mpa quantitative analysis

Music Education Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2003

Investigating Musical Performance Anxietyamong Music College Singing Students: aquantitative analysis

DIMITRA KOKOTSAKI & JANE W. DAVIDSON, Department of Music,University of Sheffield, UK (E-mail Dimitra Kokotsaki at: [email protected])

ABSTRACT Due to the common and undesirable effects of ‘stage fright’ among perform-ing musicians, the current study has been undertaken to re-examine the issue ofperformance anxiety among second- and third-year vocal studies students taking theirmid-year examinations at the Guildhall School of Music in London. The results revealfemales to be more anxious compared to the norms regarding anxiety both as apersonality trait and as a state condition during the anticipation of a jury situation. Inaddition, the study confirms the suggestion in the literature that a proportionalrelationship exists between the trait and state aspects of anxiety, where state anxietylevels get higher as trait anxiety increases and vice versa. Regarding the students’achievement as indicated in their final marks, it has been shown that not only will themore advanced musicians, in terms of training and experience, perform better underanxious conditions but they also benefit from their higher levels of pre-performanceanxiety.

Introduction

The interest in investigating the issue of performance anxiety, widely known as ‘stagefright’, primarily arose from the frequently reported effects of this ‘exaggerated andsometimes incapacitating fear of performing in public’ (Wilson, 1997, p. 229) on theperformers’ perception and apprehension of the situation.

For anyone interested in performance anxiety, tests and examinations are particularlyinteresting environments since, from the outset, the performer is acutely aware of apowerful evaluation component. In this respect arousal seems to result from the fear ofsocial evaluation, namely from an ‘evaluation apprehension’. This view is confirmed byLatane’s theory of social impact which, broadly defined, is any effect produced by thepresence or actions of other people on an individual (Latane & Harkins, 1976; Jackson

ISSN 1461-3808 print; ISSN 1469-9893 online/03/010045-15 2003 Taylor & Francis Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/1461380032000042899

46 D. Kokotsaki & J. W. Davidson

& Latane, 1981). Through direct evaluation, with the use of a marking system, theperformer may experience worry and emotional distress, which respectively relate tocognitive concerns over evaluation and the consequences of failure, and to perceivedchanges in physiological functioning (Sarason, 1986, pp. 25–26). Specifically, theemotional manifestations of performance anxiety are, in fact, the result of the individ-ual’s subjective realisation of the physical changes in him/herself (Leary & Kowalski,1995; Levitt, 1968). Therefore, performing musicians perceive themselves as being in anemotional state when, while being physically aroused, they are also in a position tointerpret the cause of their arousal.

Definitions of anxiety revolve around ‘state’ and ‘trait’ aspects which, respectively,describe an unpleasant emotional condition which is transitory in nature; and relativelystable individual differences in proneness to anxiety as a personality trait (Spielberger,Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg & Jacobs, 1983, p. 7). Spielberger (1972) attempted to developworking definitions of these two types of anxiety:

State anxiety (A-State) … is characterised by subjective, consciously perceivedfeelings of apprehension and tension, accompanied by or associated withactivation or arousal of the autonomic nervous system.

Trait anxiety (A-Trait) refers to relatively stable individual differences inanxiety proneness, that is, to differences in the disposition to perceive a widerange of stimulus situations as dangerous or threatening, and in the tendencyto respond to such threats with A-State reactions. (Spielberger, 1972, p. 39)

In contrast to transitory personality states, the basic characteristic of personality traits istheir enduring nature as behavioural dispositions, influenced critically in their formationby the environment. Thus, residues of past experience and specifically in childhood seemto dominate in the formation of personality traits and particularly in the disposition toperceive certain kinds of situations as threatening. As far as the relationship betweenstate and trait anxiety is concerned, personality traits may be regarded as a means ofmeasuring the frequency and intensity with which specific emotional states have beenexperienced in the past, and of the probability that such states will be manifested in thefuture (Spielberger, 1972, pp. 31–32). There seems to exist a proportional relationshipbetween the two anxiety types, where the stronger a particular personality trait, the morechances there are that, on the one hand, the individual will experience the equivalentemotional state and, on the other, the more frequently and intensely these emotionalstates and associated behaviours will be manifested. In this respect, the State-Trait theoryof anxiety claims that situations which impose direct or implied threats to self-esteem,or that involve interpersonal relationships, produce higher levels of A-State in personswith high A-Trait than those who are low in A-Trait (Gaudry & Spielberger, 1971;Spielberger, 1972; Spielberger et al., 1983).

