v.4;
I!» ’
if; ‘*

r
7: f... ‘

i 11.1.-
(I... ‘4.
1r: .I¢urv
‘

ac! t...vll:l
I'll. old ‘nol.
[1‘5 ovau‘. , . |
51:! ‘>f¢'irllll is!" I. I“!
. I I».'nl;..(7nf.l a' t‘ls‘v’vnl.
16.,r’. 0100 II. A
It‘rl..uvbl.v

.II
.030.
n I, I

..l.l’.5 .n
. Iv. .3
VLAr..l

’
. , ,
5H,“

 

I
.
D

‘colfiu. 'n
J-lartlrl'l‘
97;, v
vtlvcl . .
v). . .
Elli ' v-f.I:-I:.P ..
... i 2.6 1:13;... L..|:.

 

UNIVERSITY LIBR

m.lliilili'iiliiifliiilllll’T,|I.1Illillillliiilifil L

3 1293 00899 4216

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled
PATTERNS OF PERFORMANCE ANXIETY AMONG
UNIVERSITY MUSICIANS PREPARING FOR
BRASS AREA JURY RECITALS:
PHYSIOLOGICAL AROUSAL AND PERCEIVED STATE ANXIETY

presented by

Philip Michael Tartalone

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Music

 

 

 

Major professor

Date 594:. 527, M‘h‘a

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

r LIBRARY
Michigan State
1 University

L

 

 

—_

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

DEC 0 "MR 1995“
Q 3 81” 1’9 6393 .,
W fl 091306

mm A 2 «me i ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. l ,'0-
L :32?” ‘

@mw

 

 

 

 

i —_

I!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunlty lnetltwon
omens-9.1

 

 

 

 

 

“

 

 

PATTERNS OF PERFORMANCE ANXIETY AMONG
UNIVERSITY MUSICIANS PREPARING FOR
BRASS AREA JURY RECITALS:
PHYSIOLOGICAL AROUSAL AND PERCEIVED STATE ANXIETY

By
Philip Michael Tartalone

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

School of Music

1992

ABSTRACT

PATTERNS OF PERFORMANCE ANXIETY AMONG
UNIVERSITY MUSICIANS PREPARING FOR
BRASS AREA JURY RECITALS:
PHYSIOLOGICAL AROUSAL AND PERCEIVED STATE ANXIETY

By
Phlllp Michael Tartalone

The purpose of this study was to determine the patterns of physiological
arousal and self-reported anxiety in brass area music majors during jury recitals
held at the end of an academic term, and throughout a four week period of
preparation before the jury. I made comparisons between the inexperienced
performers (freshmen and sophomores) and relatively experienced performers
(juniors, seniors, and graduates) to discover if there were differences in anxiety
and arousal, and when peak periods occurred. In addition, I compared the
physiological assessments with self-reported measurements to ascertain if
there was a correlation between the two methods of examining music
performance anxiety.

Thirty-nine students, 25 inexperienced and 14 experienced, served as
subjects for the research. Blood pressures, pulse rates, and respiration rates
were used to determine physiological arousal, while self-reported anxiety was
measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.1 I made assessments
concurrently, once a week for three weeks before each student's lesson, again
at a dress rehearsal, and finally at the jury performance. In addition, heart rates
were monitored electronically during the dress rehearsal and the performance.

I analyzed data for the research population, and for the inexperienced
and experienced samples. Results of the study revealed elevated levels of

physiological arousal and self-reported anxiety before the dress rehearsal and

the jury. The inexperienced subjects generally showed a greater range of
increase on all measures and were usually higher than the experienced group
immediately before the jury. The heart monitor showed the peak period of
arousal to be approximately six minutes into the performance for both the
inexperienced and experienced samples.

With the results of this research, I have concluded that anxiety and
arousal patterns are similar for inexperienced and experienced performers, but
the levels are generally higher for the inexperienced. In addition, I determined
that physiological and self-reported measures were equally viable indicators of
music performance anxiety because both showed significant increases during
stressful situations. These findings should benefit future researchers who wish
to establish types of therapy and times of administration when exploring anxiety

reduction techniques.

 

1Spielberger, C. D., Gomsch, R. L., Lushene, R. E., Vagg, P. R., Jacobs, G. A. (1983).
Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y): Self-evaluation questionnaire. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Copyright by
PHILIP MICHAEL TARTALONE
1992

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Albert LeBlanc, chair of my
dissertation committee, for his effort and assistance throughout this research.
Sincere gratitude is also extended to the guidance committee members, Dr.
Robert Erbes, Dr. Rosalie Schellhous, Dr. Mark Sullivan, and Dr. John Baldwin,
for their many helpful suggestions in the preparation of this document.

I would also like to acknowledge the brass faculty at Michigan State
University, Professors Janine Gaboury-Sly, Richard lllman, Curtis Olson, and
Philip Sinder, for their support and cooperation during the data gathering
process. Finally, I must thank the brass students who participated as subjects;

their commitment and enthusiasm made this study possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM ....................................................................................... 1
Background of the Study ................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................... 7
The Problem and Subproblems ....................................................................... 7
Variables .................................................................................................. 8
Need for the Study .............................................................................................. 9
Definitions ......................................................................................................... 12
Anxiety, Arousal, and Stress .............................................................. 12
Physiological Response ..................................................................... 13

The Arousal/Performance Relationship
Anxiety Theories ...................................................................... 14
The Inverted-U Hypothesis .................................................... 15
Cue Utilization Theory ............................................................ 17
Drive Theory ............................................................................. 20
Assumptions and Limitations ......................................................................... 22
Summary ........................................................................................................... 24
Organization of the Study ............................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 2: RELATED LITERATURE ..................................................................... 26
Overview ............................................................................................................ 26
Cognitive Aspects of Anxiety ......................................................................... 27
Self-Efficacy .......................................................................................... 33
The Test Literature ........................................................................................... 36
The Sport Literature ........................................................................................ 4O
Implications for Music Periorrnance Anxiety ................................... 52
The Music Performance Anxiety Literature ................................................. 53
Questionnaire Studies ........................................................................ 55
Self-Report Studies ............................................................................. 59
Multidimensional Studies ................................................................... 61
Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 64

vi

CHAPTER 3: PROCEDURES .................................................................................... 66

Proposal ............................................................................................................ 66
Subjects ............................................................................................................. 66
The Performance ............................................................................................. 67
Obtaining Data ................................................................................................. 68
Vital Signs ............................................................................................. 68
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory .............................................................. 70
Heart Monitor ........................................................................................ 71
Gathering Data ..................................................................................... 73
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 77
Procedures ........................................................................................................ 77
Raw Data Collection ............................................................................ 77
Exploratory Analysis ............................................................................ 78
Statistical Analysis ............................................................................... 79
Results for the Vital Signs and STAI ............................................................ 81
Blood Pressures ................................................................................... 81
Pulse Rates ........................................................................................... 92
Respiration Rates ............................................................................... 102
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory ............................................................ 1 12
A Comparison of the Vital Signs and the STAI ............................ 124
Exploratory Analysis
Heart Monitor ...................................................................................... 135
Monitor Readings: Dress Rehearsal .............................................. 136
Monitor Readings: Jury ..................................................................... 149
Coping with Performance Anxiety Questionnaire .................................... 171
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 174
Vital Signs and STAI ..................................................................................... 174
Population ........................................................................................... 174
Comparison of the lnexperienced and Experienced
Performers ..................................................................................... 1 77
Vital Signs ............................................................................... 178
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory ................................................ 179
Response Synchrony and Response Desynchrony ................... 180
Heart Rate Monitor ......................................................................................... 182
Dress Rehearsal ................................................................................ 182
Jury Performance ............................................................................... 184
Comparison of the Dress Rehearsal and Jury Performance ..... 186
Suggestions for Future Research ............................................................... 188
Conclusion ...................................................................................................... 192
APPENDIX A
Instructions for Wearing and Operating the
Polar Vantage XL Heart Rate Monitor ........................................................ 194
Wearing the Sensor/Transmitter ................................................................. 194
Operating the Wrist Monitor ......................................................................... 196
Removing the Sensor/1’ ransmitter .............................................................. 197
APPENDIX B
Description of Procedures Involved ........................................................... 198

vii

APPENDIX C

Agreement to Participate Form .................................................................... 200
APPENDIX D
Medical Health and Present Medications Form ....................................... 201
APPENDIX E
Coping With Performance Anxiety Questionnaire ................................... 203
Comments on the Events During the Research ....................................... 204
APPENDIX F
Individual Student Record ............................................................................ 205
APPENDIX G
Paired Samples t-tests Analyses ............................................................... 206
Paired t-tests: Blood Pressures for the Research Population ................ 206
Paired t-tests: Blood Pressures for the lnexperienced Sample ............ 207
Paired t-tests: Blood Pressures for the Experienced Sample ............... 208
Paired t-tests: Pulse Rates for the Research Population ........................ 209
Paired t-tests: Pulse Rates for the lnexperienced Sample ..................... 210
Paired t-tests: Pulse Rates for the Experienced Sample ........................ 211
Paired t-tests: Respiration Rates for the Research Population .............. 212
Paired t-tests: Respiration Rates for the lnexperienced Sample .......... 213
Paired t-tests: Respiration Rates for the Experienced Sample ............. 214
Paired t-tests: STAI Scores for the Research Population ....................... 215
Paired t-tests: STAI Scores for the lnexperienced Sample ................... 216
Paired t-tests: STAI Scores for the Experienced Sample ...................... 217
LIST OF REFERENCES ........................................................................................... 218

viii

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 1 1 .
Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

' LIST OF TABLES

Descriptive Statistics: Blood Pressures for the

Research Population ............................................................................... 83
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Blood Pressures for the Research
Population .................................................................................................. 84
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:

Blood Pressures for the Research Population .................................... 84
Descriptive Statistics: Blood Pressures for the

lnexperienced Sample ............................................................................ 86
Descriptive Statistics: Blood Pressures for the

Experienced Sample ............................................................................... 87
Independent Samples t-tests for Blood Pressures

Grouped by Level of Experience ........................................................... 88
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Blood Pressures for the

lnexperienced Sample ............................................................................ 90
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:

Blood Pressures for the lnexperienced Sample ................................. 90
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Blood Pressures for the

Experienced Sample ............................................................................... 91
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:

Blood Pressures for the Experienced Sample .................................... 91
Descriptive Statistics: Pulse Rates for the Research Population ..... 93

Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Pulse Rates for the
Research Population ............................................................................... 93

Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:
Pulse Rates for the Research Population ............................................ 94

Descriptive Statistics: Pulse Rates for the
lnexperienced Subjects .......................................................................... 95

ix

Table 15.

Table 16.

Table 17.

Table 18.

Table 19.

Table 20.

Table 21.

Table 22.

Table 23.

Table 24.

Table 25.

Table 26.

Table 27.

Table 28.

Table 29.

Table 30.

Table 31.

Descriptive Statistics: Pulse Rates for the

Experienced Subjects ............................................................................. 96
Independent Samples t-tests for Pulse Rates

Grouped by Level of Experience ........................................................... 97
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Pulse Rates for the

lnexperienced Sample ............................................................................ 99
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:

Pulse Rates for the lnexperienced Sample ....................................... 100
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Pulse Rates for the

Experienced Sample ............................................................................. 100
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:

Pulse Rates for the Experienced Sample .......................................... 101
Descriptive Statistics: Respiration Rates for the

Research Population ............................................................................. 104
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Respiration Rates for the

Research Population ............................................................................. 104
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:

Respiration Rates for the Research Population ................................ 105
Descriptive Statistics: Respiration Rates for the

lnexperienced Subjects ........................................................................ 106
Descriptive Statistics: Respiration Rates for the

Experienced Subjects ........................................................................... 107
Independent Samples t-tests for Respiration Rates

Grouped by Level of Experience ......................................................... 108
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Respiration Rates for the
lnexperienced Sample .......................................................................... 110
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:

Respiration Rates for the lnexperienced Sample ............................. 110
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Respiration Rates for the

Experienced Sample ............................................................................. 111
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:

Respiration Rates for the Experienced Sample ................................ 111
Reliability Analysis for the STAI Responses ...................................... 112

Table 32.

Table 33.

Table 34.

Table 35.

Table 36.

Table 37.

Table 38.

Table 39.

Table 40.

Table 41.

Table 42.

Table 43.
Table 44.

Table 45.

Table 46.

Table 47.

Table 48.

Descriptive Statistics: STAI Scores for the

Research Population ............................................................................. 115
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: STAI Scores for the

Research Population ............................................................................. 116
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:

STAI Scores for the Research Population ......................................... 117
Descriptive Statistics: STAI Scores for the

lnexperienced Subjects ........................................................................ 119
Descriptive Statistics: STAI Scores for the

Experienced Subjects ........................................................................... 119
Independent Samples t-tests for STAI Scores

Grouped by Level of Experience ......................................................... 120
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: STAI Scores for the

lnexperienced Sample .......................................................................... 122
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:

STAI Scores for the lnexperienced Sample ...................................... 123
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: STAI Scores for the

Experienced Sample ............................................................................. 123
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:

STAI Scores for the Experienced Sample ......................................... 124
Pearson Correlations for the Research Population .......................... 127
Pearson Correlations for the lnexperienced Sample ...................... 130
Pearson Correlations for the Experienced Sample ......................... 134
Descriptive Statistics: Monitor Readings of the

Dress Rehearsal for the Research Population .................................. 138
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Monitor Readings of the

Dress Rehearsal for the Research Population .................................. 139
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:

Monitor Readings of the Dress Rehearsal for the

Research Population ............................................................................. 139
Descriptive Statistics: Monitor Readings of the

Dress Rehearsal for the lnexperienced Subjects ............................. 142

xi

Table 49.

Table 50.

Table 51.

Table 52.

Table 53.

Table 54.

Table 55.

Table 56.

Table 57.

Table 58.

Table 59.

Table 60.

Table 61.

Table 62.

Table 63.

Table 64.

