This study characterized perceived social support and performanceanxiety of college music students, compared characteristics to thoseof non-music majors, and explored the relationships between socialsupport and performance anxiety. Subjects (n = 609) completed aquestionnaire that included demographics, the MultidimensionalScale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), and visual analog scalemeasures of performance anxiety. Results showed that music majorsperceived significantly lower levels of social support from significantothers when compared to non-music majors. Perceived social supportwas significantly correlated with measures of performance anxiety.Students with greater perceived social support reported less frequentanxiety and lower levels of impact of anxiety on ability to perform.These findings may have practical implications for schools of musicand conservatories. Med Probl Perform Art 2011; 26(3):157163.

Nearly half of all college students report that they experi-ence overwhelming anxiety and about 30% report func-tional difficulties due to feelings of depression.1 Prevalencerates and severity of such problems are often associated withassistance from others.2 This assistance is referred to as socialsupport and is considered a psychosocial coping resource thatpositively affects individuals personal resources such as feel-ings of control, self-efficacy, and self-esteem.3-6 Among collegestudents, social support functions as a buffering agent fromthe negative effects or symptoms of stress, depression, and/oranxiety3,7,8 and is linked to levels of test anxiety9 and physicalhealth outcomes.4,5,8,1013

To help increase personal, academic and overall develop-ment, many colleges and universities have created specialservice programs to increase the social support needs of cer-tain student groups.14 For example, college student-athleteshave been described as a population whose college experi-ences are different from those of non-athletes. Their mentalhealth is influenced by a number of stressors acting together,including strictly controlled schedules and time constraints,physical and psychological stress and fatigue, and the chal-lenges of performing satisfactorily as both students and ath-letes. Because much of their social contact is with coaches,athletic staff, and other student-athletes, student-athletes mayfind themselves isolated from other students. This type ofsocial isolation may encourage student-athletes to disregarddevelopmental activities that lead to personal competence,such as academic studying and social and academic integra-tion activities.15

Analogous to student-athletes, student-musicians alsoexperience college life in unique and perhaps dissimilarways when compared to the general population of students.In addition to the physical and psychological demands asso-ciated with learning and performing music, students major-ing in music encounter weekly one-on-one interactions withprivate studio instructors who typically serve as a primaryacademic and career adviser. Student-musicians mustadhere to strictly controlled schedules and time constraintsassociated with rehearsals, performances, recordings, androutine participation in various ensembles. Such socialconstructs and interactions may be viewed as supportive tostudents and therefore helpful for mitigating stress andassociated mental health symptoms. On the other hand,students may not perceive these activities as supportivebecause they are physically and psychologically demanding,competitive, frequently critical, and require intense and sus-tained concentration.

Music majors have reported debilitating levels of perform-ance anxiety during studio class performances, jury examina-tions, ensemble activities, and studio lessons.16 Majoring inmusic can cultivate feelings of isolation due to the extraordi-nary commitment to personal practice time, in some casesreportedly up to 40 hours/week.9,16,17 Together, these circum-stances may help explain why some music majors experiencehealth problems,4,5,8,1013 report burnout,9 and express adesire for more verbal correspondence about health prob-lems and associated effects.8 In one survey of 246 musicmajors, 90% reported interest in getting help with stress.18

To date, and unlike the available research on social sup-port with student-athletes, there are no known studies thatsystematically explore the type and level of social supportamong student-musicians, potential relationships betweensocial support and health-related concerns, or whether socialsupport is different in this population when compared tonon-music majors. Such studies are warranted because psy-chologically distressed persons are found to be more sociallyisolated, lack a partner or someone to confide in, and haveless contact with friends.19,20 Information about perceivedsocial support among student-musicians could be useful tomusic educators and school administrators for the develop-ment of health promotion initiatives as recommendedthrough the Health Promotion in Schools of Music project.18

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to (1) characterizeperceived social support of college students majoring inmusic, (2) compare types and levels of social support of musicmajors to non-music majors, and (3) characterize perceivedperformance anxiety and possible relationships betweentypes and levels of social support.

September 2011 157

Social Support and Performance Anxiety ofCollege Music Students

Erin Schneider, BME, MM, and Kris Chesky, PhD

Erin Schneider is a student at the College of Music, University of NorthTexas, and Dr. Chesky is Director of Education and Research, Texas Centerfor Music & Medicine, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas.