This discussion of the interrelationship between personality traits and state conditionsdoes not intend to imply that low anxiety levels are always desirable. It is indeedsuggested by the Yerkes–Dodson Law (Duffy, 1962; Yerkes & Dodson, 1908) thatoptimal performance is stimulated by intermediate arousal (or anxiety) levels, and thatneither low nor high anxiety levels enhance performance in any way. Applying theYerkes–Dodson Law to musical performance anxiety, Wilson (1994) has suggested athree-dimensional model comprising three major sources of stress: the trait anxiety of theperformer, the degree of task mastery acquired, and the prevailing degree of situationalstress. The interaction amongst these three variables will determine whether anxiety willresult in enhanced or impaired performance.

Investigating musical performance anxiety 47

The study by Kemp (1981) reveals that students receiving full-time music tuition showa strong disposition towards anxiety, and that musicians have higher levels of anxietycompared with the general population. The same finding is also supported in the studyby Watson and Valentine (1987) where both male and female members of the LondonSinfonietta scored significantly higher on trait anxiety in Spielberger’s test whencompared to the norms. A number of other studies have made use of Spielberger’sState-Trait Anxiety Inventory to investigate anxiety in musical performance fromdifferent perspectives (Abel & Larkin, 1990; Craske & Craig, 1984; Hamann & Sobaje,1983; Nagel, Himle & Papsdorf, 1989; Tobacyk & Downs, 1986). Regarding genderdifferences in anxiety research, the study by Abel and Larkin (1990) claimed that genderaffected the pattern of anxiety levels experienced. Specifically, where males exhibitedgreater systolic blood pressure responses immediately prior to the jury, females reportedgreater subjective anxiety. Thus, levels of state anxiety were higher for females.

As far as the relationship between anxiety and experience as a musician is concerned,Hamann (1982) found that participants with many years of formal study and conse-quently more advanced in terms of training and experience, performed in a superiormanner under conditions of increased anxiety states. Many researchers agree that effectsof anxiety can be both positive and negative. Hamann (1982) specifically states that inboth Drive Theory, which refers to the motivational properties of anxiety (Spence, 1958;Taylor, 1956), and Spielberger’s extension of Drive Theory (State-Trait), State anxiety(A-State) can enhance or facilitate performance in activities where participants possesshigh levels of training or ability. Where participants possess low training or ability,A-State is thought to deter performance. In the same line of thought, Kemp suggestsabout musicians that ‘this facilitative role appears to be particularly manifest in moreexperienced performers who may have learned to control the more debilitating effects ofanxiety’ (Kemp, 1996, p. 107). In addition, Hamann and Sobaje (1983) reached the sameconclusion after having measured responses to anxiety and assessed the musical qualityof participants’ performances under both jury and non-jury situations. It was predictedfrom this that, under anxious conditions, participants with a high number of years offormal training would perform in a superior manner than those with fewer years offormal training.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the anxiety levels of second- andthird-year college students during their mid-year examinations. Within this framework,developmental and gender differences were investigated in relation also to the quality ofthe students’ performance as this was indicated by the final marks awarded. In addition,the relationship between the trait and state anxiety types was re-examined in the light ofthe State-Trait theory of anxiety. It was decided, primarily for ethical reasons, that thepresent study should investigate the issue of anxiety and its relationship to gender anddevelopmental differences during mid-year examinations, for the grades here were usedas a guide to the students for their crucial end-of-year exams. Therefore, it was hopedthat their participation in the study would not add to any high and possibly undesirableanxiety levels.

