jury scores, mean of behaviors displayed during jury playing, and performance quality mean. With the use of Wilk’s criterion, the combined dependent variables were not significantly affected by jury condition [F (4, 59) = .95, p = .44]. This result indicates that there were no significant differences in heart rate means, STAI difference scores, behavior

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


72

Table 2

Univariate F Tests Comparing Four Dependent Variables Between two Jury conditions

Heart Rate Change 88.03 1 88.03 .21 .65

STAI Change 500.64 1 500.64 2.53 .12 Behavior .32 1 .32 .62 .43 Perf. Quality .004 1 .004 .01 .92

means, and performance quality ratings between open and double-blind jury groups.2

As seen in Table 2, the dependent variable that was closest to reaching significance was STAI change, indicating that this variable was the one that discriminated the most between the two jury conditions. The STAI change revealed higher perceived anxiety responses from subjects in the double-blind condition. These results were further confirmed by the results of the pre-jury interviews. More people in the double-blind than in the open jury condition felt nervous about their jury condition (45% and 19%, respectively).

Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of the four dependent variables for both jury conditions. It is clear that there was an increase from practice time to jury time in heart rate and STAI scores in both groups despite the high variability among subjects. The means of behaviors and performance quality in both groups, however, remained quite low, indicating the low presence of nervous behaviors and high performance quality. The category of behavioral responses most prevalent for each instrument seemed to be largely determined by the characteristics of the instrument as to what part of the body was free to move (see Table 4). For instance, pianists as well as some brass and woodwind players would play seated, while the rest were standing. Wind players used their faces to

2Because of the present controversy in using difference scores in statistical analysis, data from this study were also analyzed using Univariate analysis of Covariance. The results were virtually the same asthe MANOVAS. No significant differences were found in post-heart rate and post-jury STAI scroesdue to jury condition when the pretests were used as covariates.

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


Vol. XXXI, No. 1, Spring, 1994

TABLE 3

73

Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables Under Two Jury Conditions

M 34.26 7.67 2.19 2.13 31.92 13.47 2.33 2.12 SD 22.36 12.07 .69 .76 18.29 15.61 .75 .51

HR: Heart Rate Change: STAI: State Scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Change: PQ: Performance Quality.

play their instruments, and the percentage of behaviors observed in their faces (bucal muscles) was very small (4% for woodwinds and 9% for brass). The specific behaviors frequently observed in each category were the following:

1. Feet and legs: shifting and tapping during playing and shuffling and pacing during measures of rest or in between movements of the piece.

2. Body: swaying during playing, and some big breaths during music rests or in between movements.

3. Arms and hands: Arm and hand movements, such as arms flapping to the rhythm of the music, were the most typical during performance. Touching the body, like drying one’s hands or removing hair from the face were most common during nonmusic intervals.

4. Face: Head moving was the most prevalent action of the face during performance, and some lips moistening and jaw movements occurred during measures of rest and in between movements.

5. Instrument behavior: Adjusting, manipulating, inspecting the instrument, and touching the music stand before performance when not playing were most frequently observed.

6. Vocalization: No behaviors in this category were observed. Pooled within-cell correlations among the four dependent

variables across both jury conditions indicate low relationship and independence (see Table 5). The highest correlation obtained was between State anxiety and performance quality, indicating that the higher the STAI scores, the higher the scores in performance quality (indicating poorer performance quality). This finding correlates with others in the area of test anxiety that showed that emotionality (physiological component) at the

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from



TABLE 4

Percentage of Behaviors According to Families of Instruments

Feet Hands Inst.Instrument &legs Body Face BehaviorVocal N Voice 17% 22% 24% 37% 0% 0% 18 Woodwinds 37% 30% 23% 4% 6% 0% 18 Brass 4.5% 20% 19% 9% 18% 0% 12 Piano 3% 37% 6% 51% 3% 0% 3 Percussion 35% 16% 9% 26% 2% 0% 5 strings 52% 20% 4% 19% 5% 1% 6

time of a test was not related to examination performance (Smith & Morris, 1976), and that the cognitive component (worry) may or may not be accompanied by the physiological one (Morris, Davis, & Hutchings, 1981). This finding suggests that there may be different types of performance anxiety depending on which component was prevalent in each individual (physiological, psychological, or behavioral). These performance anxieties may be aroused and maintained by different aspects of stressful situations. This speculation is supported by the (a) variety of answers to Question 3 of the post-jury interview, which asked subjects what aspects of the jury made them nervous, as well as (b) the high variability in heart rate and STAI scores.