Descriptive Statistics: Monitor Readings of the
Dress Rehearsal for the Experienced Subjects ................................ 143

Independent Samples t-tests: Monitor Readings for the
Dress Rehearsal Grouped by Level of Experience .......................... 144

Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Monitor Readings of the
Dress Rehearsal for the lnexperienced Sample .............................. 147

Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:
Monitor Readings of the Dress Rehearsal for the
lnexperienced Sample .......................................................................... 147

Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Monitor Readings of the
Dress Rehearsal for the Experienced Sample ................................. 148

Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:
Monitor Readings of the Dress Rehearsal for the
Experienced Sample ............................................................................. 148

Descriptive Statistics: Monitor Readings of the
Jury for the Research Population ........................................................ 151

Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Monitor Readings of the
Jury for the Research Population ........................................................ 152

Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:
Monitor Readings of the Jury Performance for the
Research Population ............................................................................. 153

Descriptive Statistics: Monitor Readings of the
Jury for the lnexperienced Subjects ................................................... 155

Descriptive Statistics: Monitor Readings of the
Jury for the Experienced Subjects ...................................................... 156

Independent Samples t-tests: Monitor Readings of the Jury
Grouped by Level of Experience ......................................................... 157

Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Monitor Readings of the
Jury for the lnexperienced Sample ..................................................... 161

Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:
Monitor Readings of the Jury for the lnexperienced Sample ......... 162

Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Monitor Readings of the
Jury for the Experienced Sample ........................................................ 163

Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:
Monitor Readings of the Jury for the Experienced Sample ............ 164

xii

Table 65.

Table 66.

Table 67.

Table 68.

Descriptive Statistics: An Additional 8 Monitor Readings of the
Jury for the Research Population ........................................................ 167

Descriptive Statistics: An Additional 8 Monitor Readings of the
Jury for the lnexperienced Subjects ................................................... 169

Descriptive Statistics: An Additional 8 Monitor Readings of the
Jury for the Experienced Subjects ...................................................... 170

Responses from the Coping with Performance Anxiety
Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 1 72

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. An illustration of the inverted-U hypothesis. ....................................... 15
Figure 2. An illustration of the cue utilization theory and the

arousanerformance relationship ........................................................ 19
Figure 3. An illustration of the drive theory ........................................................... 22
Figure 4. Precompetitive state-anxiety levels in various competitive

and evaluative activities. ....................................................................... 43
Figure 5. Mean blood pressures of the research population ............................ 83
Figure 6. Mean blood pressures: A comparison between the

inexperienced and experienced subjects. ......................................... 86
Figure 7. Mean pulse rates of the research population. .................................... 92
Figure 8. Mean pulse rates: A comparison between the inexperienced

and experienced subjects. .................................................................... 95
Figure 9. A comparison of the range of pulse rates between the

inexperienced and experienced subjects. ....................................... 102
Figure 10. Mean respiration rates of the research population. ........................ 103
Figure 11. Mean respiration rates: A comparison between the

inexperienced and experienced subjects. ....................................... 106
Figure 12. Mean STAI scores of the research population ................................. 114
Figure 13. Mean STAI scores: A comparison between the

inexperienced and experienced subjects. ....................................... 118
Figure 14. A comparison of vital signs and STAI scores for the

research population. ............................................................................ 126
Figure 15. A comparison of vital signs and STAI scores for the

inexperienced subjects ........................................................................ 129

xiv

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

A comparison of vital signs and STAI scores for the
experienced subjects. .......................................................................... 133

Heart monitor readings of the research population taken
at the dress rehearsal. ......................................................................... 137

Figure 18. Heart monitor readings taken at the dress rehearsal:

A comparison between the inexperienced and experienced

subjects ................................................................................................... 141
Figure 19. Heart monitor readings of the research population

taken at the jury performance. ............................................................ 149
Figure 20. A comparison of heart rate ranges for the research population

between the dress rehearsal and the jury ........................................ 150
Figure 21. Heart monitor readings taken at the jury performance:

A comparison between the inexperienced and experienced

subjects ................................................................................................... 154
Figure 22. Heart monitor readings of the research population

taken at the jury performance (entire 15 minutes). ......................... 166
Figure 23. Heart monitor readings for the jury (entire 15 minutes):

A comparison between the inexperienced and experienced

subjects ................................................................................................... 168
Figure 24. Positioning the chest band. ................................................................. 195
Figure 25. Snapping the transmitter on to the chest band. ............................... 195
Figure 26. The face of the wrist monitor ................................................................ 196

CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM
Background of the Study

Historically, the study of anxiety has been primarily the domain of
experimental and clinical psychologists. The experimental psychologists were
interested in the effects of anxiety on Ieaming and the clinical psychologists were
involved with the treatment of neurosis (Leary, 1990). Concurrent with the
studies on anxiety and emotion was another body of literature concerned with the
construct of physiological arousal, particularly in the area of motor periorrnance
(Duffy, 1934, 1941, 1957; Hull, 1943; Malmo, 1959; Spence, 1951; Yerkes &
Dodson, 1908). This research developed as a reaction to the complex and
somewhat confusing theories of emotion. The study of arousal was seemingly
simpler and easier to quantify, and it supported the early developments in brain
physiology (Neiss, 1988).

In this chapter, I will utilize recent research to provide insight to the
psychological and physiological aspects of anxiety and arousal. To determine
the consequences that these aspects have on performance, I will be examining
each separately, as well as discussing their interactions. The research I have
selected has been drawn from several areas that are concerned with the effects
of the psychological and physiological aspects of anxiety and arousal. Each area
will be analyzed in terms of its relevance to performance anxiety in music.

In the research dealing with the psychological concomitants of anxiety,
one or several of the following affective or cognitive aspects are generally
targeted as independent variables: self-related preoccupations, helplessness,
expectations of negative consequences, self-efficacy, worry, catastrophizing, or
fear. These are usually measured by means of subjective, self-report devices
such as the Eysenck Personality Inventory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1964), the Test
Anxiety Scale (Sarason, 1978), the Cognitive Interference Questionnaire

1

2
(Sarason, 1978), the Sport Competition Anxiety Test (Martens, 1977), and the
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, Gorusch, Lushene, Vagg, & Jacobs,
1983), which is probably the most popular.

The methods being used to assess physiological arousal traditionally
include a combination of the subject's blood pressure, pulse rate, and
respiration rate. Other, more elaborate tests include: galvanic skin response
(Epstein & Fenz, 1962; Fenz, 1964, 1973), muscle tension (McLeod, Hoehn-
Saric, & Stefan, 1986), catecholamine concentration in the urine and/or blood
(Lidén & Gottfries, 1974; Neflel, Adler, Kappeli, Rossi, Dolder, Kaser,
Bruggesser, & Vorkauf, 1982; deberg, Frankenhaeuser, & Bjurstedt, 1979;
Smith, Burwitz, 8 Jakeman, 1988; Starkman, Cameron, Nesse, & Zelnik, 1990;
Wright, Wright, & Frankenhaeuser, 1981), salivary collection (Brantigan,
Brantigan, 8 Joseph, 1982), an electroencephalogram (EEG) (Davidson, 1978),
an electromyogram (EMG) (Cutietta, 1986; Fridlund, Schwartz, & Fowler, 1984),
skin and urine pH (Sandin & Chorot, 1985), and regional cerebral blood flow
(Gur, Gur, Skolnick, Resnick, Silver, Chawluk, Muenz, Obrist, & Reivich, 1988;
Reiman, Fusselman, Fox, & Raichle, 1989).

Although useful studies that segregate the constructs of anxiety and
arousal are still being conducted, many researchers now regard them as being
reductionistic (Leary, 1990; Neiss, 1988). These researchers argue that by
separately studying either anxiety or arousal, without exploring the other, an
adequate examination will not be provided. To this end, there has been
growing interest in the juxtaposition of the subjective stress typically labeled
'anxiety,‘ and the related objective patterns of behavior and physiological
arousal. Researchers are now considering the study of anxiety as being a
multidimensional psychological and physiological phenomenon that displays

corroboration for the relationships between affective, cognitive, somatic, and/or

3
behavioral responses (Borkovec, 1976; Hockey 8 Hamilton, 1983; Karteroliotis
8 Gill, 1987; Koksal, 1990; Landers, 1980; Leary, 1990; McCroskey 8
Richmond, 1990; Neiss, 1988; Sarason, Sarason, 8 Pierce, 1990; Schwarzer 8
Quast, 1985).

Because different performance activities may elicit diverse
psychophysiological states (for example, a vocalist preparing to enter the stage
for a recital versus a football lineman face-to-face with a tough opponent), this
multifaceted approach has recently been applied to a variety of situation-
specific activities in both the laboratory and the field. Researchers in each
activity have devised their own approaches to the study of anxiety, and although
each method may differ conceptually, all are similar in that they examine the
relationships between the affective, cognitive, somatic, or behavioral ways that
people react to social or evaluative situations. A few of the areas that have
been under scrutiny are: social communication (Buck, Miller, 8 Caul, 1974), test
taking (Deffenbacher 8 Hazaleus, 1985; Sarason, 1981, 1984), public speaking
(Ayres, 1986; Behnke 8 Carlile, 1971; Motley, 1990), sport competition (Krane 8
Williams, 1987; Smith, Burwitz, 8 Jakeman, 1988), and pertinent to this study,
music performance (Abel 8 Larkin, 1990; Craske 8 Craig, 1984; Steptoe 8
Fidler, 1987).

Music performance involves a multitude of factors that make it unique
among the situation-specific areas (9.9., sports, test taking, or public speaking)
concerned with the study of anxiety and arousal. These factors can range from
the amount of preparation time to memorization and to the actual nature of the
perionnance. Compounding the musician's problem is that, throughout a
performance, he or she must simultaneously process a multitude of physical,

cognitive, and emotional details. It is essential for a musician to initiate fine

4
motor activity in the execution of technical passages and provide an emotional
and artistic performance as well.

Due to this distinctive nature, several significant situational variables
exist in the music performance anxiety literature:- degree of performing
experience, professional or amateur status, the presence of an audience, the
nature of the audience, the type and importance of any evaluation, perceived
difficulty of the music, and solo versus ensemble performance. In an anxiety-
producing situation, any of these variables could conceivably affect only a
single component of anxiety (affective, cognitive, somatic, or behavioral).
Anxiety is multidimensional, however, and it is also possible for a variable to
affect several components simultaneously, resulting in an interaction among
them (Borkovec, 1976). An increase in somatic anxiety that is caused by high
cognitive anxiety illustrates this situation well.

Rachman and Hodgson (1974) refer to this phenomenon as response
synchrony and response desynchrony. In a synchronous response a subject
will exhibit an increase or decrease in all the anxiety components at the same
time (i.e., an increase in self-reported anxiety, increased physiological arousal,
and observable behavior disruptions). In a desynchronous response, a subject
may have an increase in physiological arousal, but self-reported anxiety and
overt behavioral actions remain constant. In addition, Landers (1980) points
out: “Some individuals, for example, will show autonomic arousal and report
intense distress in a competitive situation but will show no avoidance behavior
of the situation' (p. 77). Neiss (1988) concurs, and adds: “Because of histories
and genetic makeup, individuals differ in the intensity and patterning of their
reactions to any given stimulus condition' (p. 359).

Before a recital, for example, two performers may be anxious, but for

entirely different reasons. In addition, they may respond to these feelings in

5

entirely divergent ways. Difficult technical aspects of the music about to be
performed might concern one individual, and result in a careful, calculated,
'unmusical' performance; whereas, the other, stimulated by the presence of
evaluators in the audience, gives a masterly performance. Therefore, due to the
innumerable variables between individuals, it is desirable to use a multimethod,
multidimensional assessment in the study of anxiety in music performance.

Unfortunately, studies concerning such patterns among musicians are
few, and studies of long-term anxiety patterns in musicians are virtually
nonexistent. Ongoing research in the sport literature by Walter D. Fenz and his
colleagues perhaps best illustrates this long-term anxiety patteming. In his
work with sport parachutists, Fenz attempted to determine when peak levels of
anxiety occurred within different groups of individuals, and speculated on how
these groups coped with their anxiety. Some of the variables used for
comparison were: novice vs. experienced parachutists (Epstein 8 Fenz, 1962,
1965; Fenz, 1964, 1973; Fenz 8 Epstein, 1962, 1967; Fenz 8 Jones, 1972a),
good performers vs. poor performers (Fenz 8 Jones, 1974), and the cognitive
variables of certainty vs. uncertainty (Fenz 8 Jones, 1972b; Fenz, Kluck, 8
Bankart, 1969; Shapiro 8 Fenz, 1969).

Noting that a life-threatening activity such as parachuting would produce
different patterns of anxiety compared to a less threatening activity, Fenz (1975)

summarized his work:

Monitoring parachutists throughout a sequence of events leading
up to a jump, we noted changes in cognitive and physiological
responses which were directly related to experience and mastery: while
novice jumpers produced a sharp increase in physiological activity and
reported an increase in anxiety and fear up to the moment of the jump,
experienced parachutists produced an inverted V-shaped response
pattern, Le, a sharp initial increase was followed by a sharp decrease, so
that immediately prior to the jump, responses were only slightly above
normal levels. (p. 3)

6

Specifically, the investigation of the relationship between self-reported
fear and physiological arousal (Fenz 8 Epstein, 1967; Fenz 8 Jones, 1972a)
revealed that novice parachutists showed parallel increases in fear and arousal
until they jumped from the aircraft. The experienced jumpers, on the other
hand, showed a peak in self-reported fear on the morning of the jump and a
steady decline thereafter; their physiological assessments, however, also
showed an inverted-V pattern, but peaked when becoming airborne. The
authors concluded that psychological fear and physiological arousal are two
distinct concepts.

A number of other sports researchers have since tried to produce similar
inverted-V patterns; unfortunately, the results have been contradictory.
Mahoney and Avener (1977) found support for experience differences, but other
investigators have not (Gould, Horn, 8 Spreemann, 1983; Gould, Petlichkoff, 8
Weinberg, 1984; Highlen 8 Bennett, 1979). In addition, it is noteworthy that
agreement on the correlation between self-report and physiological measures
is largely equivocal. Although some studies in the psychology literature show a
significant correlation (Kelly 8 Walter, 1968; McLeod et al., 1986), other studies
show little correlation (Pennebaker, 1982; Ray, Cole, 8 Raczynski, 1983).

In conclusion, four separate but interacting components (affective,
cognitive, somatic, and behavioral) have been identified in anxious responses
to internal and external stimuli. These components, acting alone or in
combination, allow for individual differences in anxiety or arousal patterns. This
study has reexamined these patterns, using the medium of music perionnance.
so that future researchers and teachers will know when peak times of anxiety
tend to occur. This knowledge might provide new ways to contribute to anxiety

reduction techniques.

7
Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this work was to provide an exploratory study to
determine physiological arousal and self-reported (perceived) anxiety patterns
in brass area music majors. I collected data during jury recitals held at the end
of an academic term, and throughout a four week period of preparation prior to
the jury.