Address correspondence to Dr. Kris Chesky, University of North Texas Col-lege of Music, 1155 Union Circle #311367, Denton, TX 76203-5017,USA. Tel 940-565-4126, fax 940-565-4126. kchesky@music.unt.edu.

METHODS

Subjects

A convenience sample of research subjects was recruited fromthe general population of college students attending the Uni-versity of North Texas. Students volunteered in response toannouncements made in regularly scheduled music and non-music classes. Students read and signed an IRB-approvedinformed consent form prior to any participation as researchsubjects. A total of 609 college students agreed to participateand fill out a questionnaire. The resulting cohort includedboth music majors and non-music majors.

Measures

A single-page, two-sided, paper questionnaire was developedand used to collect data from consenting subjects. The ques-tionnaire included demographic variables (as shown in Table1), the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support(MSPSS), and questions regarding performance anxiety.

The MSPSS, developed by Zimet,21 presents 12 statementsusing a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from very stronglyagree (1) to very strongly disagree (7). The MSPSS was designedto provide numerical indices for each of the 12 items, scoresfor three subfactors of social support (family, friends, andsignificant others), and a total score of social support.According to Canty-Mitchell and Zimet,22 MSPSS questionsregarding significant other refer to a special person inorder to allow the respondents the opportunity to interpretthis person as someone relevant to him or her, such as aromantic partner, friend, teacher, counselor, or some otherimportant person in ones life. Responses do not indicatewhether respondents are or are not experiencing social inter-actions but rather their perceptions of social support. TheMSPSS is used to measure social support in various popula-tions including adolescents,23 college students,1 pet owners,24

antenatal women,25 cancer patients,26,27 youths with physicaldisabilities,28 battered women,29 psychiatric outpatients,30

and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) patients.31,32 Inter-nal consistency reliability alpha coefficients of 0.85 and 0.92have been reported and signify that the MSPSS is a reliabletool for measuring social support.23,25

Performance anxiety was measured using five separateVisual Analog Scales (VAS). VAS are widely used in the socialand behavioral sciences to measure a variety of subjectivephenomena, including anxiety, and are known to be reliableand valid for use in research as well as in-clinic administra-tions.33-35 In order to make the performance anxiety VASquestions appropriate to non-music majors, a disclaimer wasincluded stating that performance includes public speaking,interactions with peers and teachers, and artistic perform-ances including music. The first VAS question assessedimpact of performance anxiety on performance. A 10-cmVAS ranged from negative impact (left), to no impact (middle),to positive impact (right) in order to provide students with anopportunity to report either a facilitative or debilitative effectof performance anxiety. The second question asked about

the frequency of physical symptoms associated with perform-ance anxiety, and the third question asked about the fre-quency of cognitive symptoms. The fourth question assessedself-perceived efficacy for controlling performance anxiety.The last question determined the level of interest in learningnew approaches to manage performance anxiety.

Data Analysis

Data management and analyses were performed using SPSS17 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, 2008). Scores from VAS weremeasured by hand using a standard ruler. Standard paramet-ric and non-parametric indices were used to characterize alldemographic, social support, and performance anxiety vari-ables. Two-tailed independent t-tests and chi-squared statisticswere used to compare variables across music major and non-music major groups. Pearson correlation statistic was used toexplore the relationships between social support and per-formance anxiety. Probability levels below 0.05 were consid-ered statistically significant for all comparisons and analyses.

RESULTS

Demographics

A total of 609 students participated in this study and approx-imately 40% were music majors. As shown in Table 1, theaverage age was 21.8 years, with no significant differencesbetween music and non-music major groups. Sixty percent ofthe total group was female, and a significantly higher per-centage of males (63%) were in the music major group com-pared to the non-music major group (27%). Most subjectsreported Caucasian ethnicity (67%). However, there were sig-nificant differences in ethnicity between the two groups.Music majors had a higher percentage of subjects reportingAsian ethnicity (10.3%) and a lower percentage reportingAfrican-American ethnicity (3.1%).

Over 90% of all subjects reported being single. Subjectsreported being alone an average of 15 hrs/week. Musicmajors reported significantly higher numbers of alone hoursper week (17.58) compared to non-music majors (14.03).Nearly 70% of all subjects reported semi-healthy eatinghabits. Compared to non-music majors, a higher percentageof music majors reported healthy eating habits (19.7%) whilea lower percentage reported semi-healthy eating habits(65.5%). The calculated body mass index (BMI) for the groupwas 24.2 (considered healthy) with no significant differ-ences between groups.36 Subjects reported an average of 7 hrsof sleep per day and about 4 hrs of exercise per week. Musicmajors reported fewer sleep hours per day and fewer hours ofexercise per week, but the differences were not significant.