Discussion

The results of this study clearly demonstrated that performance anxiety affected some physiological and psychological dimensions of music performance similar to the results of other studies (Ely, 1991; Gabbard, 1980). These findings also confirm the findings of previous investigations (Salmon, 1991; Salmon, Schrodt, & Wright, 1989) that performance anxiety affects musicians of all levels of training and expertise. In the present study, students with a variety of years of formal training and jury experience responded similarly with increased heart rates and more anxious feelings during open and double-blind juries than in practice conditions. The jury heart rate mean appears to be very high in this study, but because of a dearth of research that includes heart rate as a measure of performance anxiety, it is impossible to do any comparisons. It is important to mention that, despite this significant increase in heart rate from studio

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


Vol. XXXI, No. 1, Spring, 1994

TABLE 5

75

Pooled within-Cell Correlations Among Four Dependent variables Across Two Jury Conditions

Heart Rate Change 1 STAI Change .097 1 Behavior -.069 -.085 1 PQ .099 .219 -.033 1

practice to jury condition, the majority of subjects in this study started with an accelerated heart rate during pre-jury periods. This finding confirms other findings that musicians have higher heart rates than other more sedentary individuals (Mulcahy, Keegan, Fingret, Wright, Park, Sparrow, Curcher, & Fox, 1990). This may he due to the exercise involved in playing an instrument or singing, or some psychological variables involved in performing music.

The second major finding of this study was that, when the four constituents of musical performance anxiety, i.e., physiological (heart rate), psychological (state anxiety), behavior, and performance quality were compared according to the jury situation, there was no significant difference in response that could be attributed to type of jury condition. Although the intention of informing the students in the double-blind condition that they would be rated by unknown judges was to increase subjects’ apprehension, it did not seem to affect the students any differently in this study. This finding is further confirmed by the results of the interviews. Although a moderate percentage of students in the double-blind condition reported feeling nervous about the blind condition in the pre-jury interview (45%), after the jury the students acknowledged that the effect of the blind condition was even less stressful than at the time of performance (13%). Responses to the post-jury interview, such as, “Once I got up there, I completely forgot about it,” were common among students in the blind condition. The decrease in percentage of nervous reports from pre to post-jury interviews concerning the double-blind condition may also be explained by the fact that playing an instrument or singing involves multiple tasks. This may enhance or hinder the problem of stage fright by

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from



feeling more overwhelmed or becoming so involved in the playing/singing that any external variables are forgotten. Due to preoccupation with instrumental/vocal technique, subjects may have been less bothered by performance pressures.

The means of the four dependent variables for both jury conditions indicate that the two variables whose means differ the most from practice time to jury time (heart rate and perceived anxiety) are the ones that were measured with two standardized instruments (heart rate monitor and State scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) as opposed to specifically constructed observation forms. This suggests that the standardized instruments may be more sensitive in discriminating small changes in anxiety.

As far as behaviors observed during performance are concerned, except for instrument behaviors and touching the body, most behaviors observed would be considered normal in a performance situation. Those behaviors are part of musical interpretation and expressivity, and are not necessarily related to nervousness. Poise and charisma on stage are important attributes in becoming a successful performer. This is especially true for singers and becomes part of their evaluation. It would be peculiar and unusual to have musicians totally still while performing on stage.

The other variable that needs some comment is performance quality. The means of this variable show that the quality of the performance in both groups was quite high. Thus, quality of performance was not differentially affected by the two jury conditions. An explanation for this finding is suggested by Middlestadt (1990), Salmon, Schrodt, and Wright (1989), and Wine (1982), who claimed that peak anxiety is reached before the performance, but that the problem is alleviated once the musician starts playing. Thus, neither the behavior nor the quality of the performance is affected. Because this study did not compare performance quality or behavior between non-jury and jury conditions, it is not possible to determine whether behavior and performance quality on stage were better or worse than in the practice room. Another explanation may be that the type of stress experienced by these subjects at the time of their juries was adaptive as opposed to debilitating (Caldwell, 1990; Plaut, 1990; Wolfe, 1989). That is, the amount of stress experienced

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


Vol. XXXI, NO. 1, Spring, 1994 77

by these students was facilitating as opposed to distracting so that their performances were enhanced instead of hindered. It would be a big step forward in the field of music performance anxiety if future studies could determine the point at which anxiety becomes detrimental to the performer. Future studies might also observe and record performance quality and behavioral movement in the practice room, in order to gather more information on how these variables are affected by stressful performance situations.