The brass area jury recitals at Michigan State University consist of a 15
minute adjudicated solo performance, which is a requirement for all
undergraduate music majors. The adjudicators, usually faculty members, may
ask a student to perform a prepared solo, scales, arpeggios, orchestral
excerpts, or to sight-read a composition. The grade from this performance is
factored into the student's final term grade. More detailed information
concerning the jury performance can be found in the section entitled 'The
Performance" in Chapter 3.

With the results of the study, I wanted to identify when peak periods of
anxiety occurred. An additional goal was to establish if these peaks occurred at
relatively the same time within the total sample, or if there were differences in
the anxiety patterns of performers who had different levels of experience (i.e.,
the difference between the anxiety patterns of a freshman and those of a
senior). Finally, I wanted to compare self-reported anxiety and physiological
arousal levels to determine how closely these measures paralleled each other
when taken concurrently.

The Problem and Subproblems

The problem of this study was to chart arousal and perceived anxiety
patterns of university brass area music majors under three different conditions:
(a) once a week before each subject's lesson, (b) in the studio as a dress

rehearsal situation, and (c) in a jury performance. Subproblems were to: (a)

8

obtain appropriate physiological measurements of arousal by using the vital
signs (blood pressure, pulse rate, and respiration rate), and (b) obtain ,
measurements of perceived anxiety using the state-anxiety portion of the
Spielberger et al. (1983) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI).

To determine peak periods of arousal and anxiety, I charted levels once
a week from the time the students began seriously preparing for their jury
recitals (which I operationally defined to be four weeks prior to the
performances). I also obtained measures during the students' lessons one
week before the juries (dress rehearsal situations), in the morning on the day of
the juries, immediately before the juries, and during the performances. l
monitored heart rates for five minutes during the dress rehearsals, and
continuously throughout the jury performances. During the course of the
research, I expected peak periods of arousal to appear at different times for
experienced performers (juniors, seniors, and graduates) and the relatively
inexperienced performers (freshmen and sophomores).
Variables

The independent variables of the study were performing experience as
determined by each subject's academic level (freshman, sophomore, junior,
senior, or graduate), and the times of the various assessments during the four
week period prior to the jury. The dependent variables were perceived state
anxiety as measured by scores on the state-anxiety portion of the STAI
(Spielberger et al., 1983), and physiological arousal as measured by blood
pressure, pulse rate, respiration rate (vital signs), and heart monitor readings.

The state-anxiety portion of the STAI consists of a 20-item, self-report
scale, designed to assess anxiety as an emotional state; for example,
immediate feelings of apprehension, tension, nervousness, and worry. The

state-anxiety portion of the STAI takes approximately 10 minutes to complete.

9
(In future references to the STAI, I will only be referring to the state-anxiety
portion of the test.)

Self-report measures of perceived anxiety and vital signs were obtained
concurrently throughout the study. I collected these data and made
comparisons between the two variables because several researchers have
suggested that self-report indices were more viable than actual physiological
measures (Deffenbacher 8 Hazaleus, 1985; Hamann, 1982; Holroyd 8 Appel,
1980). Others have stated that, especially in males, self-report measures have
not been true indicators of actual anxiety (Abel 8 Larkin, 1990; Craske 8 Craig,
1984; Steptoe, 1989). The later have speculated that males have been
'programmed' to repress their emotions, and due to ego involvement, will not
indicate their true feelings. Comparisons of self-report measures and
physiological arousal in this study showed a difference in responses between
the inexperienced and experienced performers. Lower self-reported anxiety by
the experienced performers may indicate ego involvement by this group as well.

Need for the Study

The existence of stage fright is prevalent among performing artists, nearly
to the point of being considered an occupational hazard. Fishbein 8
Middlestadt (1988) related that stage fright is the most reported medical concern
among professional musicians, and Steptoe 8 Fidler (1987) found that higher
levels of anxiety were indicated by music students than by professional
musicians. Because of these findings, stage fright can justifiably be considered
an important factor in choosing or continuing a career in music.

The seriousness of performance anxiety is evident in the fact that the
majority of professional musicians surveyed by Fishbein and Middlestadt
resorted to medication as a method of coping with the problem. Of those who

reported using beta-blockers, 70% did so without a doctor's prescription.

1 0
During my research, I have found that the use of beta-blockers may be
encroaching on the student population as well. I am concerned that musicians
may be seeking treatment only for the physiological symptoms of stage fright,
when the psychological aspects may be the crux of the problem. Drug therapy
may be preferred mainly because it is easy to take a pill, and the results are
immediate and objective (e.g., decreased heart rate and/or respiration rate). As
with any medication, a physical dependency for the drug may develop; and, in
the case of musicians using beta-blockers, a psychological 'crutch' may be the
form of dependency.

Recent research has indicated that both psychological and physiological
processes are involved with the onset of performance anxiety, but the evidence
as to which occurs first is equivocal. Several studies (Ellis, 1977; Fishbein 8
Middlestadt, 1988; Steptoe, 1989; Steptoe 8 Fidler, 1987) have indicated that
negative cognitions, specifically 'catastrophizing' (a preoccupation with
thoughts that something will go wrong to cause the performance to be a
disaster), may be a major factor associated with the onset of performance
anxiety. According to Spielberger (1966), anxiety is "characterized by
subjective, consciously perceived feelings of apprehension and tension,
accompanied by or associated with activation or arousal of the autonomic
nervous system“ (p. 17). By this definition, either one may precede the other.

Wine (1971) speculated that high levels of arousal (emotionality) may
occur first--increased physiological arousal may lead to worry about the
resulting tension, thereby causing a decrease in performance accuracy. Kohut
(1977) explained this phenomenon as 'disintegration anxiety,‘ a process
caused by cognitive overawareness of the physiological processes. Frequently,
however, this worry is unfounded because there is not an actual increase in

physiological arousal, only the performer's perception of an increase. Morris

1 1
and Leibert (1970) and Pennebaker (1982) both show that perceived elevation
of somatic arousal and actual increases are poorly correlated.

Throughout this study, I have recorded psychological and physiological
measures concurrently, beginning four weeks before an important performance.
These collected data indicate that negative cognitions and actual somatic
arousal both show signs of escalation during the stressful situations of the dress
rehearsal and the jury. This information will be useful in designing early
treatment for performance anxiety problems, and perhaps it may dissuade
individuals from immediately opting for medication. These data may also be
helpful in directing the treatment of promising music students, plagued by stage
fright, who may be questioning music performance as a career goal.

After careful review of the literature, I believe that this study is unique in
two ways. The first is that I have not discovered a similar longitudinal study in
the music performance anxiety literature; most of the current research is limited
to assessments immediately before a performance. By charting anxiety and
arousal patterns over an extended period, therapists will be better able to
concentrate treatment at (or before) peak periods. In addition, by comparing
anxiety patterns in novices with those of more experienced performers, teachers
will be more knowledgeable as to the coping abilities of their students with
varying levels of performance experience.

Second, I have monitored physiological arousal throughout the
performance. Few studies have attempted this because the cumbersome
equipment needed is often considerably distracting to musicians. The Vantage
XL heart monitor (to be discussed in detail in Chapter 3) is very comfortable to
wear and utilizes a small remote transmitter; consequently, there are no wires or
gauges to distract the performer. Research examining the cognitive effects of

anxiety has shown that peOple are more anxious before performing than they

1 2
are during the actual performance (Highlen 8 Bennett, 1979; Mahoney 8
Avener, 1977; Meyers, Cooke, Cullen, 8 Liles, 1979). By monitoring heart rates
throughout the performance, I have been able to determine if the levels of
physiological arousal coincide with the cognitive reports given by the subjects.
Definitions
Anxiety, Arousal, and Stress

The terms anxiety, arousal, and stress are often used interchangeably,
and because of this, it is helpful to clarify their differences. Arousal is a neutral
term that reflects the physiological activation of the nervous system; it refers to
the intensity of that activation and does not indicate an emotional response.

. Anxiety, on the other hand, does reflect an emotional reaction, and can be
defined as a subjective feeling of apprehension, worry, uneasiness, or dread
that is closely associated with the concept of fear (Levitt, 1980). Anxious
feelings will often precede, or be accompanied by, a heightened state of
physiological arousal. Consequently, a musician who manifests anxiety and
apprehension before and during a performance will probably experience a
higher level of arousal as well.

Stress is the result of the process that leads to the occurrence of adverse
psychological or physiological responses. The process an be explained in
terms of an objective demand (a required jury recital), a perceived threat (a bad
grade), and an anxious reaction. Stress can be both mental and physical, and
will occur if the perceived demand is not balanced by the performer's
perception of his or her ability to respond (Cox, 1985).

Charles Spielberger (1966) discusses anxiety as two distinct
psychological conditions. Omit/em a performer is anxious at a specific point
in time (e.g., before entering the stage for a performance), which he refers to as
"state anxiety." The other, he designates as "trait anxiety," that is when a

1 3

person's personality is described as "typically anxious." According to
Spielberger, state anxiety is "characterized by subjective, consciously
perceived feelings of apprehension and tension, accompanied by or associated
with activation or arousal of the autonomic nervous system" (p. 17). State
anxiety is characteristic of a performer's attitude toward a stressful situation and
is transitory in nature and fluctuates over time. Spielberger defines trait anxiety
as a quality of personality that would seem to imply a "motive or acquired
behavioral disposition that predisposes an individual to perceive a wide range
of objectively nondangerous circumstances as threatening, and respond to
these with state-anxiety reactions disproportionate in intensity to the magnitude
of the objective danger" (p. 17).
Physiological Response

Negative cognitions prior to musical perionnance. mused by
apprehension, an audience, peer pressure, self-expectations, teacher
expectations, fear of making mistakes, or other emotional stresses, are often
exacerbated by a sympathetic nervous system discharge cornmme known as
the "light orfllght response." This reaction precipitates the release of
substances called catecholamines; epinephrine, norepinephrine, and
dopamine; which are secretions, or byproducts of secretions, of the medulla of
the adrenal gland. Epinmhrine is the hormone responsble for mobilizing the
physiological changes that occur in the fight or flight response, those symptoms
common to musicians suffering from performance anxiety. These include: rise
in blood pressure, accelerated heart rate, 'ncreased respiratory rate, peripheral
vasooonstMon (narrowing ofthe blood vessels inthe hands andfeet),
piloerection (erection of the hairs, "goose flesh"), pupillary dilation, secretion of
small quantities of thick saliva ("dry mouth"), depression of gastrointest'nal
activity, and an increased level of glucose in the blood (T aber, 1985).

1 4
The Arousal/Performance Relationship: Anxiety Theories

When examining anxiety in the context of motor performance, one of the
most frequently used constructs is physiological arousal. This is
understandable since it is a common concern among musicians, dancers,
athletes, public speakers, and others seeking to cope with the pressures of
public exposure. To respond with anxiety is the normal reaction to a
threatening situation, as individuals consisteme seek to attain the optimal level
of arousal to confront the task at hand. A certain amount of arousal is beneficial
and stimulates the performer to purposeful action, such as when a coach
"psychs-up" the team before a game. Excessive arousal, however, may
interfere with the efficient functioning of the individual, especially when the
person is cognitively attending to that arousal. It has become common to
attribute behavioral changes under stress to changes in the level of arousal;
therefore, research attempting to explain the arousal-performance relationship
has received considerable attention in the psychological literature.

Some of the earlier research (Duffy, 1934, 1941 , 1957; Malmo, 1959)
saw goal-directed behavior as varying along two basic dimensions—direction
and intensity. Direction can be described as either moving toward or away
from a stimulus situation; for example, either approach or withdrawal behavior.
The level of intensity may be considered the state of physiological arousal,
which is measured along a continuum ranging from coma to extreme
excitement. (Oflrer terms that have been used synonymously with intensity are
drive, tension, and activation [Landers, 1980].) Approach or withdrawal
behavior (direction) can occur at any level along this continuum. The
combination of direction and intensity relative to behavior indicate a person's
motivaa'on. Motivation, therefore, may be defined as an internal factor that
arouses, directs, and integrates a person's behavior (Martens, 1974).

1 5

I will discuss three competing constructs that attempt to explain the
relationship between arousal and performance. The first is the inverted-U
hypothesis, which proposes that the arousanerformance relationship takes the
form of a quadratic curve. Second is the cue utilization theory, which is similar
in concept to the inverted-U hypothesis. The third concept is drive theory (Hull,
1943; Spence, 1951 ), a theory of performance and Ieaming that proposes a
linear relationship between arousal and performance.

The In verted-U Hypothesis

The inverted-U hypothesis is the oldest attempt to explain the
arousal/performance relationship (see Figure 1). Simply stated, the quality of
performance increases as arousal increases until an optimal point is reached,
after which additional increases in arousal result in increasingly inferior
performance (Martens, 1971 ). The difficulty of the task is also an important
variable: There will be an optimal level of arousal for the performance of any
task, and that optimum level will be lower for more difficult tasks (Hockey 8
Hamilton, 1 983).

 

 

 

:- High
2
8
t
S
E
2 Low

 

Low High
LEVEL OF RRDUSRL

Figure 1. An illustration of the inverted-U hypothesis.

1 6

The foundation for the inverted-U hypothesis is derived from the classic
research of Yerkes and Dodson (1908). The reason for the research was to
discover how habit-fonnation (performance) was affected by the relationship
between arousal (electrical shock) and task difficulty (visual discrimination).
Using mice as subjects, Yerkes and Dodson measured performance by the
number of trials needed for the mice to enter the brighter of two compartments.

Manipulation of the brightness between the two compartments was the
criterion for task difficulty. Three conditions of discrimination were used: (a) a
large contrast in brightness in which discrimination was easy, (b) medium
contrast and difficulty, and (c) very little contrast in brightness, which provided
difficult discrimination. Arousal, or stimulation, was measured in terms of the
intensity of electric shock; the strength of the electric stimulation increased as
the mice tried to enter the darker box.

The results of the experiment showed that the number of trials needed to
discriminate between the two compartments increased as the difference in
brightness between the two compartments decreased. They also found that
when discrimination between the two compartments was difficult, Ieaming
rapidly increased as the intensity of stimulation increased. After a certain point,
however, if stimulation continued to increase, the rapidity of Ieaming began to
decrease.

The so-called "Yerkes-Dodson Law" was derived from these findings.
The law states that 'An easily acquired habit, that is one which does not
demand difficult sense discriminations or complex associations, may readily be
formed under strong stimulation, whereas a difficult habit may be acquired
readily only under relatively weak stimulation" (pp. 481482). Practical
application of the Yerkes-Dodson Law to the fine motor skills needed for a

music performance would indicate that, as the complexity of the music

1 7
increases, the amount of arousal needed for optimal performance must
decrease.