Social Support

Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics for all social supportitems, subscales, and total scores. The mean responses to the12 individual items ranged from 5.5 (item 8) to 6.13 (item 3).Of the 12 individual items, the music major group reported

158 Medical Problems of Performing Artists

significantly lower levels on 4 items (items 1, 2, 5, and 10)compared to the non-music major group. These are the 4items used to calculate the subscale for Significant Other,which also was significantly different between the twogroups. There were no significant differences between thetwo groups on the subscale for Family, subscale for Friend, orthe Total MSPSS score.

Performance Anxiety

As shown in Table 3, the mean level of impact of perform-ance anxiety on performance (mean = 7.95) confirmed thatthe subjects in this study believe that their performance anx-iety negatively impacts their ability to perform. However,37% of all subjects reported a positive number (score > 0),indicating that performance anxiety was perceived by some to

have a positive effect on performance. For the total group,the mean frequency of physical symptoms was significantlyhigher than the mean frequency of cognitive symptoms.When compared with non-music majors, music majorsreported significantly less frequent cognitive symptoms and asignificantly higher level of interest in learning about ways tomanage performance anxiety.

Responses to all five performance anxiety questions weresignificantly correlated to each other as shown in Table 4.Impact of anxiety on performance was negatively correlatedwith frequency of physical symptoms, with frequency of cog-nitive symptoms, and interest in new approaches to manageperformance anxiety. The negative correlations are related tothe structure of the bidirectional scale used to measure impactof anxiety of performance. A positive score reflects a positiveor facilitative effect of performance anxiety on performing.

September 2011 159

TABLE 1. Demographics of Music and Non-Music Population

Music Majors Non-Music Majors Significance Level All

Gender, n(%)Male 138 (63.0%) 99 (26.9%) 2 = 74.37 237 (40.4%)

p = 0.00*Female 81 (23.1%) 269 (76.9%) 350 (59.6%)

Ethnicity, n(%)African-American 7 (3.1%) 44 (11.7%) 2 = 22.81 51 (8.5%)

p = 0.00*Asian 23 (10.3%) 22 (5.9%) 45 (7.5%)Caucasian 155 (69.2%) 245 (65.3%) 400 (66.8%)Hispanic 29 (12.9%) 53 (14.1%) 82 (13.7%)Other 8 (3.6%) 6 (1.6%) 14 (2.3%)American Indian 1 (.4%) 1 (.4%) 2 (.3%)Pacific Islander 0 (.0%) 3 (.3%) 3 (.2%)Brazilian 0 (.0%) 1 (.3%) 1 (.2%)Indian 1 (.2%) 0 (.0%) 1 (.2%)

Marital status, n(%)Single 212 (95.1%) 334 (89.3%) 2 = 6.23 546 (91.5%)

p = 0.18Married 9 (4.0%) 31 (8.3%) 40 (6.7%)Divorced 1 (.4%) 5 (1.3%) 6 (1.0%)

Eating habits, n(%)Unhealthy 3 (1.3%) 5 (1.3%) 2 = 74.37 8 (1.3%)

p = 0.00*Rarely healthy 30 (13.5%) 50 (13.3%) 80 (13.4%)Semi-healthy 146 (65.5%) 272 (72.3%) 418 (69.8%)Healthy 44 (19.7%) 49 (13.0%) 93 (15.5%)

Age, yrs, mean (SD) 21.44 (4.17) 21.44 (4.17) t = 1.42 21.8 (4.54)p = 0.155

Sleep, hrs/day, mean (SD) 6.698 (1.07) 7.239 (4.09) t = 1.95 7.035 (3.30)p = 0.052

Exercise, hrs/wk, mean (SD) 3.64 (3.22) 4.18 (3.24) t = 1.96 3.97 (3.24)p = 0.051

Time alone, hrs/wk, mean (SD) 17.58 (17.57) 14.03 (13.57) t = 2.72 15.32 (15.20)p = 0.007*

Body mass index, mean (SD) 24.46 (5.53) 24.09 (5.03) t = 0.81 24.24 (5.21)p = 0.421

*Asterisk indicates significant difference.