Method

This study took place in the Guildhall School of Music and Drama (a conservatoire inLondon) where 21 second-year (14 women and seven men) and 22 third-year students(15 women and seven men) had their mid-year singing examinations. For the testing ofthe participants’ anxiety, Spielberger’s State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) was chosen


as a useful tool for the assessment of levels of anxiety. Primarily, its focus on thecombination of stable traits and transitory state characteristics satisfied our researchpurpose of tackling both issues in our study. Furthermore, our intention in using theSTAI was to measure the performers’ subjective anxiety, in the sense of how theythemselves perceived and experienced their anxiety. The reliability and validity of thescale has been well researched and has yielded satisfactory psychometric data (Spiel-berger et al., 1983, pp. 33–48). Indeed, a number of researchers have supported the useof this standardised anxiety inventory with performing musicians. In particular, Kemphas suggested that

It is reasonable to expect that the adoption of Spielberger’s State-Trait AnxietyInventory would allow researchers the opportunity to further clarify some ofthe findings of previous research. After all, if it measures what it purports tomeasure, it should be effective in helping us separate out the state and traitcharacteristics of the performing musician measured under differing conditionsof stress. (Kemp, 1996, p. 93)

In addition, it has been claimed that anxiety inventories are preferable to physiologicaltests: ‘Anxiety inventories have greater reliability than do physiological measures orprojective tests, specifically the STAI, because they are less affected by extraneousfactors’ (Hamann, 1982, p. 81). Specifically, as Hamann and Sobaje (1983) claim,physiological measures like wires, discs etc. that may be needed to assess physiologicalanxiety changes, can act as restrictive factors in the musicians’ performance.

The inventory consisted of two forms—the State-Anxiety Inventory (Form Y-1) andthe Trait-Anxiety Inventory (Form Y-2)—each consisting of 20 self-report items (seeAppendix). The trait questionnaire (Form Y-2) consisted of 20 statements, whichevaluate how respondents generally feel, whereas the state questionnaire (Form Y-1)consisted of 20 statements that evaluate how respondents feel right now, at this moment.

The procedures for the administration of the State/Trait anxiety measures suggested inthe manual (Spielberger et al., 1983, pp. 12–14) have been thoroughly followed. Thetrait questionnaire was administered to the participants two weeks before the actualperformance. The state anxiety questionnaire was administered to each participant,10 minutes prior to entering the recital room in order to test their pre-performance stateanxiety. After the end of the performance, participants were asked to complete a stateanxiety questionnaire, which was adapted from the STAI Form Y-1, but the instructionswere altered to ask participants to provide self-reports as to how they felt while theywere performing (during-performance state anxiety). The validity of the measure is notviolated by this adaptation since the experimenter is recommended in Spielberger’smanual to administer the S-Anxiety scale on each occasion when there is need to assesschanges in anxiety over time. Specifically, ‘research participants … may be instructed toreport how they feel immediately before they begin and, after the task is completed, howthey felt at the time they were working on it’ (Spielberger et al., 1983, p. 13).

Moreover, 15 minutes after finishing the performance, participants were asked toreport again on their anxiety and were re-administered STAI Form Y-1 (post-perform-ance condition). We believe that the 15-minute time gap which intervened between thetwo state anxiety measurements (during- and post-performance) would be enough timefor our participants to then be able to approach and respond to the post-State question-naire in as impartial a way as possible. We understand that time before, during and aftera stress-invoking situation cannot be measured as ‘normal’ time since psychologicalstates alternate in a more complicated and rapid manner. In particular, in contrast to traits


TABLE 1. Means (and standard deviations) of trait anxiety scores in the present studycompared with published norms (Spielberger et al., 1983)

Undergraduate musicians Undergraduate norms

Male Female Male Female

Mean 40.00 (9.07) 44.43 (9.55) 38.30 (9.18) 40.40 (10.15)

that show more steady growth and decline, ‘states shift by quite a different order ofmagnitude, and they probably swing more definitely in response to external stimuli’(Cattell, 1973). In this final questionnaire, they were additionally asked to mentionwhether they felt their actual performance was influenced in any way by their perceivedanxiety and also whether they consciously used any coping strategies. Overall, 172questionnaires (four per participant) were completed and returned.

Results

Descriptive Findings

Considering the anxiety levels reported by participants, 65% felt that anxiety hadprevented them from performing to the best of their ability, whilst 7% felt that anxietyactually helped them to play better. Interestingly, 12 out of 15 participants (35%), whoclaimed that anxiety had no effect on their performance, showed a conscious attempt tocontrol any feelings of anxiety that might have deteriorated their performance. Thereported coping strategies involved mainly conscious manipulation of breathing control(‘relaxed’, ‘slow’, ‘deep’, ‘meditative’, ‘breathing exercises’) and ‘positive thinking’directed both inwards towards the self (‘self-directed’/’self-confident’) and outwardstowards the music itself (‘concentration’/’thinking about what I was singing’); orinvolved a conscious connection between the two (‘by relating the songs to a similarevent in my life’). So, despite reporting no effects of anxiety on performance, it seemsthat these 12 performers took psychologically projective measures against their potentialanxiety.