The commonsense character of the Yerkes-Dodson Law is the basis for
its appeal and durability. There is general support for its positive aspects, but
the detrimental effects of heightened arousal have been assumed rather than
proven by experimental results (Hockey 8 Hamilton, 1983).

Considerable dissension exists, therefore, toward the unequivocal
acceptance of the Yerkes-Dodson Law. One reason is that it is difficult to test
because of researchers' inability to measure arousal accurately. Another
reason is that although it is evident that there is an inverted-U relationship
between arousal and performance, it is not clear exame why it occurs. Landers
(1980) states: "In actuality, the inverted-U hypothesis is not an explanation for
the arousal-performance relationship; it merely posits that this relationship is
curvilinear without explaining what internal state or process produces it" (p. 78).
Nevertheless, documentation of the inverted-U hypothesis abounds in the
sports literature (Klavora, 1978; Landers, 1980; Martens, 1971, 1974; Martens 8
Landers, 1970; Sonstroem 8 Bernardo, 1982) where motor performance in
competition is a primary concern.

Cue Utilization Theory

The efficiency with which task-related stimuli are gathered and utilized,
and how they affect the quality of performance, has long been a topic of interest.
Geen (1980) relates that in the early 1950's, the concept of "range of cues
utilized" was first introduced by Bartlett (1950), and studies of motivation and
responses to external stimuli were undertaken by Bahrick, Fitts, and Rankin
(1952). Soon researchers were studying, and confirming, the effects of
motivation on the range of cue utilization (Bahrick, 1954; Bruner, Matter, 8
Papanek, 1955; Callaway 8 Dembo, 1958; Callaway 8 Thompson, 1953). The

1 8
culmination of this research came in 1959 as a result of an influential paper by
J. A. Easterbrook.

The results of the work became known as Easterbrook's (1959) Cue
Utilization Theory. The theory, which is one attempt to provide an observable
basis for the inverted-U hypothesis, is structured on the concept of relevant and
irrelevant environmental cues and their effects on emotion and the organization
of behavior. Easterbrook proposed that "emotional arousal acts consistently to
reduce the range of cues that an organism uses, and that the reduction in range
of cue utilization influences action in ways that are either organizing or
disorganizing, depending on the behavior concerned. . . . In general, the range
of cue utilization is the total number of environmental cues in any situation that
an organism observes, maintains an orientation towards, responds to, or
associates with a response" (p. 183).

Under conditions of low arousal, a wide range of both relevant and
irrelevant cues are available to the subject. At this level, presence of the
irrelevant cues may be distracting to the individual and result in marginal
perionnance. If the behavior continues in the same manner and drive (arousal)
increases, attention will narrow until all the task-irrelevant cues are eliminated
and only task-relevant cues remain--this is the point of optimal performance. If
the range of cue utilization is reduced beyond this point, task-relevant cues will

begin to be eliminated, again causing a decline in performance (see Figure 2).

19

0 a Task-irrelevant cues
+ a Task- relevant cues

  
    

 

000000
+-++-++-+
+-++-++-+
+-++-++-+

0000000000000000000000
+-++-++-++-++-++-+
-++-++-++-++-++-++
+-++-++-++-++-++-+

Optimal Performance Region Q

Does not underinclude
task- relevant cues,
or we ri ncl ude
task-irrelevant cues.

 

 

 

o+++
c’++4r

 

 

b Attentional field

 

Low Moderate High
RROUSRL LEUEL

Figure 2. An illustration of the cue utilization theory and the
arousanerformance relationship. This figure is adapted from D. M. Landers,
The arousal-performance relationship revisited, Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport, 51, 1980, 77—91. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport is a
publication of the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation,
and Dance, 1900 Association Drive, Reston, VA 22091. Adapted by
permission.

An example of cue-utilization in music performance might be a solo
performer who begins a recital very relaxed. He or she is aware of everything
that is going on in the auditorium (lights, audience, off-stage noise, and so
forth), becomes distracted by these irrelevant cues, and begins to make
mistakes. Consequently, there is an increase in the performer's arousal, and
attention narrows to the task of making music; a period of optimal performance
results. The musician's level of arousal continues to increase, however, and his
or her thought processes begin to narrow further; just playing the correct notes

is now the priority. The performance rapidly becomes very "mechanical" as

20
dynamics and musical expression, which are considered "relevant cues" for a
musical perionnance. are eliminated.

The popularityof this theory, like that of the inverted-U hypothesis, is its
commonsense approach. In addition, it provides an answer to the question,
'What does arousal do?'--lt progressively reduces the range of environmental
cues cognitively considered by an individual (Hockey 8 Hamilton, 1983). As
with the inverted-U hypothesis, positive documentation for the validity of the
Cue Utilization Theory is strong (Agnew 8 Agnew, 1963; Bruning, Capage,
Kozuh, Young, 8 Young, 1968; Hockey, 1970, 1973; McNamara 8 Fisch, 1964;
O'Malley 8 Poplawsky, 1971).

By comparison, Easterbrook's theory is similar to, and provides support
for the use of the inverted-U hypothesis. As a subject's arousal increases, there
is a progressive increase in performance efficiency as attention narrows. Once
arousal increases beyond an optimal level, however, there is a marked
decrease in proficient task performance as the use of external cues generates
distractibil'rty.

Drive Theory

Certainly one of the most controversial constructs regarding the
arousal/performance relationship is the Hull-Spence drive theory. It is a
complex stimulus/response theory of motivation and Ieaming. The theory not
only attempts to explain the relationship between Ieaming and arousal, but
between performance and arousal as well. At its simplest, drive theory predicts
the performance of complex skills at any level by the formula:

performance = habit x drive
This formula is an extreme simplification of drive theory as modified by Spence
and Spence (1966).

21

Drive theory is based on the premise that drive and physiological arousal
are synonymous. Habit is the hierarchical order, or dominance, of correct and
incorrect responses. Dominance refers to where the majority of responses fall.
If the majority of responses are the undesirable responses to complete a task,
then the "dominant response" is incorrect. Conversely, if the majority of
responses are the desired responses to complete the task, then the "dominant
response" is the correct response.

Martens (1974) explains that as drive increases, the probability of the
dominant response (either correct or incorrect) being emitted also increases.
The probability that a response will be correct or incorrect depends on how well
the assigned task has been mastered. During the early stages of Ieaming, the
dominant responses are likely to be incorrect responses. As the skill is
mastered, however, the dominant responses will become the correctresponses.
It follows that an increase in drive (arousal) early in the Ieaming process will
impair performance, but when the skill becomes "automatic," increases in
arousal will facilitate performance.

When the dominant responses are the correct responses, drive theory
shows arousal and performance to have a parallel, positive linear relationship--
as arousal increases, performance improves (see Figure 3). One of the
drawbacks of drive theory, unfortunatelyéis that when the dominant responses
are the incorrect responses, its predictions are not as clear. If performance is
already poor, heightened arousal cannot deteriorate performance any further,
but can only inhibit additional progress in the acquisition of the desired skill
(Martens, 1974).

22

 

 

 

 

E High
.1
a:
=
or
tn
0
z:
c
I:
o:
o
IL
a:
Iu
0- Low
Low High

LEUEL OF RROUSRL

Figure 3. An illustration of the drive theory.

The crucial difference in the predictions between drive theory and the
inverted-U hypothesis is evident in a situation where a subject's arousal level is
high on a well-leamed task. Drive theory will predict that the quality of
performance will be high, whereas the inverted-U hypothesis will predict a low
quality of performance. As could be expected, research supporting either
theory is equivocal. Oxendine (1970) adopts drive theory for gross motor
activities, but favors the inverted-U hypothesis for complex tasks. Using
Oxendine's designation, it would be difficult to measure music performance
anxiety in terms of drive theory because of the delicate motor activity that is
involved. Martens (1974) rejects drive theory completely because it "is not
testable for motor behavior because of the inability to specify habit hierarchies
for motor performance" (p. 182).

Assumptions and Limitations

l limited the study to brass players majoring in music at Michigan State
University because I assumed that they would be a typical sampling of
university musicians. In addition, I postulated that juniors, seniors, and

graduate students would have more experience (relative to the freshmen and

23.
sophomores) at performing jury recitals because they had accrued more years
in college. Limiting the study to the brass area at MSU also allowed me to
control for the variables of different jury requirements, different grading policies,
and different judging panels. I did not design the study to control for how much
rehearsal time each student devoted to jury preparation.

I used jury recitals as the test situation because I assumed that they
would be an effective experimental condition for studying anxiety and arousal:
(a) The juries would provide an adequately stressful situation for the subjects,
especially because of the graded evaluation provided by the brass faculty, (b)
the entire population of students was required to perform a jury, and (c) the
performance conditions were relatively uniform. An additional benefit of using
the juries was that l was able to complete the data collection within a controlled
time span of two ten-week terms.

In virtually every study that has compared trait and state anxiety, subjects
high in trait anxiety have been shown to be high in state anxiety as well. I
assumed that the subjects participating in this study would also follow this
established pattern. Therefore, this study only assessed state anxiety because
a comparison of trait and state anxiety would have been redundant.

I used physiological arousal and perceived state anxiety as dependent
variables because they are the most prevalent factors precipitating performance
anxiety among typical musicians (Fishbein and Middlestadt, 1988; Steptoe and
Fidler, 1987). Although blood pressures, pulse rates, and respiration rates are
not infallible as indicators of arousal, they were the most convenient to use for
performing musicians in a "real-life" evaluative situation. Serious musicians,
performing for a grade, might be reluctant to participate in research if they knew
they would be wired to an EKG machine during a performance. Using the vital

signs was also the most economical method of assessing physiological arousal,

24
as the cost and medical liability of drawing blood or using urine for
measurement of catecholamine release was forbidding. Moreover, for some
people, drawing blood is an extremely stressful process in itself. In addition, the
puncture site may bruise and become sore, providing an obvious distraction
that the musician would not want during a performance.

An additional limitation was that this research was not designed to
alleviate performance anxiety problems, but rather, to determine when peak
anxiety periods occurred. Therapists will be able to use these data to facilitate
their treatment relative to these times. School music instructors can also use
this information when preparing students for solo and small ensemble festivals
or recitals.

Summary

Among the performing arts, music performance may well be the most
complex. During a performance, cognitive, emotional, and physical processes
are all occurring simultaneously within the musician. Confounded by these
complex processes, the reality of stage fright for many performing artists,
professionals as well as students, has become a serious medical concern.
Because of its profound implications, the presence of stage fright is a major
consideration for many musicians in choosing or continuing a career in
performance.

The anxiety/arousal relationship is as complex as the perfonnance itself.
It is a multidimensional phenomenon that involves the interrelationship of
affective, cognitive, somatic, and behavioral components. An anxious response
can occur in all, or a combination of several, of these components at the same
time (response synchronY): or, possibly, in only one of them (response
desynchrony). This unique response pattern is what allows for individual

differences in anxiety or arousal patterns.

25

Because the anxiety/arousal response is multidimensional, its
assessment must be multidimensional as well. It is imperative that both the
psychological and physiological aspects of anxiety and arousal be measured to
assess fully a subject's reaction to a stressful situation.

Organization of the Study

I have organized this dissertation into four remaining chapters. In
Chapter 2, I have reviewed the portion of the performance anxiety literature that
I felt was appropriate to this study. Areas reviewed were: (a) the literature
concerning the cognitive aspects of anxiety, (b) the test anxiety literature, (c) the
sports literature, and (d) the music performance anxiety literature. I present a
brief description of the research population and the data collection procedures
in Chapter 3; and, in Chapter 4, I explain and interpret the statistical analysis.
Finally, in Chapter 5, I summarize the research and provide suggestions for

future study in performance anxiety.

CHAPTER 2: RELATED LITERATURE
Overview

The causes and effects of performance anxiety are many. Consequently,
the literature dealing with it, in all of its variations, is formidable. The
psychological and physiological research ranges in scope from psychosexual and
narcissistic approaches (Gabbard, 1979, 1983; Kohut, 1971) to studies dealing
with brain research (Gur, Gur, Skolnick, Resnick, Silver, Chawluk, Muenz, Obrist,
8 Reivich, 1988; Reiman, Fusselman, Fox, 8 Raichle, 1989). To review
thoroughly the complexities of the anxiety/arousal phenomenon that are pertinent
to this research, I have examined the following areas: (a) aspects of cognitive
anxiety, (b) the literature concerning test anxiety, (c) the sport literature, and (d)
the performance anxiety literature in music. Excluded from the review are
research studies involving gender differences, speech anxiety, and methods of
anxiety reduction including systematic desensitization, relaxation techniques, and
biofeedback. Also excluded are studies dealing with the use of beta-adrenergic
blocking drugs such as propranolol (lnderal), atenolol, nadolol, and other
anxiolytic medications.

I realize that these exclusions will neglect a considerable body of music
performance anxiety literature; however, I have chosen to omit these studies
because they are not directly related to the purpose of this investigation. The
range of music performance anxiety research that has been reviewed is
narrowed to: (a) those studies that examined and assessed the psychological
aspects of anxiety through questionnaires and self-report measures, and (b)
multidimensional studies that explored both the psychological and psysiological

concorn itants of music performance anxiety.

26

27
Cognitive Aspects of Anxiety

The cognitive components of anxiety are focused on an individual's
response to a perceived danger and a perceived inability to manage a situation
in a satisfactory fashion. Specifically, these components are self-related
preoccupations involving worry, feelings of helplessness, expectations of
negative consequences, catastrophizing, and fear of loss of regard by others.
There are various reasons for the occurrence of these cognitions. Most notably,
they are the result of unrealistic interpretations of a situation or possibly a
history of unpleasant experiences. History alone is not always relevant,
however, because many anxious peOple are highly competent and rarely
experience objective failure (Sarason, Sarason, 8 Pierce, 1990).

Situation-specific studies of cognitive anxiety abound in the literature on
testing, sports, and music performance; I have addressed these studies in their
respective areas of this review. In this section, I will discuss some of the
background and general overviews concerning cognitive anxiety.

Sarason, Sarason, and Pierce (1990) and Ingram and Kendall (1987)
describe the cognitive process as an "information-processing" procedure in
which a person seeks environmental cues, selects the necessary relevant cues,
integrates new information with the old, and makes a decision that results in an
observable behavior. Cognitive anxiety disrupts this procedure when self-
related preoccupations influence a person's level of anxiety resulting in
heightened physiological arousal. As arousal increases, it interferes with the
utilization of relevant cues and has a profound influence on behavior.