The impact of anxiety on performance was positively cor-related to how effectively performance anxiety is controlled.Frequency of physical symptoms was positively correlatedwith frequency of cognitive symptoms and interest in newmanagement techniques. How effectively anxiety can be con-trolled was negatively correlated to interest in newapproaches to manage performance anxiety.

Relationship Between Social Support and PerformanceAnxiety

Representing the total group, Table 5 shows that MSPSSTotal scores were significantly correlated with effective con-

trol of performance anxiety. Perhaps as the basis for this rela-tionship, the Friends subscale also was significantly corre-lated with effective control of performance anxiety. Neitherthe Significant Others or Family subscale of the MSPSS wascorrelated with any of the performance anxiety measures.

Table 6 shows that these relationships were the same forthe music major group with an additional significant corre-lation between MSPSS Friends subscale and interest in newperformance anxiety management approaches. These find-ings were slightly different for female music majors. For thissubgroup of music majors, all correlations were similar to thewhole music major group, except that the MSPSS Family sub-scale was positively correlated with the impact of anxiety on

160 Medical Problems of Performing Artists

TABLE 2. Social Support Among Music and Non-Music Majors

Non-MusicMusic Majors Majors Significance All

MSPSS Items1. There is a special person who is around when I am in need 5.35 (1.76) 5.82 (1.53) t = 3.44 5.66 (1.63)

p = 0.001*

2. There is a special person with whom I can share my joys and sorrows 5.82 (1.61) 6.16 (1.35) t = 2.79 6.04 (1.46)p = 0.001*

3. My family really tries to help me 6.08 (1.39) 6.16 (1.44) t = 0.61 6.13 (1.41)p = 0.826

4. I get the emotional help and support I need from my family 5.81 (1.52) 5.81 (1.65) t = 0.03 5.82 (1.60)p = 0.473

5. I have a special person who is a real source of comfort to me 5.65 (1.74) 6.04 (1.46) t = 2.96 5.90 (1.57)p = 0.000*

6. My friends really try to help me 5.77 (1.34) 5.76 (1.36) t = .03 5.77 (1.35)p = 0.746

7. I can count on my friends when things go wrong 5.74 (1.32) 5.67 (1.50) t = 0.53 5.70 (1.43)p = 0.076

8. I can talk about my problems with my family 5.40 (1.69) 5.54 (1.71) t = 0.95 5.50 (1.70)p = 0.584

9. I have friends with whom I can share my joys and sorrows 6.06 (1.22) 6.02 (1.38) t = 0.38 6.04 (1.32)p = 0.106

10. There is a special person in my life who cares about my feelings 5.83 (1.62) 6.21 (1.43) t = 2.98 6.08 (1.51)p = 0.004*

11. My family is willing to help me make decisions 6.02 (1.34) 6.01 (1.45) t = 0.06 6.02 (1.40)p = 0.114

12. I can talk about my problems with my friends 5.87 (1.36) 5.89 (1.42) t = 0.10 5.89 (1.39)p = 0.205

SubscalesFamily 5.84 (1.24) 5.88 (1.40) t = 0.31 5.87 ( 1.34)

p = 0.114

Friends 5.87 (1.16) 5.86 (1.27) t = 0.06 5.87 (1.23)p = 0.205

Significant Other 5.67 (1.52) 6.06 (1.31) t = 3.31 5.92 (1.40)p = 0.004*

Total MSPSS 5.79 (1.00) 5.93 (1.05) t = 1.62 5.88 (1.03)p = 0.924

*Asterisk indicates significant difference.Data given as mean (SD). MPPSS items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (very strongly disagree) to 7 (very stronglyagree).Family subscale = items 3, 4, 8, and 11; Friend subscale = items 6, 7, 9, and 12; and Significant Other subscale = items 1, 2, 5, and 10.

performance (Pearson = 0.197, p < 0.05) and how effectivelyanxiety was controlled (Pearson = 0.210, p < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this study was to describe perceivedsocial support of college students majoring in music, com-pare these data from those of non-music majors, and explorethe relationship between perceived social support and anxi-ety. Data from the MSPSS shows that music majors perceivesignificantly less social support when compared to non-musicmajors. These differences were not related to support fromfriends or family but to support from significant others.Hypothetically, this finding may be related to the demandsand commitments associated with pursuing a music degree(i.e., practicing) and that music majors have less time todevelop such relationships. The significantly higher numbersof hours spent alone per week reported by music majors rein-forces this idea. However, the finding might suggest thatmusic majors are less interested in, or dependent on, pursu-

ing such relationships. Previous research has shown thatlower-level undergraduate music majors have significantlyfewer mental health concerns than non-music majors37 andthat individuals with high self-esteem are not as sociallyneedy as low self-esteem individuals.38 MSPSS Friend sub-scale and Total MSPSS were significantly correlated with theability to control performance anxiety, suggesting a linkbetween performance anxiety and perceived social support.