In the following sections, the relationships between personality trait and transitorystate conditions, anxiety levels and control during performance are explored.

Trait Anxiety

Scores for trait anxiety ranged from 24 to 58 (out of a possible maximum of 80) forfemales (median � 43.5), and from 24 to 54 for males (median � 41).

As can be seen from Table 1, the mean trait anxiety score for female participants wassignificantly higher than published undergraduate norms [t � 2.231, df (degrees offreedom) � 27, p � 0.05). However, there was no difference between the mean traitanxiety scores for male participants and published norms [t � 0.676, df � 12, n.s. (notsignificant)]. Comparing male and female scores, no difference was found between thetrait anxiety scores of male and female participants (t � 1.402, df � 39, n.s.). The meantrait score for males and females combined was 43.02, which is similar to the scoreobtained in the study undertaken with music undergraduates by Nagel et al. (1989) (traitscore combined � 43.00; t � 0.016, df � 40, n.s.).


TABLE 2. Means (and standard deviations) of state anxiety scores in the present study compared withpublished norms (Spielberger et al., 1983)

Undergraduate musicians Undergraduate norms

Male Female Male Female

Pre-performance 39.57 (8.45) 42.74 (9.93)a 36.47 (10.02) 38.76 (11.95)During performance 39.93 (10.08) 38.50 (9.14) 36.47 (10.02) 38.76 (11.95)Post-performance 34.29 (8.21) 34.29 (8.43)b 36.47 (10.02) 38.76 (11.95)

An analysis was then undertaken using the percentile ranks for college undergraduatesreported in the Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger et al., 1983),and participants were divided into ‘high’, ‘medium’ and ‘low’ trait categories accordingto the position of their raw trait scores on the percentile ranks (upper third, middle thirdand lower third). The results showed that there were no highly trait anxious participantsin the present study. Instead, they all fell into the medium and low trait anxietycategories.

State Anxiety

State anxiety scores ranged from 23 to 54 (pre-performance state anxiety), from 24 to62 (state anxiety during the performance) and from 20 to 48 (post-performance stateanxiety) for males, and from 22 to 58 (pre-performance), from 21 to 57 (during-perform-ance) and from 21 to 54 (post-performance) for females. The mean state anxiety scoresobtained for male and female participants in the study are presented in Table 2 alongwith published norms (the published norms for college students give just one score forstate anxiety levels under anxious conditions).

As can be seen, there was no difference in the mean state anxiety scores in any of thepre-, during or post-performance conditions between male participants and publishedundergraduate norms. In the case of the female participants, however, the mean stateanxiety scores were significantly higher than published norms for the pre-performance(t � 2.082, df � 26, p � 0.05) and significantly lower for the post-performance conditions(t � 2.808, df � 26, p � 0.01).

Scores for state anxiety in this study are quite similar to those recorded for previousstudies carried out with music undergraduates in similar conditions. In this study, thepre-performance mean anxiety score for female participants of 42.74 is not significantlydifferent to the mean anxiety score of 45.75 in the Craske and Craig (1984) study(t � 1.563, df � 26, n.s.). The same applies to the pre-recital mean for males of 39.57compared with 36.56 in the same study (t � 1.333, df � 13, n.s.). The mean pre-recitalstate anxiety scores, for males and females combined, is 41.155 in this study, comparedwith 43.6 in the study with music students by Tobacyk and Downs (1986) (t � � 1.312,df � 40, n.s.). The anxiety scores of males and females measured pre-, during andfollowing the performance were analysed using a 2 � 3 ANOVA. The results of theANOVA indicated that anxiety scores reduced over time (F � 14.910, df � 2,36,p � 0.01). However, there was no difference between male and female participants’scores (F � 0.096, df � 1,37, n.s.) nor was there a significant interaction between thegender of the participants and anxiety scores over time (F � 1.826, df � 2,36 n.s).