The early manifestations of the regressive power of the anxiety process,
as it relates to stage fright, are mostly cognitive. They are the ruminations that
begin several weeks before the performance that may include: concerns of self-

efficacy, the fear that the material will not be adequately prepared by the

28
performance data, the possibility of humiliating mistakes, the dread that no one
will attend the performance, the dread that everyone will attend the
perionnance. and the fear that the audience will be excessively critical.

To assert that performing can be threatening to a person's ego is, without
a doubt, stating the obvious. Ego-threatening anxiety, as noted by Schwarzer
and Quast (1985) is divided into the general categories of test anxiety and
social anxiety. Test anxiety, used here in its broadest sense, encompasses
emotions related to all kinds of achievement situations that are perceived by the
individual as being evaluative. (In future references, "test anxiety" used in this
context will be referred to as "evaluation anxiety" to avoid confusion with the
"test anxiety" that pertains to examinations.) Social anxiety, on the other hand,
was subdivided by Schwarzer and Quast into shyness, embarrassment, shame,
and audience anxiety.

Shyness is described as being characterized by an absence or inhibition
of an expected social behavior, and an awkwardness or discomfort in the
presence of others. An example of shyness is when a person desires to make a
favorable impression on others but is doubtful of the desired outcome.
Embanessment is seen as an extreme state of shyness. Shyness develops
when a person imagines an uncomfortable situation-~embarrassment manifests
itself when the uncomfortable situation actually occurs. Shame results when
the individual feels directly responsible for the negative outcomes of failing in
public. These three emotions, therefore, can be seen as a hierarchical state-
anxiety process. If a person expects to be deficient in impressing others in a
given situation, shyness will result. If the anticipated deficiency becomes actual
(failure actually occurs), the person will then feel embarrassed. As the

individual ruminates on the situation, feelings of shame may be the outcome.

29

Audience anxiety (stage fright), although categorized as a type of social
anxiety by Schwarzer and Quast, is, in reality, an entity of both social and
evaluation anxiety. It can be categorized as social anxiety because the
performer may experience affective and/or cognitive emotions related to the
anticipated situation; and it can also be categorized as evaluation anxiety
because the performer will constantly be under the scrutiny of an audience.
Because of the complexity of potential responses resulting from this dual
classification, audience anxiety can easily lead to a poor performance.

Individually, the cognitive aspects of social and evaluative anxiety
obviously play an important role in music pariorrnance; furthermore, their
disruptive effect on behavior is also a critical factor in the anxiety response.
Both McCroskey and Richmond (1990) and Sarason at al. (1990) addressed
the importance of the interaction between cognitions and behavioral outcomes.
In a summary of their work, Leary (1990) provides three features that highlight
these interrelationships.

1. Behavior as a result of cognitive assessment. People will regulate
their behavior when thinking ahead to an assessment of their own success in
meeting certain goals or standards. For example, a music student may weigh
the potential rewards of performing a successful solo recital with the costs
involved in the preparation and the possibilities of failure.

For some individuals, the time and stress involved in the preparation, and
the risk of failure will be unacceptably high. These individuals will probably
avoid doing the recital altogether. McCroskey and Richmond (1990) speculate
that people who perceive themselves as being deficient will be less likely to
perform a given behavior. Leary (1990) concurs, and states that they will

probably perceive fewer rewards and greater risks associated with interacting.

30
This notion coincides with Bandura's (1977) self-efficacy theory that will be
discussed later.

2. Behavioral disruption as a consequence of cognitive interference.
Often individuals will not be able to avoid an anxiety-producing situation (for
example, music students performing required jury recitals) and will be
continually confronted with the possibility that they may prove to be inadequate.
Sarason at al. (1990) observe that such a person will suffer the occurrence of
frequent negative thoughts about personal abilities, as well as the perceived
difficulty of the situation. These high levels of intrusive and interfering thoughts
tend to revolve around excessive worry and preoccupation with self-evaluative
thoughts. A preoccupying cognition, especially tangible to musicians, dancers,
actors, and other stage performers is that of their own "stage presence,"
particularly when coupled with false perceptions about appearing foolish, or
about one's physical attributes.

The shared issue among these thoughts is the overwhelming feeling of
not meeting the demands of the situation, and consequently, not meeting the
expectations of others. When this occurs, the individual becomes increasingly
self-absorbed instead of task-absorbed and begins to utilize irrelevant cues.
Disrupted behavior and performance errors will be the inevitable result. This
phenomenon is direme related to Easterbrook's (1959) cue utilization theory;
that is, the use of irrelevant cues when operating under conditions of either very
low or very high arousal. It is also consistent with Ingram and Kendall (1987)
who argue that "performance deficits observed in anxiety states are due to
dysfunctional preoccupation with the self as opposed to the task" (p. 530).

3. Behavior as an antecedent of anxious cognition and affect.
Behavioral inhibition and disruption may precede anxious cognitions and

subjective anxiety. For example, a performer who is not necessarily anxious at

31
the beginning of a recital has a lapse of concentration and makes a mistake.
The performer consequently perceives the mistake as ruining the entire recital.
The musician then becomes anxious and continues to ruminate on the error,
which in turn propagates further behavior disruptions. In this instance, the
problematic behavior (the mistake) preceded the anxious cognition and affect.

In Leary's (1990) conclusion to his assessment of the interrelationship of
affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses to anxiety, he suggests that the
construct of anxiety is best regarded as a cyclic process. "Cognitive appraisal
precipitates subjective anxiety, which disposes people to ruminate further and
may interfere with ongoing behavior--as behavioral performance is degraded,
intrusive thinking escalates, which results in increased anxiety and additional
interference" (p. 43).

Considering the cognitive and behavioral dimensions of anxiety, and the
variety of variables associated with it, Ingram and Kendall (1987) suggest, as do
Sarason et al. (1990), that an anxious individual carries out a type of
information-processing procedure that will elicit a variety of cognitions. They
maintain that the individual will generally ruminate on future events, situations,
and consequences, but when in a heightened anxious state, "he or she is more
likely to retrieve from memory stored instances of past anxiety situations and
reactions. . . . Functionally, such cognitions serve to reinforce and perhaps
exacerbate the individual's state of anxiety since the person now has better
access to anxiety-consistent information, and presumably, less access to
anxiety-inconsistent information" (p 529). This entire process, as seen by
Ingram and Kendall (1987), as well as by Borkovec, Robinson, Pruzinsky, and
DePree (1983), and Meichenbaum (1977), is an irrational automatic response
that proceeds without individual control. The person comprehends these

exaggerated perceptions that emerge from this dysfunctional thinking as being

32
reality, rather than using them positively toward purposeful, directed,
information processing.

Spielberger (1972) suggests that a person's history of successfully or
unsuccessfully dealing with anxiety producing experiences is a result of specific
personality traits. He states that personality traits may be "regarded as
reflecting individual differences in the frequency and the intensity with which
certain emotional states have been manifested in the past, and differences in
the probability that such states will be experienced in the future. The stronger a
particular personality trait, the more probable it is that an individual will
experience the emotional state that corresponds to this trait, and the greater the
probability that behaviors associated with the trait will be manifested in a variety
of situations" (p. 31).

The tendency for individuals to ruminate on past experiences may
explain why more experienced performers generally display lower levels of
anxiety than those with less experience. In the context of the present research, I
hypothesized that the experienced players would know what to expect while
performing the jury, and therefore would be more task oriented-as a
consequence, they would experience less anxiety.

Deffenbacher, Zwemer, Whisman, Hill, and Sloan (1986) also found a
correlation between trait anxiety and the ruminative self-preoccupational
tendencies of anxious individuals. Their study, designed to overcome
methodological shortcomings of previous research, measured irrational beliefs
relative to several types of anxiety: trait anxiety, test anxiety, speech anxiety,
fear of negative social evaluation, social avoidance, and distress. They report
that the central irrational beliefs held by highly trait-anxious individuals were:
overconcem, personal perfection, catastrophizing, and feelings of helplessness.

Deffenbacher et al. found concern with personal perfection to be the most

33
prominent, and that the individuals expressing this trait were more likely to
utilize avoidance behavior when confronted with an anxiety producing situation.
I submit that striving for personal perfection is probably the most common cause
of frustration and anxiety among musicians.

The majority of research in the realm of cognitive anxiety has been
accomplished using self-report measures in controlled situations, and
frequently with introductory psychology students who were required to
participate in a research study. Although this method provided a large sample
population (such as with Deffenbacher et al. [1986] who used 451 subjects in a
single sample), a drawback was that the age grouping was extremely narrow--
the majority of introductory psychology students being university freshmen.
Another shortcoming was that the research encompassed only the cognitive
aspect of anxiety, which is merely one facet of anxiety's multidimensionality.
Because of these deficiencies, I feel that it is necessary for the results of
research based solely on self-report procedures to be followed up with
behavioral measures and situation-specific field study before its full significance
can be assessed.

Self-Efficacy

A body of literature has developed surrounding the cognitive/behavioral
theory of self-efficacy advanced by Albert Bandura (1977). Self-efficacy, the
power to produce effects or intended results, is used synonymously with the (I... ..3\
concepts of self-confidence and self-esteem. The theory is based on two
divergent but complementary pathways: cognitive processes reflect the
mechanisms by which human behavior patterns are acquired and regulated,
while performance-based procedures are the principal means to effect
psychological changes in the individual. Bandura (1977) postulates that

"cognitive processes mediate change but . . . cognitive events are induced and

34
altered most readily by experience of mastery arising from effective
performance" (p. 191). He presents a model of self-efficacy in which he
contends that personal efficacy is enhanced by four sources of information:
performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and
emotional (physiological) arousal.

Performance accomplishments is the most important of the four factors
because it is based on personal mastery of experiences. Successful
performance raises expectations for future success, while failure, particularly if it
occurs early in the course of events, will lower these expectations. The
negative impact of occasional failures, however, is likely to be reduced if one's
self-efficacy is enhanced by repeated success, especially at the most difficult
tasks. Occasionally, failure may even increase future self-motivated effort if one
overcomes that failure through sustained effort.

Vicarious experience although a weaker and less dependable method to
elicit a change in self-confidence, is still a critical aspect of Bandura's theory.
By watching a model consistently perform threatening activities with repeated
success, observers can dispel expectations of adverse consequences and
improve performance by intensifying their efforts. The basis for this method is "If
they can do it, than I can do it." I spe‘ciuluatei that a person could rationalize that
"The model is an expert, and has been doing this for his or her entire life," and
promptly initiate avoidance behavior. Another detriment may be that the
subject's self-expectations may only increase by watching the model. These
cognitions could result in the frustration of attempting to master too much too
fast, instead of mastering one small task at a time.

Verbal persuasion is an attempt to influence behavior by leading people

by suggestion into believing that they can accomplish a task that had been

35
failed in the past. This method is also weak because the subject's history of
failure may easily repress the positive admonishing.

Emotional (physiological) arousal can be an important influence
regarding perceived self-efficacy, as pe0ple will generally assess their state of
physiological arousal, either consciously or unconsciously, when faced with a
stressful situation. Since increased levels of arousal are associated with
debilitating performances, individuals will be more likely to exhibit avoidance
behavior when arousal is high. Conversely, peOple generally expect success

when in a relaxed state. Bandura (1977) notes:

Fear reactions generate further fear of impending stressful situations
through anticipatory self-arousal. By conjuring up fear-provoking
thoughts about their ineptitude, individuals can rouse themselves to
elevated levels of anxiety that far exceed the fear experienced during the
actual threatening situation. (p. 199)

In addition, self-efficacy can be a predictor of a person's physiological arousal;
low efficacy is usually accompanied by high arousal, and high efficacy is
generally accompanied by low arousal.

For purposes of the present study, an assumption can be made based on
Bandura's (1977) model. Seniors, who have a history of successfully passing
several juries, will have heightened self-efficacy, and therefore, lower anxiety.
This assumption will hold true even though the musical material is much more
difficult. Freshmen, on the other hand, who will be performing their first jury, will
have lower self-efficacy and higher levels of anxiety.

Considerable support for Bandura's theory exists in the research,
especially in the sport literature (Feltz, Landers, 8 Raeder, 1979; Feltz 8 Mugno,
1983; Weinberg, Gould, 8 Jackson, 1979; Yan Lan 8 Gill, 1984). Teachers can
utilize this research by establishing programs that provide positive role models,

and by ensuring that students are not confronted with repeated failure. Winning

36
should be de—emphasized, and success viewed in terms of effort and
improvement.
The Test Literature

The function of the test anxiety literature is to examine a threatening and
stressful environment that is common to all, that is, situations in which people
are evaluated. This literature is relevant to music performance anxiety because
musicians are constantly being evaluated. Evaluations occur throughout their
formal training period in the form of grades, auditions for chairs in ensembles,
solo and ensemble festivals, and many other circumstances. Constant
evaluation continues into a musician's professional career with auditions for
jobs and solo performance opportunities being prominent sources of anxiety.

The literature available concerning test anxiety is vast, but despite this
large body of literature, Sarason (1984) notes that researchers still disagree on
basic concepts concerning the nature of stress and anxiety, and on definitions,
mechanisms, and outcomes. This disparity is highlighted by the fact that stress
has been defined as a stimulus, a response, and/or a hypothetical state by
various researchers. Sarason also speculates that the reason for this diversity
is that researchers have failed to specify the contexts in which stress and
anxiety are thought to occur.

Sarason (1984) further suggests that the occurrence of stress or anxiety
in testing situations depends on personality variables within individuals and the
way they perceive a given situation. Deffenbacher and Hazaleus (1985) concur
with this notion and state: "In evaluative situations, highly test-anxious
individuals perform more poorly than low test-anxious persons. Their
performance, however, is not a simple function of ability but varies with
evaluative stress. . . . evaluative stress appears to elicit characteristics that

interfere with the performance of the highly test-anxious" (pp. 169-170). In

37
low-stress situations, highly anxious people perform equally as well as the less
anxious, but in high-stress situations, their performance drops to a level below
the less anxious, and even below their own performances in low-stress
situations. Similar views are expressed by Deffenbacher (1978, 1980),
Sarason (1961, 1972, 1973), and Wine (1971).