Similar to findings from previous studies with collegemusic majors,13 the data from this study show that perform-ance anxiety can be perceived as having a positive (facilitative)or negative (debilitative) effect on performing. However, themajority of subjects in this study perceived a negative (debili-tative) impact of anxiety on performance, while nearly 37%of subjects reported that anxiety had a facilitative effect onperformance. Negative correlations between the impact ofperformance anxiety and both the physical and cognitivesymptoms may suggest that the more frequently a personexperiences the physical or cognitive symptoms of anxiety,the more debilitative their anxiety becomes. Likewise, corre-

September 2011 161

TABLE 3. Performance Anxiety Among Music and Non-Music Majors

Non-MusicMusic Majors Majors Significance All

Impact of anxiety on performance 6.61 (26.02) 8.87 (26.59) t = 1.01 7.95 (26.43)p = 0.313

Frequency of physical symptoms 54.38 (26.63) 50.73 (30.33) t = 1.49 52.06 (29.09)p = 0.137

Frequency of cognitive symptoms 41.50 (28.87) 48.61 (28.51) t = 2.94 45.80 (28.83)p = 0.003*

How effectively anxiety is controlled 59.62 (23.48) 57.97 (25.24) t = 0.793 58.56 (24.68)p = 0.428

Interest in new management approaches 71.28 (30.88) 62.01 (32.56) t = 3.44 65.31 (32.28)p = 0.001*

*Asterisk indicates significant difference.

TABLE 4. Performance Anxiety Correlations for Total Group

Interest in New Frequency of Frequency of How Effectively PA Management

Physical Symptoms Cognitive Symptoms Controlled Approaches

Impact of anxiety on performancePearson correlation 0.295* 0.303* 0.408* 0.155*Significance (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Frequency of physical symptomsPearson correlation 0.552* 0.464* 0.330*Significance (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000 0.000

Frequency of cognitive symptomsPearson correlation 0.506* 0.315*Significance (2-tailed) 0.000 0.000

How effectively controlledPearson correlation 0.226*Significance (2-tailed) 0.000

* Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

lations suggest that the frequency of symptoms is related toperceived self-efficacy for controlling performance anxietyand the level of interest in new management techniques.Conversely, students are less interested in learning to manageperformance anxiety when it is perceived as facilitating per-formance or effectively controlled. Music majors reported sig-nificantly less frequent cognitive symptoms than physicalsymptoms during performance.

While this study adds to the literature on social supportamong college students majoring in music, the researchmethodology has several limitations. While the Multidimen-sional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS) is a reliableand valid measure of perceived social support, the MSPSSdoes not assess actual social support. Related, this study didnot assess when, or under what conditions, patterns of per-

ceived social support were established. The data from thisstudy are not sufficient to determine whether these percep-tions were established before or during the college experience.Additional studies are needed to assess music students at thehigh school level or when they are entering college for the firsttime. Other limitations include a lack of repeated measuresand inclusion of subjects from only one university. Futurestudies conducted with students attending other music schoolsare needed to help generalize any trends found in this studyand to explore the influences of developmental, geographical,familial, and socioeconomic variables that might be related tothe extent and influence of perceived social support.