The fact that the four variables are highly independent and that there was high variability among subjects in heart rate and STAI scores suggests that people’s anxiety may be triggered by different aspects of performance, and they probably respond differently to the situation. For instance, having judges and peers in the room was an aspect that concerned a high percentage of students. These two categories are a clear representation of fear of being evaluated. In the musical world there is a classic quote, “Your peers are your worst critics,” and this clearly was a concern for many students. Other fears stated were: messing up by not remembering words and/or music (worry component), not being able to control the shaking and the breathing (physiological component), feelings of insecurity by doubting the quality of the performance (worry), getting too excited (worry), and being in a different room (worry). Undoubtedly, changes in acoustical and spatial factors may alter the manner in which sounds are usually perceived, thus causing additional worries (Salmon, 1991).

Do the findings of this study have any practical implications for helping music students with performance anxiety? The resuits indicate that juries are clearly sources of stress for music students. Because so many music therapy programs are located in schools of music or music departments of colleges and universities, this is a population easily accessible for treatment and investigation by music therapists. The field of music therapy has a considerable body of research on the use of music to reduce stress and anxiety (Hanser, 1985). Furthermore, a few studies have already applied some of these stress reduction techniques with anxious musicians (Appel, 1976; Montello, Coons, & Kantor, 1990; Rider, 1987). Further research is warranted, however, to determine the ideal therapeutic interven-

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from



tion that promotes relaxation and yet allows concentration and arousal to be maintained for effective musical performance.

It appears that the four components of performance anxiety manifest themselves quite independently. Music therapists interested in this field should have a clear understanding of how the human body functions and responds to different stressful situations so that they can help their patients with anxiety problems. Researchers interested in the area of musical performance anxiety must examine more fully individual differences in the experience of anxiety and the conditions that exacerbate anxiety. It would be helpful to start developing standardized scales that can clearly discriminate and identify which of the four factors of performance anxiety is most prevalent in each performer and the order in which they develop. Music teachers, for example, could individualize and start this process with students in order to know how best to help each student. According to the results of this study, it is erroneous to assume that every performer experiences anxiety in similar ways or for identical reasons. By studying individual differences, performers with different anxiety modes can be matched with the most appropriate treatment interventions. As a medical doctor pointed out, “the health of our world, in the broadest sense, is highly dependent on our individual and collective creativity which is directly linked to the health of the creative among us-our artists and performing artists” (Lippin, 1991, p. 4).

References

Appel, S. S. (1976). Modifying solo performance anxiety in adult pianists. Journalof Music Therapy, 13, 2-16.

Brandfonbrener, A. G. (1990). Beta blockers in the treatment of performance anxiety. Medical Problem of Performing Artists, 5(1), 23-26.

Caldwell, R. (1990). The performerprepares.Dallas,TX: PST Inc. Dunkel S. D. (1989). The audition process: Anxiety management and coping

strategies. Stuyvesant, NY: Pendragon Press. Dubovsky, S. L. (1990). Generalized anxiety disorder: New concepts and psy

chopharmacological therapies. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 51(Suppl. 1). 3-10.

Ely, M. C. (1991). Stop performance anxiety! MUSICEducators Journal, 79(2), 35-39.

Fogle, D. 0. (1982). Toward effective treatment for music performance anxiety. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19(3), 368-375.

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


Vol. XXXI, No. 1, Spring, 1994 79

Gabbard, G. O. (1980). Stage fright: Symptoms and causes. The Piano Quarterly, 112, 11-15.

Gates, G. A.. Saegert, J., Wilson, N., Johnson, L., Shepherd, A., & Hearned, E. M. (1985). Effect of b blockade on singing performance. Annals of Otology, Rhinology, and Laryngology, 94(1), 570-574.

Goode, D. J., & Knight, S. P. (1991). Identification, retrieval, and analysis of arts medicine literature. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 6(1), 3-7.

Hamann, D. L. (1882). An assessment of anxiety in instrumental and vocal performances. Journal of Research In Music Education, 30, 77-90.

Hanser, S. B. (1985). Music therapy and stress reduction research. Journal of Music Therapy, 22, 193-206.

Havas, K. (1973). Stage fright. London: Bosworth & Co. Ltd. Hingley, V. D. (1985). Performance anxiety in music: A review of the literature.

Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1106A. (University Microfilms, No. 8613172)

James, A. (1988). Medicine and the performing arts. The stage fright syndrome. Transactions of the Medical Society of London, 105, 5-9.

LeBlanc, A., Campbell, P. S., & Codding, P. (1991). Suitability of a personal heart rate monitor for use in music research. Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University.

Lederman, R. J. (1989). Performing arts medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 320, 246-248.