Although extreme autonomic arousal has been considered to be a factor
in test anxiety by interfering with performance or by initiating avoidance or
escape behavior (Wolpe, 1973), most models of test-anxiety (Meichenbaum 8
Butler, 1980; Sarason, 1972; Wine, 1971, 1980) agree that cognitions play a
more important mediating role in the effect anxiety has on performance.
Deffenbacher and Hazaleus (1985) found, as did Holroyd and Appel (1980),
that physiological measures did not contribute significantly to the measurement
of test anxiety. Both studies reported that the level of physiological arousal did
not differ between high and low test-anxious subjects. Deffenbacher and
Hazaleus (1985) speculated that their subjects' interference may have been
related to preoccupation with physiological arousal, rather than interference by
physiological arousal itself. Wine (1971) reports similar findings: "Emotional
arousal appears to bear no consistent relationship to performance on
intellectual or cognitive tasks . . . degree of arousal is irrelevant unless the
subject is attending to his arousal" (p. 100).

Deffenbacher and Hazaleus (1985) were using their subject's self-
assessed heart rates, before and after the test, as independent variables. They
speculated that perhaps their testing situation did not precipitate adequate
physiological arousal and that heart rate alone was not a sufficient measure. If
they could have assessed the heart rates throughout the exam they might have

achieved a more significant outcome.

38

Research continues to show that cognitive processes are more likely
than physiological arousal to cause a performance to deteriorate during a
testing situation. Responses by test anxious individuals are generally found to
be highly personalized and self-oriented. As a method of categorization,
researchers have identified three broad areas of cognitive distraction: worry,
emotionality, and task-generated interference.

Liebert and Morris (1967) were first to identify worry and emotionality as
two distinct components in the measurement of state test anxiety. Worry refers
to cognitive processes that focus attention on negative aspects such as poor
performance, consequences of failure, and what others will think. Another

definition is provided by Borkovec et al. (1983).

Worry is a chain of thoughts and images, negatively affect-laden
and relatively uncontrollable. The worry process represents an attempt
to engage in mental problem-solving on an issue whose outcome is
uncertain but contains the possibility of one or more negative outcomes.
Consequently, worry relates closely to fear process. (p. 10)

Emotionality, on the other hand, refers to the actual state of physiological
arousal, or, more likely, to a preoccupation with self-perceived autonomic
arousal. Deffenbacher and Hazaleus (1985) point out that worry has a
consistent negative correlation with excellence in perionnance. while
emotionality is either unrelated, or less consistently related, to perionnance.
Geen (1980) points out that "emotionality is more confined to the situation in
which the person is evaluated, peaking just before a test and falling off rapidly
thereafter" (p. 55). Similar distinctions were reported by Doctor and Altman
(1969), Liebert and Morris (1967), Morris and Liebert (1970), and Sarason
(1 960).

Task-generated interference, a phrase first coined by Deffenbacher
(1978), is quite similar in concept to Easterbrook's (1959) Cue Utilization

Theory. Task-generated interference suggests that highly test anxious

39
individuals are more susceptible to distracting cues that are related to the task.
Specific examples of distracting cues may be: preoccupation with time
constraints, spending too much time on one problem, or continuing to return to a
difficult problem. In a review of literature that focused on the cue utilization
concept, Geen (1980) approached test anxiety as "a variable related to
individual differences in such cognitive activities as attention, appraisal, and the
storage and retrieval of information" (p. 43). He believed, as did Wine (1971)
and Sarason (1972), that a person experiencing high test anxiety will divert his
or her attention away from the task and focus on internal reactions that are self-
evaluative and self-deprecatory in nature. This process deals directly with
anxiety and the range of cue utilization. Geen supported his notions by citing
several studies (Korchin, 1964; Mendelsohn 8 Griswold, 1967; Solso, 1968;
Solso, Johnson, 8 Schatz, 1968; Zaffy 8 Bruning, 1966) that show a reduction
in the range of cue utilization as a function of trait anxiety, and several others
(Geen, 1976; Mueller, 1976; Wachtel, 1968; West, Lee, and Anderson, 1969)
that are specific to test anxiety and showed the same results.

Concerning cue utilization in nonevaluative situations, interesting
findings were reported by Wine (1971) and Geen (1980). In nonevaluative
situations, highly test-anxious subjects did not display self-directed interfering
cognitions and were able to direct full attention to the task. Conversely, under
similar testing conditions, the nonanxious subjects were not sufficiently
motivated by the task and did not apply full attention to it, which possibly
resulted in indifference and disinterest. Geen (1980) speculated that in the
performance of nonthreatenlng tasks, high test anxious subjects will do better
than low test anxious subjects.

In a study that ultimately can be related to music performance in a jury

situation, Geen (1977) examined the effects of an evaluator on anticipated

40
positive or negative results during performance on an anagram task. In one
condition the evaluator simply made notes on the subject's performance with no
prior information given. In a second condition, the evaluator played the same
role, but this time explained to the subject that the notes were to help improve
the outcome of future performances. Geen observed that the redefinition of the
evaluation in the second situation led to a more efficient and superior
performance in highly test anxious subjects. The outcome of this study
suggests that individuals high in test anxiety can be extremely sensitive to
external cues. The fact that the distracting cues were from an audience
indicates that there may be a high correlation with music performance
shuafions.

I believe that test anxiety is more affected by psychological
considerations because it is a cognitive activity. In "written test" situations, such
as in Deffenbacher and Hazaleus (1985), motor performance is not a factor.
Therefore, physiological arousal will not adversely affect performance unless it
is cognitively attended to. Conversely, motor performance, as will be seen in
the following section, is more affected by autonomic arousal because it is
primarily a kinetic activity. Research evidence indicates that performance
anxiety in music will be unique because it involves, to a large extent, both
cognitive and kinesthetic processes.

The Sport Literature

An extremely important body of literature that is usually not reported by
music researchers are the studies involving anxiety and stress in sport
competition and motor behavior. Scanlan and Lewthwaite (1984) define
competitive stress as an "acute state-anxiety reaction to competitive situations
that the participant perceives as threatening to self-esteem. . . . Stress is

triggered when the participant perceives that he/she is not capable of meeting

41
competitive demands successfully and therefore anticipates negative
consequences. In sport, these consequences can include perceptions of failure
and the potential for receiving negative social evaluation of motoric competence
from people who are significant to the child such as parents, coaches, and
peers" (p. 209).

It is obvious that if a few of the words were changed in this definition it
would be highly applicable to music performance. Music performance in the
United States, even before the turn of the century, has been continually
involved with competition. The first documented music contest took place in
Carbondale, Pennsylviana in 1850. Fed by the nation's competitive spirit,
music contests quickly became popular and spread throughout the country.
Other early evidence of the competitive nature of music performance was the
establishment of the National Bureau for the Advancement of Music in 1916.
Throughout its ten year record, the bureau promoted all forms of musical
advancement including music memory contests and band contests. Likewise,
the inevitable inclusion of music contests in the schools led to the first national
school band contest that was held in Chicago in June of 1923 (Keene, 1982).
Today, music contests thrive in all forms, from public school festivals to
international contests, such as the Tchaikovsky Competition, for professional
musicians.

Because of this intense interest in music competition, I am surprised that
there has not been more collaboration between sport and music researchers.
"Like athletes, musicians perform for the public; and like professional athletes,
they can lose their jobs if they don't perform" (Bejjani 8 Snow, 1990, p. 45).
Athletic competition involves both team and individual sports, which make it
easily comparable to ensemble and solo performance in music. Scanlan

(1984) reveals that individual sports, as compared to team sports,

42
characteristically involve greater social evaluation potential because they focus
more strongly on individual performance. Other studies (Griffin, 1972; Johnson,
1949; Simon 8 Martens, 1979) also have demonstrated that individual sports
are more stressful than team sports.

A reason for this disparity may have been discovered by Krane and
Williams (1987). In their research on performance environments, they found
that "athletes participating in sports scored subjectively by judges [diving, figure
skating, gymnastics, and so forth] have higher cognitive anxiety and lower self-
confidence than athletes in objectively scored sports" (p. 54). This situation is
highly applicable to music since music performance is perceived subjectively by
the audience, or judges in the case of music competition.

To highlight this point, Simon and Martens (1979) have provided a
comparison of precompetitive state-anxiety levels in various competitive sports;
included in the comparison are band performances and instrumental solos (see
Figure 4). Band performances ranked above all other team sports in the
comparison--instrumental solos eclipsed all of the activities, including the
individual sports of gymnastics and wrestling. I offer that this is the case,
particularly in the public schools, because athletic events generally occur at
least once or twice a week throughout their respective seasons. This provides
athletes with an avenue to gain more competitive experience. Music
performances, on the other hand, will often occur only once or twice a year,
which does not allow musicians adequate time to gain comparable

performance experience.

43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 1 r r r 1 n 1 r r r 21'“
:21 - -
E
X

20 - -
g 19.52
i519 - -
a 18.52

17.96

18 - ,_ .
‘5' 17.49
E 17 _ 163716.97 _
E 16.011512- '

515 ~ 15.77~—~ 4
0
III
3
it. IS - -

14.47

I4 i l l I I I l l l I J J

. _ u 0)

ii. .3 E 3 E g 3 § it g s

a £5 a a a i 9 g 3 3

m

Figure 4. Precompetitive state-anxiety levels in various competitive and
evaluative activities. From Children's anxiety in sport and non-sport evaluative
activities by J. A. Simon and R. Martens, 1979, Journal of Sport Psychology, 1,
p. 165. Copyright 1979 by Human Kinetics. Adapted by permission.

I will present here a sampling of sport related research dealing with
precompetitive anxiety as it is the most studied subject in the sport anxiety
literature. Included will be references to anxiety and motor perionnance.
studies dealing with cognitive anxiety, comparisons of experienced and
inexperienced athletes, and finally, competitive anxiety as a multidimensional
construct.

Early research in sport and motor behavior focused on examining the
relationship between anxiety and motor behavior. This was accomplished

through laboratory and field studies utilizing anxiety theories, such as the

44
inverted-U hypothesis, drive theory, and cue-utilization theory as a foundation
for the research (Carron, 1971; Carron 8 Morford, 1968; Hanson, 1967; Klavora,
1978; Landers, 1980; Martens 1971, 1974; Martens 8 Landers, 1970;
Spielberger, 1971; Weinberg 8 Genuchi, 1980; Weinberg 8 Hunt, 1976). Other
early studies provided an examination of factors influencing anxiety (Martens 8
Gill, 1976; Scanlan 8 Passer, 1978, 1979), and the degree of anxiety
experienced in competition (Purdy, Haufler, 8 Eitzen, 1981; Simon 8 Martens,
1979). The sport studies that have direct significance to the present study are
those that examine competitive anxiety patterns prior to, and during
performance (Fenz, 1975; Gould, Horn, 8 Spreemann, 1983; Gould, Weiss, 8
Weinberg, 1981; Highlen 8 Bennett, 1979; Mahoney 8 Avener, 1977; Meyers,
Cooke, Cullen, 8 Liles, 1979).

Some of the first research to examine preperformance anxiety patterns
were a series of studies using sport parachutists done by Walter D. Fenz and
his associates throughout the 19605 and 1970s. Since this research was
discussed in Chapter 1, I will simply highlight the results here. Fenz found
distinct differences in anxiety patterns between experienced and inexperienced
parachutists, and between good and poor performers. lnexperienced and poor
performers showed a continual increase in levels of anxiety and arousal up to
the time of the jump. Experienced and good performers, on the other hand,
displayed an inverted-V pattem--a sharp initial increase that was followed by a
sharp decrease so that at the time of the jump, their anxiety levels were close to
normal. Fenz concluded that the reason for the difference in anxiety patterns
was that the experienced and good performers were better able to cope with
their anxiety by becoming more task oriented, while the inexperienced and

poorer performers tended to internalize and ruminate on their fears.

45

Another field study examining anxiety patterns was undertaken by
Mahoney and Avener (1977). Their study utilized 12 elite gymnasts competing
for a berth on the 1976 United States Men's Olympic Gymnastics Team.
Whereas the Fenz studies employed both psychological and physiological
measures, Mahoney and Avener specifically examined cognitive anxiety
patterns. They devised a psychological skills inventory as a measurement
device that was administered 48 hours before the final qualifying meet. The
athletes were asked to report their typical anxiety levels at various times prior to
competition: one week, one day, one hour, dressing at the meet, warming up,
chalking up, before their best event, before their worst event, while performing
their best event, and while performing their worst event.

Mahoney and Avener's results were congruent with those of Fenz in that
differences in anxiety patterns were found between successful (those who
made the team) and unsuccessful (those that were cut) performers. Significant
correlations were found between self-confidence, frequency of gymnastics
dreams, performance success in dreams, frequency of gymnastics thoughts,
self-talk, the use of imagery, and performance success in competition.
Mahoney and Avener found an important difference between their findings and
those of Fenz. In their study, the better performers showed a higher level of
anxiety than the poorer performers before competition. During competition,
however, the patterns were reversed-the less skilled reported the higher levels
of anxiety.

In an attempt to replicate the findings of Mahoney and Avener (1977),
Meyers, Cooke, Cullen, 8 Liles (1979) conducted a follow-up study utilizing
nine male undergraduate members of the Memphis State University racquetball
team. Their measures were a modified version of the Mahoney and Avener

questionnaire that was administered three times during the racquetball season,

46
and a skill level ranking of the nine players by the team coach. Their findings
were consistent with those of Mahoney and Avener (1977). Better performers
were more self-confident, reported fewer self-doubts, and racquetball tended to
pervade their dreams and everyday thoughts. They exhibited more self-talk in
practice and competition, and were more able to maintain successful
performances using imagery. Another important similarity with the Mahoney
and Avener study was that the more highly skilled racquetball players reported
less anxiety during competition.

An additional study that employed an adapted version of the Mahoney
and Avener (1977) questionnaire was undertaken by Highlen and Bennett
(1979) using wrestlers competing to qualify for positions on three Canadian
World wrestling teams. Like the previous studies, the primary purpose was to
identify psychological factors that differentiated between successful and
unsuccessful performers; an important difference, however, was that Highlen
and Bennett used a much larger sample (N = 39). They were also attempting to
replicate the Mahoney and Avener (1977) study utilizing an open-skill sport.

Open-skill and closed-skill activities were first identified by Gentile
(1972). Open-skill activities are executed in an ever-changing environment like
wrestling, football, and hockey. In these activities the performer attempts to
develop a repertoire of patterns that match the environmental stimuli that are
encountered during skill execution. Closed-skill activities, on the other hand,
occur in an environment that remains constant, for example, gymnastics, diving,
and music performance. In the execution of these skills the performer attempts
to produce consistent, habitual patterns:

The strongest findings reported by Highlen and Bennett (1979) were that
qualifiers were more confident than nonqualifiers, and that qualifiers reported

less stress both before and during competition. Congruent with the previous

47
studies, it was reported that anticipatory anxiety was greater than that
experienced during actual competition, and that successful wrestlers were
better able to focus their attention on the performance.