TABLE 3. Correlations between trait anxiety and state anxiety measurements

Pre-performance During-performance Post-performanceanxiety anxiety anxiety

Trait anxiety (male, n � 13) 0.66a 0.46 0.65a

Trait anxiety (female, n � 27) 0.35 0.28 0.45a

(Full sample, n � 40) 0.46b 0.32a 0.50b

a p � 0.05, b p � 0.01.

Correlations Between Trait and State Anxiety

The published norms for college students in the Manual for the State-Trait AnxietyInventory (Spielberger et al., 1983) report significant correlations between the two typesof anxiety (r � 0.65 for males, r � 0.59 for females). The results from the current studyare shown in Table 3.

Considering females only, the post-performance state anxiety measure correlatedsignificantly with trait anxiety. For male participants, the pre-recital and post-perform-ance state anxiety scores were significantly correlated with trait anxiety. Taking malesand females combined, trait anxiety correlated with all state anxiety measurements.

Marks Awarded

The marks awarded for males and females and for second- and third-year students arepresented in Table 4 where it is shown that third-year students were awarded highermarks than second-year students (t � 2.834, df � 21, p � 0.01). However, males andfemales received similar marks (t � 0.160, df � 28, n.s.).

The anxiety scores of second- and third-year students measured pre-, during andfollowing the performance were then analysed using a 2 � 3 ANOVA. The results of theANOVA indicated that anxiety scores reduced over time (F � 17.444, df � 2,36,p � 0.01) but there was no difference between second- and third-year participants’anxiety scores (F � 0.807, df � 1,37 n.s.), nor was there an interaction between the studyyear of the participants and anxiety scores over time (F � 0.149, df � 2,36 n.s.).However, a further comparison conducted to examine again the effects of anxiety on thesignificantly different marks awarded for the participants revealed that third-yearstudents were significantly more anxious before their performance compared to thesecond-year students (t � 2.322, df � 20, p � 0.05). As far as the relationship betweenthe overall marks awarded and the levels of anxiety reported in this study is concerned,no correlations were found between marks awarded and any of the four measurementsof anxiety (trait anxiety plus the three state anxiety measurements).

TABLE 4. Marks awarded for male/female and second/third-year participants

Females Males Overall Second-year Third-year

Mean 60.31(5.8) 60.14(5.7) 60.26(5.6) 58.33(4.31) 62.09(6.22)Minimum 50 51 50 50 55Maximum 76 71 76 65 76Range 26 20 26 15 21


Discussion

The limitations of this study should be born in mind in the interpretation of the results.Data were collected entirely by questionnaire, and it is possible that such reports may notaccurately reflect people’s behaviour, since the researchers relied entirely on theparticipants’ honesty and ability to provide accurate descriptions of their psychologicalstate. In addition, the small male sample compared to the females may have possiblycaused distortions to the research results. We do not believe, however, that the validityof the measure has been violated by the adaptation of STAI Form Y-1 for themeasurement of the participants’ during-performance state anxiety.

This study has partially confirmed the finding that, generally, performing musicians asa group are more anxious compared to the normal population. Female singers weresignificantly more highly trait anxious than the normal female population. As far as anyinter-gender differences are concerned, no differential effects of gender on trait anxietyhave been found, and therefore, it cannot be concluded that the female singers are morehighly trait anxious compared to the male singers. What is interesting to note is that noneof the participants have been regarded as being highly trait anxious and that the vastmajority fell into the medium trait level. Even though this result does not confirm therelevant literature (Kemp, 1981; Watson & Valentine, 1987), it is, however, in line withprevious research, as has already been seen (e.g. Nagel et al., 1989).

Regarding state anxiety levels, only female musicians have been found to be morehighly state anxious compared to the norms for the pre-performance condition. Eventhough these results suggest that females are more highly state anxious compared to thenorms, again no differential effects of gender on any of the three state conditions havebeen revealed and, therefore, Abel and Larkin’s claim that females are more highly stateanxious compared to the males has not been confirmed. This inconsistency between thetwo studies, however, may have been due to a possible distortion of the result becauseof the low number of males in the present study. There is a chance, therefore, that a TypeII error may have been committed which means the hypothesis that women are morehighly state anxious compared to men, has been rejected when, in fact, it may be true.However, one might speculate, just from observing the significant differences found forthe pre- and post-performance conditions for the females when compared to the norms,that even though female singers are more anxious before the performance, they quiterapidly manage to regain their ‘normal’ levels of composure in the performance, and bythe end of the performance their anxiety reduces even more. Therefore, a more acuteanxiety reduction is observed in the case of females in contrast to males who seem tobe able to keep their composure throughout the performance process. Thus, even thoughAbel and Larkin’s (1990) claim that females are more highly state anxious compared tothe males has not been confirmed, it seems to be suggested by the results that femalesare able to report greater subjective anxiety when measured with Spielberger’s Stateanxiety test, in contrast to males who reveal a possible failure to disclose feelings openly.Nevertheless, overall mean anxiety scores support relevant results in other studies(Craske & Craig, 1984; Tobacyk & Downs, 1986).