Lehrer, P. M., Goldman, N. S., & Strommen, E. F. (1990). A principal components assessment of performance anxiety among musicians. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 5(1), 12-18.

Lehrer, P. M., Rosen, R. C., Kostis, J. B., & Greenfield, D. (1987). Treating stage fright in musicians: The use of beta blockers. New Jersey Medicine, 84(1), 27-33.

Lippin, R. A. (1991, October). Update. International Arts Medicine Association, p. 4.

Lockwood, A. H. (1989). Medical problems of musicians. The New England Journal of Medicine, 320, 221-227.

Mansberger, N. B. (1988). The effects of performance anxiety management training on musicians‘ self-efficacy, state anxiety and musical performance quality. Unpublished master’s thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.

Middlestadt, S. E. (1990). Medical problems of symphony orchestra musicians: From counting people with problems ta evaluating interventions. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 24. 159-172.

Mantello, L., Coons, E. D., & Kantor, J. (1990). The use of group music therapy as a treatment for musical performance stress. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 5(1), 49-57.

Morris, L. W., Davis, M. A., & Hutchings, C. H. (1981). Cognitive and emotional components of anxiety: Literature review and a revised worry-emotion&y scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 541-555.

Morris. L. W., & Liebert, R. M. (1973). Effects of negative feedback, threat

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


Journal ofMusic Therapy80

of shock, and level of trait anxiety on the arousal of two components of anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 20, 321-326.

Mulcahy, D., Keegan, J., Fingret, A., Wright, C., Park, A., Sparrow, J., Curcher, D., & Fox, K. M. (1990). Circadian variation of heart rate is affected by environment: A study of continuous electrographic monitoring in members of a symphony orchestra. British Heart Journal, 64, 388-392.

Nagel, J. J. (1990). Performance anxiety and the performing musician: A fear of failure or a fear of success? Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 5(1), 37-40

Nettel, K. A., Kaser, M. H., & Vorkauf, J. (1982). Stage fright in musicians: A model illustrating the effect of beta-blockers. Psychosomatic Medicine, 44, 461-469.

Nies, A. S. (1990). Clinical pharmacology of beta-adrenergic blockers. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 5(1), 27-32.

Nube, (1991). Beta-blockers: Effectson performing musicians. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 6(2), 61-68.

Pearson, R. M. (1990). up tempo, down tempo. British Heart Journal, 64, 354.

Plaut, E. A. (1990). Psychotherapy of performance anxiety. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 5(1), 58-63.

Plott, T. M. (1986). An investigation of the hypnotic treatment of music performance anxiety. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 4310B. (University Microfilms. No. 87-01817)

Rider, M. S. (1987). Music therapy: Therapy for debilitated musicians. Music Therapy Perspectives, 4, 40-43.

Ristad, E. (1982). A soprano on her head. Moab, UT: Real People Press. Salmon, P. G. (1991). A primer on performance anxiety for organists: Part 1.

The American Organist (May), 55-59. Salmon, P., Schrodt, G. B., & Wright, J. (1989). A temporal gradient of anxiety

in a stressful performance context. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 4(2), 77-80.

Smith, C. A., & Morris, L. W. (1976). Effects of stimulative and sedative music on cognitive and emotional components of anxiety. Psychological Reports, 1, 187-193.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1980). A manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Tobacyk, J. J., & Downs, A. (1966). Personal construct threat and irrational beliefs as cognitive predictors of increases in musical performance anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 779-782.

Trusbeim, W. H. (1987). Mental imagery and musical performance: An inquiry into imagery use by eminent orchestral brass players in the United States. Dissertation Abstracts International, 49, 655A. (University Microfilms, No. 88-08237)

Wardle, A. (1975). Behavior modification by reciprocal inhibition of instrumental music performance anxiety. In C. K. Madsen, R. D. Greer, & C. H. Madsen, Jr. (Eds.), Research in music behavior: Modifying music behavior in the classroom (pp. 191-205). New York: Teachers College Press.

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


Vol. XXX/, No. 1, Spring, 1994 81

Weisblatt, S. (1986). A psychoanalytic view of performance anxiety. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 1(2), 64-67.

Wilkinson, L. (1990). SYSTAT: The system for statistics. Evanston, IL: SYS-TAT, Inc.

Wine, J. D. (1982). A cognitive-attentional construct. In H. W. Krohne & L. Laux (Eds.), Achievement. stress, and anxiety (pp. 207-222). New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.

Wolfe, M. L. (1989). Correlates of adaptive and maladaptive musical performance anxiety. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 4(1), 49-56.

by guest on Decem



ownloaded from


effects of performing conditions on music performance anxiety and performance quality

Documents