A meaningful difference between Highlen and Bennett's findings and
those of Mahoney and Avener (1977) involved the importance of imagery,
dreams, and self-talk. Although these traits were influential in distinguishing
between successful and unsuccessful gymnasts, they were of little significance
in the context of wrestling. Highlen and Bennett surmise that this is so because
wrestling primarily involves open skills, whereas gymnastics is largely a closed-
skill sport. They believe it may be more difficult for a wrestler to visualize
competition with an unpredictable opponent, whereas gymnasts find it easier to
imagine their individual performances.

Highlen and Bennett (1979) reported two additional findings that may
have significance in preparing for music performance. The first was that as the
number of hours spent in training increased, so did anxiety. This characteristic
was common to both successful and unsuccessful wrestlers; however, the
successful wrestlers spent fewer hours in training than the unsuccessful
wrestlers. Highlen and Bennett acknowledge that they could not conclude that
anxious wrestlers train more or that more training increases anxiety. I speculate
that since it has been proven that successful performers are more task-oriented,
they benefit from intense and productive practice sessions, and consequently,
need not devote excessive amounts of time.

The other finding was that elite wrestlers were more concerned about
their coaches' assessment when they were losing a match. Highlen and
Bennett identify this as a critical time for careful intervention by the coach. This
finding can be applied to the preparation phase of music performance and the

role of the teacher in initiating strategies for the regulation of anxiety.

48

Two additional studies utilizing wrestlers (Gould, Weiss, 8 Weinberg,
1981; Gould, Horn, 8 Spreemann, 1983) were undertaken that were similar in
design to the ones previously mentioned. The results of Gould et al. (1981)
replicated the findings of Mahoney and Avener (1977), Meyers et al. (1979),
and Highlen and Bennett (1979) in that successful wrestlers reported more self-
confidence, and were better able to focus on task-related thoughts than the less
successful athletes. In addition, all the wrestlers reported higher levels of
anxiety before competition than during the actual competition.

Unlike the previous studies, however, Gould et al. (1981) did not find
differences in levels of anxiety and cognitive coping strategies employed by
successful and unsuccessful wrestlers. In addition, no differences were found
in the use of imagery, which was so important in Mahoney and Avener (1977)
and Meyers et al. (1979). Gould et al. (1981) suggest that the conflicting
findings may be due to the use of imagery being sport specific and that more
controlled research is needed to substantiate this claim. The idea that imagery
can be used as a coping strategy to control cognitive anxiety makes sense,
particularly when considering Highlen and Bennett's discussion of open and
closed-skill activities.

Gould et al. (1983), like Gould at al. (1981), also found no differences in
precompetitive and performance anxiety patterns between successful and
unsuccessful or more or less experienced competitors. Once again, these
findings were inconsistent with previous research. Gould 91 al. (1983) attributed
these contradictory findings to the fact that the athletes were asked, 48 hours
before the competition, how they typically felt before performing, rather than
how they felt at the moment. Another important consideration is the use of a
much larger sampling in both Gould et al. (1981) and Gould at al. (1983).
Sample sizes were N = 49 and N = 464 respectively.

49

More recently, researchers in sport psychology have been adapting to
contemporary anxiety research that is redefining state anxiety as being
multidimensional in nature (Davidson 8 Schwartz, 1976; Landers, 1980; Liebert
8 Morris, 1967; Schwartz, Davidson, 8 Goleman, 1978). In response to this
change, the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAl-2) was developed to
measure both the cognitive and somatic components of state anxiety (Martens,
Burton, Vealey, Bump, 8 Smith, 1990). The test is an adaptation of an earlier
version of the STAI (Spielberger, Gorusch, 8 Lushene, 1970) and the original
Competitive State Anxiety Inventory as developed by Martens, Burton, Rivkin,
and Simon (1980). The CSAl-2 is a sport-specific multidimensional state-
anxiety inventory that separately assesses cognitive and somatic state anxiety,
as well as self-confidence. This is accomplished by means of 27 Likert-type
scale questions (Gould, Petlichkoff, 8 Weinberg, 1984). Examples of the CSAI-
2 are given in Jones and Cale (1989): cognitive anxiety items include "I am
concerned about this competition" and "I'm concerned about performing poorly,"
somatic anxiety items include "I feel nervous" and "my body feels tense," self-
confidence items include "I feel at ease" and "I'm confident about performing
well.‘I

I will present here three studies that utilized the CSAI-2 as a
measurement. Chronologically they are: Gould, Petlichkoff, and Weinberg
(1984), Ussher and Hardy (1985), and Karteroliotis and Gill (1987).

One of the first examinations of precompetitive anxiety utilizing the
multidimensional constructs of the CSAI-2 was undertaken by Gould et al.
(1984). They presented two studies designed to replicate and test various
relationships between cognitive and somatic anxiety as hypothesized by the
CSAl-2. In addition, Gould at al. (1984) suggested that cognitive and somatic
anxiety affect performance differently, therefore, they felt it was important that

50
the two constructs be assessed separately as well. Gould 91 al. provided
evidence that supported the distinction between cognitive and somatic anxiety:
"the degree of cognitive state anxiety elicited by an athlete is dependent on his
or her perceived ability, which is primarily generated from previous competitive
experience" (p. 291). They consider somatic anxiety to be a conditioned or
reflexive response to environmental stimuli; for instance, the competition site.
Thus, performance expectancies before competition should be more highly
correlated with the level of cognitive anxiety rather than somatic anxiety. They
continued by citing Morris and Fulmer (1976) and Smith and Morris (1976), who
reported that somatic anxiety steadily increases prior to evaluation, whereas
cognitive anxiety shows little fluctuation, thereby establishing the independence
of the two constructs.

In both studies, the CSAl-2 was administered five different times before a
major tournament: 1 week, 2 days, 1 day, 2 hours, and 20 minutes. Subjects
employed by Gould et al. (1984) were intercollegiate wrestlers in the first study
(N = 37), and female high school volleyball players in the second (N = 63),
thereby evaluating both a closed and an open-skill sport.

Results of the study were consistent with previous research showing that
somatic anxiety increases prior to competition, while cognitive anxiety and self-
confidence remained constant. The prediction that cognitive anxiety would be a
more viable indicator of performance than somatic anxiety was only partially
supported. Finally, Gould et al. (1984) found no differences between
experienced and inexperienced performers for either cognitive or somatic
anxiety patterns. These results contradicted the findings initially reported by
Fenz (1975) who did find significant differences in anxiety patterns between

experienced and inexperienced performers.

51

Ussher and Hardy (1985) presented another study employing the CSAI-
2, investigating the separate influences of cognitive and somatic anxiety upon
several cognitive and motor tasks using a "time to a significant event' paradigm.
They tested an experimental group of eight experienced rowers on four
occasions: 2 weeks, 24 hours, and 2 hours before a competition, and 2 weeks
after the competition. In addition, they tested a control group of eight equally
experienced rowers at the same time interval who did not have an impending
competition. Cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence were
measured by the CSAI-2, while physiological arousal was measured by heart
rate.

Results for the experimental group indicated that cognitive anxiety was
elevated throughout the pre-competition period while somatic anxiety steadily
increased up to the time of the competition. Self-confidence and cognitive
anxiety showed a negative correlation: When cognitive anxiety was elevated,
self-confidence was depressed, and vice versa. Results for the control group
were not reported.

Karteroliotis and Gill (1987) recognized that the somatic portion of the
CSAl-2 is reported by the subject as a perceived autonomic response rather
than an actual physiological reaction. Thus, noting that physiological measures
had not yet been compared to CSAl-2 measures, they incorporated pulse rate
and blood pressure into their study. Judging by the results of Martens et al.
(1983) and Gould at al. (1984), Karteroliotis and Gill (1987) hypothesized that
actual physiological measures and somatic anxiety scores from the CSAI-2,
should show a positive relationship.

The results of their study, which was a laboratory-contrived competitive
setting rather than an actual sport situation, contrasted significantly with the

previous research testing the CSAl-2. In opposition to previous findings where

52
somatic anxiety increased up to the competition and then decreased as the
competition progressed, Karteroliotis and Gill's results showed both cognitive
and somatic anxiety following similar patterns throughout the test--both
maintained baseline levels up to the start of competition, then significantly
increased. Actual physiological measures were not related to CSAI-2 reports at
any stage of the assessment. Karteroliotis and Gill speculate that these
contrasting findings were due to the contrived nature of the study. They
contended that their situation did not elicit as much anxiety as an actual sport
competition where there would be higher potential for evaluation.
implications for Music Performance Anxiety

In conclusion, some solid generalizations can be made from the sport
literature that provide implications for music performance. As a point of
departure, it has been shown that an individual's response to anxiety will differ
depending on the performance situation. For example, different anxiety
response patterns have been found between persons participating in open or
closed-skill environments, and in events that are scored subjectively or
objectively. This leads to the logical assumption that, due to an increased
potential for evaluation, a soloist is going to exhibit greater anxiety levels than a
musician in an ensemble.

Secondly, experienced performers will generally exhibit different anxiety
patterns than inexperienced performers. Experienced performers maintain a
relatively higher level of anxiety up to the time of perionnance. then become
increasingly task-oriented, which results in lower anxiety levels during the
actual perionnance. lnexperienced performers, on the other hand, will tend to
ruminate on their fears and generally show a steady increase in anxiety prior to

and during the perionnance.

53

Finally, successful performers will report higher levels of self-confidence
(no matter what their experience level) than unsuccessful performers due to
positive past experiences. In all performers, however, self-confidence will be
high when anxiety is low, and low when anxiety is high.

The Music Performance Anxiety Literature

The symptoms of stage fright, that well known discomfort experienced by
many musicians performing before an audience, can vary from a transient
sense of anxiety to an incapacitating response of the autonomic nervous
system. Ordinarily, the symptoms will dissipate several minutes into the
perionnance. For an unfortunate few, however, the psychological and
physiological manifestations of stage fright may continue throughout the
performance and for several minutes thereafter. Kaplan (1969) vividly

describes this process as blocking and depersonaiization.

Blocking is the momentary experience of complete loss of
perception and rehearsed function. . . . Blocking erases all sense of
control and aims at a total extinction of impulse by disconnecting the self
from all avenues of functioning . . . Once onstage, blocking gives way to
depersonaiization. This reaction is most often experienced as a split
between a functioning and an observing self, with pronounced spatial
disorientation. The observing self perceives the functioning self as off at
a distance, operating mechanically before an audience that is also
perceived as quite distant. . . . The performer is conscious of his limbs,
face, and posture and loses a sense of trustworthiness about their
coordination; the heartbeat intrudes upon consciousness, often audibly,
sometimes deafeningly. Color perception is lost, and the visual
components of the experience resemble a black-and-white dream. (p.
64)

As early as 1964, writers on music perionnance anxiety have recognized
its psychological and physiological concomitants (Martin, 1964), however, much
of what has been written on the subject has not been research based (Dodge,
1989; Fogle, 1979; Gates, 1988; Harris, 1988; Nagel, Himle, 8 Papsdorf, 1981;
Neubert, 1990; Stollak 8 Stollak, 1988). Only recently have studies in music

performance anxiety begun to examine its multifaceted dimensions; however,

54
as indicated by Salmon (1990), "much of our understanding of music
performance anxiety is still derived from studies of other individuals equally
prone to anxiety, but perhaps for different reasons and in different ways" (p. 9).
It is evident, however, that studies in music performance anxiety have not
utilized the achievements of research in other disciplines as much as would be
desired. Consequently, as recognized by Abel and Larkin (1990), Hamann and
Sobaje (1983), Neiss (1988), Salmon (1990), and Wesner, Noyes, and Davis
(1990), the literature on music performance anxiety has not yet been fully
developed.

A distinctive characteristic of the music literature is that the majority of the
research-based studies have been in the realm of anxiety reduction (Appel,
1976; Kanefield, 1990; Lund, 1972; Montello, Coons, 8 Kantor, 1990; Nideffer 8
Hassler, 1978; Terwilliger, 1972; Wardle, 1974; Wolfe, 1977; Wolfe, 1990).
These studies generally assumed that anxiety reduced the quality of
performance, and that intervention techniques either improved performance or
had no effect on its quality.

Two studies in particular (Kendrick, Craig, Lawson, 8 Davidson, 1982;
Sweeney 8 Horan, 1982), approached anxiety intervention from a multifaceted
perspective. Both employed cognitive restructuring as a means of anxiety
reduction. Salmon (1990) referred to cognitive restructuring as "a procedure for
(1) monitoring one's thoughts; (2) exploring the dysfunctional qualities of
troublesome thoughts; (3) developing effective counter-responses; (4)
rehearsing the new responses; and (5) incorporating them into task-relevant
activities" (p. 8).

A new and burgeoning field concerning the reduction of music
perforrnanca anxiety is the use of beta-adrenergic blockading drugs

(Brandfonbrener, 1990; Brantigan, Brantigan, 8 Joseph, 1982; Brantigan,

55
Joseph, 8 Brantigan, 1978, 1979; James, Griffith, Pearson, 8 Newbury, 1977;
James 8 Savage, 1984; Lidén 8 Gottfries, 1974; Neftel, Adler, Kappeli, Rossi,
Dolder, Kaser, Bruggesser, 8 Vorkauf, 1982; Nies, 1990). The use of beta-
blockers is relatively unique to music performance situations, as other activities
do not respond as well to their effects (Steptoe, 1989; Tyrer 8 Lader, 1974).
This is especially true in athletic competition where athletes must maintain an
optimal level of physiological arousal and cardiac output because of the
physical activity involved.