A plausible explanation for the low and medium trait and state anxiety levels inthe singers participating in this study could arise from the unique nature of their‘instrument’. Since singers have no tangible instrument to separate them from theaudience and thus they attract the whole attention during the performance, amongmusicians they are generally characterised by a unique pattern of personality traits suchas extraversion, adjustment and independence (Kemp, 1996; Kokotsaki et al., 2001). It


may be the case, therefore, that due to direct interaction with the audience, the vocalperformers in our sample, particularly the more advanced ones, have managed to be incontrol of potential high levels of anxiety by adjusting their demeanour to a moresocially accepted pattern of behaviour. Additionally, the case may have also been thatthe research procedure of asking the participants to reflect on their emotional state justbefore the performance may have made them put things into perspective and possiblyrationalise their psychological state. This may have resulted in their being better able tocope and, therefore, some unwanted tension and unreasonable fears may have beenreduced. Furthermore, one should not forget that, in this case, mid-year examinationshave been chosen for ethical reasons, and perhaps anxiety did not reach its highestpossible levels for these singers.

Our findings regarding the students’ achievement as judged by their final marks, arein line with previous studies where it is claimed that musicians with high years of formalstudy will perform in a superior manner under conditions of increased anxiety states(Hamann, 1982; Hamann & Sobaje, 1983). Thus, the issue of the progression in learning,which has emerged in this study, is consistent with the relevant developmental literaturewhere an older student is more able but is also expected to achieve more. Anotherinteresting finding here refers to the facilitating role of anxiety in more experiencedperformers (e.g. Kemp, 1996). This has been supported in this study through theidentification of higher pre-performance anxiety levels in third-year students in additionto their higher achievement compared to the second-year students. However, due to thelack of correlation between anxiety and marks awarded, anxiety levels in this case cannotbe used to predict how well the performance would be rated by the jury.

Considering the trait-state relationship, it can be claimed that this study confirmsState-Trait Anxiety theory. However, no perfect correlation exists between trait and allthree state anxiety conditions, even though they have all been found to be significant.One could therefore argue that there seem to exist unexplained variables at work andstate anxiety cannot be wholly predicted by the trait scores. In fact, according to theliterature, not only among individuals but even within the same individual there havebeen identified variations in perceiving situations as threatening. The sources for thesedifferences, according to Strelau (1989), include: the individual’s life-history; theircognitive processing resources used during the analysis of the situation; previousexperience with various stress-inducing situations; the degree of motivation in the senseof the importance attributed to the situation; and finally, the potential physiological andpsychological activation of the individual (Strelau, 1989).

It is within this context that the teacher acquires a role of considerable importance.Through the identification of the singing student’s learning background and experience,and by closely examining their individual mental and emotional processes, teachers willhave at their disposal the essential background knowledge and information to workfurther towards the development of the student’s self-confidence, with the application ofstrategies to enhance independence and self-sufficiency (see also Kokotsaki et al., 2001).Thus, the eventual aim would be for the desirable effects of anxiety to be maintained andoptimised while its catastrophic consequences are eliminated as far as possible inperformance situations. The goal should be the enhancement of a psychological state thatallows students to function effectively on tasks that are within the scope of their ability.Within this framework, anxiety effects on performance can be optimised.

Future research should attempt to shed light on these individual differences in the caseof performing musicians with the eventual aim to investigate the as yet unexplainedintrinsic causes of trait and state anxiety. Relevant research should consider such issues


as the musicians’ past exposure to stressful performance situations, the degree of theiremotional and physical arousal, their involvement and motivation, and their copingstrategies. A thorough investigation of these issues will further clarify the factors thatcontribute to the activation of levels of trait and state anxiety in performing musicians,and will eventually indicate those variables that could possibly predict entirely their stateanxiety levels.