Despite these limitations, findings from this study do sug-gest that perceived social support is different for musicmajors compared to the general college student population

162 Medical Problems of Performing Artists

TABLE 5. Correlations Between Social Support and Performance Anxiety for Total Group

Interest inImpact of Frequency of Frequency of How New PA

Anxiety on Physical Cognitive Effectively ManagementPerformance Symptoms Symptoms Controlled Approaches

Total MSPSSPearson correlation 0.013 0.011 0.012 0.081* 0.032Significance (2-tailed) 0.747 0.797 0.776 0.048 0.433

Significant OtherPearson correlation 0.016 0.023 0.046 0.052 0.021Significance (2-tailed) 0.697 0.570 0.266 0.208 0.602

FamilyPearson correlation 0.014 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.036Significance (2-tailed) 0.741 0.946 0.940 0.955 0.376

FriendsPearson correlation 0.068 0.041 0.078 0.151 0.019Significance (2-tailed) 0.097 0.317 0.057 0.000 0.634

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

TABLE 6. Correlations Between Social Support and Performance Anxiety for Music Major Group

Interest inImpact of Frequency of Frequency of How New PA

Anxiety on Physical Cognitive Effectively ManagementPerformance Symptoms Symptoms Controlled Approaches

Total MSPSSPearson correlation 0.067 0.026 0.001 0.160* 0.115Significance (2-tailed) 0.321 0.696 0.986 0.018 0.090

Significant OtherPearson correlation 0.002 0.009 0.084 0.101 0.077Significance (2-tailed) 0.976 0.891 0.214 0.137 0.254

FamilyPearson correlation 0.107 0.095 0.082 0.105 0.059Significance (2-tailed) 0.115 0.160 9.227 0.120 0.384

FriendsPearson correlation 0.070 0.036 0.023 0.162* 0.152*Significance (2-tailed) 0.305 0.593 0.729 0.016 0.024

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

and that performance anxiety may be related to perceivedsocial support. Student advisors and counselors may considerusing assessment tools like the MSPSS for helping music stu-dents understand and internalize the importance of a moresupportive social agenda in order to achieve a more balancedcollege experience and perhaps less frequent symptoms ofperformance anxiety. However, a more supportive socialagenda must not to be confused with a more frequent socialagenda, as students who report a high frequency of contactmay still perceive low quality support.2 Also, as noted byNagel,39 performance anxiety is labeled a social phobia inthe Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) of the Ameri-can Psychiatric Association. Perhaps the relationshipsbetween social support and anxiety stem from a commonpsychological trait that leads to less frequent or less support-ive social interactions.

REFERENCES

1. Hefner J, Eisenberg D: Social support and mental health among col-lege students. Am J Orthopsychiatry 2009;79(4):491-499.

2. Cohen S, Willis TA: Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothe-sis. Psychol Bull 1985;90:310-357.

3. Bernhard C: A survey of burnout among college music majors: a repli-cation. Music Perform Res 2010;3(1):31-41.

4. Sarason BR, Sarason IG, Hacker A, Basham RB: Concomitants ofsocial support: social skills, physical attractiveness, and gender. J PersSoc Psychol 1985;49:469480.

5. Symister P, Friend R: The influence of social support and problematicsupport on optimism and depression in chronic illness: a prospectivestudy evaluating self-esteem as a mediator. Health Psychol2003;22:123129.

6. Berkman LF, Glass T, Brissette I, Seeman TE: From social integrationto health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Soc Sci Med2000;51:843857.

7. Cohen S: Psychosocial models of the role of social support in the eti-ology of physical disease. Health Psychol 1988;7:269297.

8. Shaw BA, Krause N, Chatters LM, et al: Emotional support from par-ents early in life, aging, and health. Psychol Aging 2004;19:412.

9. Atienza AA, Collins R, King AC: The mediating effects of situationalcontrol on social support and mood following a stressor: a prospectivestudy of dementia caregivers in their natural environment. J GerontolSoc Sci 2001;56(3):S129S139.

10. House JS, Landis KR, Umberson D: Social relationships and health.Science 1988;241:540545.

11. Seeman TE: Social ties and health: the benefits of social integration.Ann Epidemiol 1996;6:442451.

12. Uchino BN: Social Support and Physical Health: Understanding theHealth Consequences of Our Relationships. New Haven, CT, YaleUniversity Press, 2004.

13. Miller SR, Chesky K: The multidimensional anxiety theory: an assess-ment of and relationships between intensity and direction of cognitiveanxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence over multiple perform-ance requirements among college music majors. Med Probl PerformArt 2004;19(1):12-20.

14. Howard-Hamilton M, Watt SK (eds): Student Services for Athletes:New Directions for Student Services, no. 93. San Francisco, CA,Jossey-Bass, 2001.

15. Pascarella, ET, Truckenmiller R, Nora A, et al: Impact of intercollegiateathletics participation: some further evidence. J Higher Educ1999;70:126.