AUTHORS’ NOTE

With thanks to the students and assessors from the Guildhall School of Music for theirco-operation in providing the data. We also wish to thank Dr Paul Norman for hisvaluable comments on the statistical analysis.

REFERENCES

ABEL, J. L. & LARKIN, K. T. (1990) Anticipation of performance among musicians: physiological arousal,confidence, and state anxiety, Psychology of Music, 18, pp. 171–182.

CATTELL, R. B. (1973) Personality and Mood by Questionnaire: A Handbook of Interpretive Theory,Psychometrics, and Practical Procedures (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).

CRASKE, M. G. & CRAIG, K. D. (1984) Musical performance anxiety: the three-systems model andself-efficacy theory, Behaviour, Research and Therapy, 22, pp. 267–280.

DUFFY, E. (1962) Activation and Behavior (New York, John Wiley & Sons).GAUDRY, E. & SPIELBERGER, C. D. (1971) Anxiety and Educational Achievement (New York, John Wiley

& Sons).HAMANN, D. L. (1982) An assessment of anxiety in instrumental and vocal performers, Journal of

Research in Music Education, 30, pp. 77–90.HAMANN, D. L. & SOBAJE, M. (1983) Anxiety and the college musician: a study of performance

conditions and subject variables, Psychology of Music, 11, pp. 37–50.JACKSON, J. M & LATANE, B. (1981) All alone in front of all those people: stage fright as a function of

number and type of co-performers and audience, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40,pp. 73–85.

KEMP, A. (1981) The personality structure of the musician: identifying a profile of traits for theperformer, Psychology of Music, 9, pp. 3–14.

KEMP, A. E. (1996). The Musical Temperament: Psychology & Personality of Musicians (New York,Oxford University Press).

KOKOTSAKI, D., DAVIDSON, J. W. & COIMBRA, D. D. (2001) Investigating the assessment of singers ina music college setting: the students’ perspective, Research Studies in Music Education, 16, pp. 16–33.

LATANE, B. & HARKINS, S. (1976) Cross-modality matches suggest anticipated stage fright a multiplica-tive power function of audience size and status, Perception & Psychophysics, 20, pp. 482–488.

LEARY, M. R. & KOWALSKI, R. M. (1995) Social Anxiety (New York, The Guilford Press).LEVITT, E. E. (1968) The Psychology of Anxiety (London, Staples Press).NAGEL, J. J., HIMLE, D. P. & PAPSDORF, J. D. (1989) Cognitive-behavioural treatment of musical

performance anxiety, Psychology of Music, 17, pp. 12–21.SARASON, I. G. (1986) Test anxiety, worry, and cognitive interference, in: R. SCHWARZER (Ed.)

Self-related Cognitions in Anxiety and Motivation (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).SPENCE, D. W. (1958) A theory of emotionally based drive (d) and its relation to performance in simple

learning situations, American Psychologist, 13, pp. 131–141.SPIELBERGER, C. D. (1972) Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory and Research, Vol. 1 (New York,

Academic Press).SPIELBERGER, C. D., GORSUCH, R. L., LUSHENE, R., VAGG, P. R. & JACOBS, G. A. (1983) Manual for the

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists Press).STRELAU, J. (1989) Individual differences in tolerance to stress: the role of reactivity, in: C. D.

SPIELBERGER, I. G. SARASON & J. STRELAU (Eds) Stress and Anxiety, Vol. 12 (New York, HemispherePublishing Corporation).

TAYLOR, J. A. (1956) Drive theory and manifest anxiety, Psychological Bulletin, 53, pp. 303–320.


TOBACYK, J. & DOWNS, A. (1986) Personal construct threat and irrational beliefs as cognitive predictorsof increases in musical performance anxiety, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,pp. 779–782.

WATSON, P. & VALENTINE, E. (1987) The practice of complimentary medicine and anxiety levels in apopulation of musicians, Journal of the International Society for the Study of Tension in Performance,4, pp. 25–30.

WILSON, G. D. (1994) Psychology for Performing Artists: Butterflies and Bouquets (London, JessicaKingsley).

WILSON, G. D. (1997) Performance anxiety, in: D. J. HARGREAVES & A. C. NORTH (Eds) The SocialPsychology of Music (New York, Oxford University Press).

YERKES, R. M. & DODSON, J. D. (1908) The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-forma-tion, Journal of Comparative and Neurological Psychology, 18, pp. 459–482.


Appendix 1

Trait Questionnaire

SELF-EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

(STAI Form Y-2)

Name

DIRECTIONS: A number of statements which people have used to describe themselvesare given below. Read each statement and then make your selection by circling theappropriate number to indicate how you generally feel. There are no right or wronganswers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement but give the answer whichseems to describe how you generally feel.

Almost Almostnever Sometimes Often always

1. I feel pleasant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

2. I feel nervous and restless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

3. I feel satisfied with myself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

4. I wish I could be as happy as others seem to be 1 2 3 4

5. I feel like a failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

6. I feel rested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

7. I am ‘calm, cool and collected’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

8. I feel that difficulties are piling up so that Ican’t overcome them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

9. I worry too much over something that doesn’treally matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

10. I am happy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

11. I have disturbing thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

12. I lack self-confidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

13. I feel secure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

14. I make decisions easily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

15. I feel inadequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

16. I am content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

17. Some unimportant thought runs through mymind and bothers me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

18. I take disappointments so keenly that I can’t putthem out of my mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

19. I am a steady person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

20. I get in a state of tension or turmoil as I thinkover my recent concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4


State Questionnaire (pre-performance)


STAI Form Y-1

Name: Date:

DIRECTIONS: A number of statements which people have used to describe themselvesare given below. Read each statement and then make your selection by circling theappropriate number to indicate how you feel right now, that is, at this moment. Thereare no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement butgive the answer which seems to describe your present feelings best.

Not all Somewhat Moderately Veryall so much so

1. I feel calm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

2. I feel secure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

3. I am tense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

4. I feel strained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

5. I feel at ease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

6. I feel upset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

7. I am worrying over possible misfortunes . 1 2 3 4

8. I feel satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

9. I feel frightened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

10. I feel comfortable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

11. I feel self-confident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

12. I feel nervous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

13. I am jittery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

14. I feel indecisive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

15. I am relaxed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

16. I feel content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

17. I am worried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

18. I feel confused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

19. I feel steady . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

20. I feel pleasant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4


State Questionnaire (during-performance)


(Adapted from STAI Form Y-1)

Name

DIRECTIONS: A number of statements which people have used to describe themselvesare given below. Read each statement and then make your selection by circling theappropriate number to indicate how you felt whilst you were performing. There are noright or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement but give theanswer which seems to describe best how you felt whilst you were performing.


1. I felt calm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

2. I felt secure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

3. I was tense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

4. I felt strained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

5. I felt at ease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

6. I felt upset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

7. I was worrying over possible misfortunes 1 2 3 4

8. I felt satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

9. I felt frightened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

10. I felt comfortable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

11. I felt self-confident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

12. I felt nervous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

13. I was jittery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

14. I felt indecisive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

15. I was relaxed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

16. I felt content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

17. I was worried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

18. I felt confused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

19. I felt steady . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

20. I felt pleasant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4


State Questionnaire (post-performance)


STAI Form Y-1

Name: Date:

DIRECTIONS: A number of statements which people have used to describe themselvesare given below. Read each statement and then make your selection by circling theappropriate number to indicate how you feel right now, that is, at this moment. Thereare no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any one statement butgive the answer which seems to describe your present feelings best.


1. I feel calm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

2. I feel secure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

3. I am tense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

4. I feel strained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

5. I feel at ease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

6. I feel upset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

7. I am worrying over possible misfortunes . 1 2 3 4

8. I feel satisfied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

9. I feel frightened . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

10. I feel comfortable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

11. I feel self-confident . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

12. I feel nervous . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

13. I am jittery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

14. I feel indecisive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

15. I am relaxed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

16. I feel content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

17. I am worried . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

18. I feel confused . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

19. I feel steady . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

20. I feel pleasant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3 4

Did you feel at all that anxiety prevented you from really showing what you werecapable of? In what way?

How did you attempt to control any feelings of anxiety you may have experienced?(before and/or during the performance)

mpa quantitative analysis

Documents