16. Yoshimura E, Fjellman-Wiklund A, Paul PM, et ak: Risk factors forplaying-related pain among piano teachers. Med Probl Perform Art2008;23(3):107-113.

17. Pratt RR, Jessop SG, Nieman BK: Performance related disordersamong majors at Brigham Young University. Int J Arts Med 1992;1:720.

18. Chesky KS, Dawson WJ, Manchester R: Health promotion in schoolsof music: initial recommendations for schools of music. Med Probl Per-form Art 2006;21(3):142-144.

19. Kawachi I, Berkman Lisa: Social ties and mental health. J UrbanHealth 2001;78:458-467.

20. Seeman TE: Social ties and health: the benefits of social integration.Ann Epidemiol 1996;6(5):442-445.

21. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK: The multidimensionalscale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess 1988;52(1):30-41.

22. Canty-Mitchell J, Zimet GD: Psychometric properties of the multidi-mensional scale of perceived social support in urban adolescents. AmJ Community Psychol 2000;28(3):391-400.

23. Cheng ST, Chan ACM: The multidimensional scale of perceived socialsupport: dimensionality and age and gender differences in adolescents.Pers Ind Diff 2004;37(7):1359-1369.

24. Antonacopoulos NMD, Pychl TA: An examination of the relationsbetween social support, anthropomorphism, and stress among dogowners. Anthrozoos 2008;21(2):139-152.

25. Akhtar A, Rahman A, Husain M, et al: Multidimensional scale of per-ceived social support: psychometric properties in a South Asian popu-lation. J Obstet Gynecol Res 2010;36(4):845-851.

26. Gilbar O, Refaeli R: The relationship between adult cancer patientsadjustment to the illness and that of their parents. Fam Systems Health2000;18(1):5-17.

27. Hanna D, Bakera F, Dennistona M, et al: The influence of social sup-port of depressive symptoms in cancer patients: age and gender differ-ences. J Psychosom Res 2002;52(5):279-283.

28. Wilson S, Washington LA, Engel JM, et al: Perceived social support,psychological adjustment, and functional ability in youths with physi-cal disabilities. Rehabil Psychol 2006;51(4):322-330.

29. Barnett OW, Martinez TE, Keyson M: The relationship between vio-lence, social support, and self-blame in battered women. J InterpersViolence 1996;11:221-233.

30. Cecil H, Stanley MA, Carrion PG, Swann A: Psychometric propertiesof the MSPSS and NOS in psychiatric outpatients. J Clin Psychol1995;51(5):593-602.

31. Besser A, Neria Y: The effects of insecure attachment orientations andperceived social support on posttraumatic stress and depressive symp-toms among civilians exposed to the 2009 IsraelGaza war: a follow-upcross-lagged panel design study. J Res Personality 2010;44(3):335-334.

32. Tural U, Onder E, Aker T: Effect of depression on recovery fromPTSD. Community Ment Health J e-pub: 05 Nov 2010. DOI 10 1007/s10597-010-9359-4.

33. Cella DF, Perry SW: Reliability and concurrent validity of three visual-analog mood scales. Psychol Rep 1986;59:827833.

34. Yoshie M, Kudo K, Murakoshi T, Ohtsuki T: Music performance anx-iety in skilled pianists: effects of social-evaluative performance situationon subjective, autonomic, and electromyographic reactions. Exp BrainRes 2009;199(2)117-126.

35. Rossi V, Pourtois G: Transient state-dependent fluctuations in anxietymeasured using STAI, POMS, PANAS or VAS: a comparative review.Anxiety Stress Coping e-pub. 03 May 2011. DOI: 10. 1080/106 15806.2011.582948.

36. Global database on body mass index [webpage]. Geneva, World HealthOrganization. Available from http://apps.who.int/bmi/index.jsp?introPage=intro_3.html; accessed Dec 6, 2010.

37. Chesky KS, Hipple J: Performance anxiety, alcohol-related problems,and social/emotional difficulties of college students: a comparativestudy between lower division music and non-music majors. Med ProblPerform Art 1997;12(4):126-132.

38. Campbell WK, Rudich EA, Sedikides C: Narcisism, self-esteem, andthe positivity of self-views: two portraits of self-love. Pers Soc PsycholBull 2001;28:358-368.

39. Nagel JJ: Treatment of music performance anxiety. Med Probl PerformArt 2010;24(4):141-148.

September 2011 163

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.