Although the purpose of the present study is not to investigate anxiety
reduction techniques, I feel that it is necessary to mention the above studies
because of their importance in the range of the music performance anxiety
literature. The remainder of this review will be devoted to studies conducted
using: (a) questionnaires that probe a broad range of performance concerns
among various groups of musicians, (b) self-report measures in which
individuals indicate their particular level of anxiety (usually cognitive anxiety) at
a given moment, and (c) multidimensional studies that examine both the
psychological and physiological aspects of music performance anxiety.
Questionnaire Studies

Acknowledging that psychological treatments such as behavior
modification and systematic desensitization have achieved some success in
reducing anxiety, and that pharmacological treatments utilizing beta-blockers
are effective in reducing autonomic arousal, Steptoe and Fidler (1987)
presented a questionnaire survey concerning various cognitive aspects
associated with performance anxiety. Two primary issues were addressed: the
relationship of anxiety with amount of performing experience, and various
cognitive processes involved with performance anxiety. To examine the role of

experience, their study compared subjects from two prominent London

56
professional orchestras with a group of music students. Since experience is
sometimes thought of as being synonymous with age, they included a third
group, as a thoughtful foresight, consisting of adult amateur musicians who
possessed relatively limited performance experience. Added as a factor to
control for age, the amateur musicians were intermediate in age (m = 28.9)
between the professionals (m = 37.0) and the students (m = 20.8), but displayed
a wider range of ages (r = 14.9) as compared to the professionals (r = 10.5) and
the students (r = 2.2).

Steptoe and Fidler (1987) found that the student musicians manifested
higher levels of stage fright than did the professionals. They attributed this
finding to either performance experience or age, speculating that age may have
been the more important factor since the amateur group reported lower anxiety
levels than the students. Furthermore, they conceded that the amateurs may
have had reduced anxiety levels because they did not have the evaluative and
career ramifications to consider as did the professionals and students. In other
words, the amateurs were just having fun with music.

Of the various cognitive aspects explored in the study, catastrophizing
was found to be the most important in all three groups of musicians. This
indicates that people with stage fright worry most about perceived tension and
exaggerated beliefs concerning the importance and consequences of any
performance, or of impending disaster during the perionnance. Catastrophizing
was identified by Steptoe and Fidler (1987) through statements such as "I am
almost sure to make a dreadful mistake and that will ruin everything," "I do not
think I will be able to get through to the end without cracking up," and "I do not
feel in control of this situation; anything might happen." This finding concurs
with Ellis (1977) who identified catastrophizing as a major element in the

pattern of irrational beliefs associated with anxiety.

57

The results of Steptoe and Fidler (1987) were further reinforced by
Steptoe (1989) in a review of the recent conceptualizations of music
performance anxiety. His article encompassed both physiological and cognitive
aspects of stage fright, as well as career stress in musicians and their coping
strategies. He reports that in a comparison between orchestral musicians,
physicians, air traffic controllers, and waiters in Sweden, orchestral musicians
had the lowest ratings of authority over decisions. This indicates that musicians
playing in an orchestra have no control over what is played, and very little
flexibility in how to play it. According to Karasek (1979), these findings rank
orchestral musicians high in the category of potential job stressfulness.

Steptoe (1989) reported that, in order to cope with these stresses, the
methods used by professional musicians varied greatly. During the period prior
to performance, 28% of the professionals tried to distract themselves, 38%
engaged in deep breathing, and 23% used muscle relaxation. In addition, 22%
resorted to the use of alcohol, while 12% admitted to using sedatives. Steptoe
does not indicate which sedatives were used, consequently, a correlation
cannot be drawn between this study and Fishbein 8 Middlestadt (1988) as to
the frequency of the use of beta-blockers.

Steptoe (1989) concluded by suggesting that the domains of career
stress and stage fright are not independent and that the two must be considered
together when approaching solutions for stress management. Professional
musicians are unique in this respect because their working environment (i.e.,
monotony, lack of freedom to make decisions, irregular hours, travel schedules,
and so forth), as well as the anxiety related to constant public performance
place an inordinate amount of stress upon them.

Dews and Williams (1989) also used a questionnaire approach to

determine the foremost emotional and psychological issues facing musicians

58

and their methods of coping with them. Their study included a diverse sample
of college music majors, both undergraduate and graduate, from three
universities: Southwest Texas State University, the University of Miami, and the
Manhattan School of Music. The responses that Dews and Williams received
enabled them to provide a list of the top ten issues that concerned the students
surveyed. Like Steptoe and Fidler (1987), these results reveal that many of the
stresses faced by musicians are extramusical, especially when career is

concerned. The top ten issues are as follows:

(1) stress, (2) preperformance nervousness, (3) progress impatience, (4)
burnout with musical progress, (5) job insecurity, (6) feeling conflict
between music and one's personal life, (7) inadequate practice facilities,
(8) depression, (9) stage fright, and (10) concentration. (p. 39)

Dews and Williams (1989) also highlight perfectionism as a major source
of stress in performance anxiety. Their findings are concurrent with those of
Fogle (1982) who observed that musicians often suffer from a "trying-too-hard"
effect. Fogle states that in this circumstance, anxiety can be reduced
considerably if the student is given permission to make mistakes-even to the
point of programming mistakes into the music. Dews and Williams (1989)
reported that to cope with these stresses, music students indicated that they
turned to their friends first, then to their teachers. A family member was their
third choice; and lastly, it was found that professional counseling was sought
least frequently for help in music-related problems.

To learn more about coping strategies among musicians, as well as the
nature and extent of their performance anxiety, a recent survey (Wesner, Noyes,
8 Davis, 1990) was conducted at the University of Iowa School of Music. A
questionnaire was distributed to survey the attitudes and experiences of these
musicians regarding their distress due to performance anxiety, impairment

caused by it, and treatment sought for it. The survey encompassed

59

undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty. The findings of Wesner et al.
(1990) were similar to those found in the other surveys reviewed: the most
commonly reported symptoms of anxiety were fear of performance, poor
concentration, rapid heart rate, sweating, and dry mouth. Drug and alcohol
abuse throughout the sample population was reported as minimal, and women
reported more distress and impairment than men. Age, however, contradicting
the speculations of Steptoe and Fidler (1987), was not found to be a significant
factor in this study.
Self-Report Studies

Although anxiety/arousal theories are a major focus in the sport literature,
I have discovered only two studies (Hamann, 1982; Hamann 8 Sobaje, 1983)
that have used them in a music performance context. Both articles investigated
anxiety only in terms of drive theory, and did not consider the inverted-U
hypothesis or cue utilization theory. It is perplexing that both articles cite
Martens (1971), but fail to note his rejection of drive theory in favor of the
inverted-U hypothesis or cue utilization theory. In Martens' (1974) review of
literature he further denounces drive theory and concedes that the inverted-U
hypothesis also has limitations, but is still more plausible than drive theory as
an explanation of the arousal/performance relationship. In addition, Oxendine's
(1970) research supported drive theory for gross motor activities only, not for
more complex motor tasks. Neither Hamann (1982) nor Hamann and Sobaje
(1983) cite Martens (1974) or the host of other sport-related literature that has
examined the anxiety/arousal theories.

It is somewhat disappointing that in both studies, only self-report
measures of arousal were used. Drive theory is a construct that compares
performance with corresponding levels of arousal. This being the case, I feel it

would have been beneficial to utilize more concrete and objective

60
measurements to determine levels of arousal. In addition, the self-report
measures were administered after the performance sessions. Since the
majority of research reviewed in the present survey of literature indicate that
anxiety is highest immediately before the performance, I submit that it would
have been useful to have administered the survey at that time, while the
subjects were actually feeling anxious.

The importance of Hamann (1982) and Hamann and Sobaje (1983) to
the present study are that both examined levels of experience and the training
and ability of college music students. In addition, Hamann and Sobaje (1983)
used a jury situation and a nonjury situation to measure the anxiety levels of
their subjects.

Hamann (1982) set up two performance situations that would elicit
different extremes of anxiety. In the first situation, subjects were asked to play
into a tape recorder with no audience present. The second situation, an
enhanced anxiety setting, was a contrived studio performance in which the
subjects played before an audience consisting of faculty and peers. Hamann
found that subjects with more years of formal training performed in a superior
manner under conditions of increased anxiety. He concluded from these results
that anxiety can have motivational or drive properties for some musicians. l
speculate that because the studio performance was contrived for the purpose of
the research, and the subjects were not graded, the experience may not have
produced sufficient anxiety to cause an inverted-U shaped pattern among the
experienced performers. Since there was minimal risk for the performers, drive
theory properties were enhanced.

Hamann and Sobaje (1983) was designed in a similar manner as
Hamann (1982) except that the enhanced anxiety setting was a jury situation in

which the subjects performed for university faculty who administered a grade

61
and decided whether the students should advance in the music program. The
results of the study were similar to Hamann (1982): The jury situation produced
greater state anxiety than the nonjury situation, subjects with high trait anxiety
showed higher state anxiety, performances in the jury situation were superior to
those of the nonjury situation, and the more experienced performers performed
better than the inexperienced performers in the jury situation.

Hamann and Sobaje (1983) concluded that: "Anxiety does have Drive or
motivational properties for musicians performing in anxious situations. Further,
it can be stated that subjects with greater task mastery will exhibit increased
performance ability, at a significant level, under anxious situations than will
subjects with less task mastery" (p. 48). In this statement, "task mastery" is not
defined. Task mastery could be regarded as either how well the music is
prepared (I believe this was the intended purpose) or the number of juries each
subject has performed in his or her college career. Since an inexperienced
performer could have the music prepared as well as an experienced performer
(given a relative level of proficiency), I expect that experience in playing juries
could affect the quality of performance significantly.

Multidimensional Studies

I feel that the value of questionnaire and self-report studies of anxiety are
important primarily to establish cognitive sources of anxiety. They are also
beneficial as a foundation on which to structure more elaborate research. The
importance of conducting multidimensional anxiety research in music (research
that examines both psychological and physiological aspects of anxiety) is
becoming more apparent. As identified by Lang (1978), and more recently by
Abel and Larkin (1990), Karteroliotis and Gill (1987), McLeod, Hoehn-Saric,
and Stefan (1986), and Waal-Manning, Knight, Spears, and Paulin (1986),

cognitive anxiety, physiological arousal, and behavioral signs of anxiety have

62
been found to effect individuals in different ways. Therefore, it has become
increasingly important to develop assessment strategies to examine these
distinct but interrelated areas.

Lang (1978) suggested a three-systems model of anxiety based on
behavioral, physiological, and verbal components. This model was extended
by Rachman and Hodgson (1974), and revised again by Lang, Miller, and Levin
(1988). The model, as described by Lang et al. (1988), is a product of fear
reactions, autonomic arousal, and behavioral responses to a perceived threat.
These three factors can be highly interactive (synchronous) or partially
independent (desynchronous), thereby making them capable of responding
differently under various conditions. Response synchrony, where all three
factors are highly active, generally occurs under conditions of extreme anxiety.
Response desynchrony, the more common phenomenon, will generally occur
under conditions of relatively less anxiety, and elicit a wider variety of
symptoms. For example, a performer can feel physiologically aroused without
having distressful thoughts. Conversely, a person can initiate avoidance
behavior, which was activated by negative cognitions, without experiencing
overt physiological arousal. Because of this divergence, Salmon (1990) points
out that it has not been agreed upon by psychologists if anxiety is initiated by
cognitive perception of danger, which, in turn, activates arousal and behavioral
changes, or if physiological arousal initiates anxious thoughts.

Craske and Craig (1984) provided support for the three-systems
approach. Their subjects were 40 proficient piano students who were divided
into anxious and nonanxious groups. Each performed a piece from memory in
two situations: alone with a hidden video camera, and one week later, before
an exposed video camera and a panel of five judges who were introduced to

the subject as accomplished pianists and experts in behavioral assessment.

63
The subjects were evaluated using three categories of dependent variables that
consisted of (a) a variety of cognitive self-report measures, (b) behavioral
measures of musical performance quality and a checklist of observable
indicators of anxiety, and (c) three measures of physiological arousal, including
skin conductance, heart rate, and respiration rate.

The results reported by Craske and Craig (1984) showed that the
audience situation elicited a higher level of stress and greater synchrony
among the more anxious pianists. The nonanxious performers, in contrast,
displayed a greater tendency toward desynchrony; they remained relatively
stable on self-report and behavioral measures, but showed a mean increase in
heart rate. This display of an increased heart rate, while cognitive indicators
remained unchanged, concurs with the findings of Ussher and Hardy (1985),
Gould et al. (1984), and other sport research.

A more recent study involving the psychological and physiological
concomitants of performance anxiety was conducted by Abel and Larkin (1990).
The purpose of their study was to examine the levels of physiological arousal
and self-reported anxiety prior to musical perionnance. and to examine the
relationship between self-report measures and physiological indicators of
arousal. An additional purpose, not related to the present study, was to
determine if response patterns differed between male and female musicians.
Abel and Larkin used heart rate and blood pressure as indicators of
physiological arousal, and an abbreviated version of the Spielberger et al.
(1970) State-Trait Anxiety Inventory as a self-report cognitive measure. To
obtain data, the measures were administered to 22 undergraduate music
students in two sessions. The first was a nonstress situation to obtain baseline

anxiety and arousal levels, which was conducted early in the semester. The

64
second session, in an effort to obtain optimal levels of arousal, took place
immediately before student performance juries at the semester's end.

As was expected, higher levels of physiological arousal and self-reported
anxiety appeared immediately before the juries as compared with those that
were recorded during the baseline sessions. Anxiety patterns, however,
differed between males and females. Consistent with the findings of Craske
and Craig (1984), males displayed higher blood pressures, while females
reported greater subjective anxiety. Also consistent with previous research was
that, in general, response desynchrony was recorded; heart rates and blood
pressures increased immediately before the performance, while self-reported
anxiety remained constant.

Abel and Larkin (1990) indicate that their findings may have implications
to the development and treatment of performance anxious musicians. They
suggested that musicians who reacted with increased heart rate and blood
pressure may benefit from relaxation exercises such as biofeedback or
progressive muscle relaxation (they do not mention beta-blockers, however) to
lower their physiological response. In addition, those that responded with
increases in self-reported anxiety could benefit from cognitive interventions.

Conclusion

Considerable evidence has been provided that music performance
anxiety is an extensive problem that manifests itself in cognitive, behavioral,
and physiological ways. Symptoms of anxiety can occur simultaneously in all
three of these realms (synchrony), or separately (desynchrony). It is still not
clear, however, which area causes the greatest distress, or which area shows
significant elevations of arousal or anxiety first. The majority of research in
music performance anxiety has been done on anxiety reduction instead of its

causes. As a consequence, I am concerned that we do not fully understand its

65

manifestations, and that drastic measures, such as the use of beta-blockers, are
being used in its treatment before subjects are properly diagnosed. Survey and
self-report studies have suggested that musicians are more prone to worry
about self-image and perfectionism, which makes catastrophizing a major factor
in precipitating performance anxiety. Perhaps more research involving both the
psychological and physiological aspects of music performance anxiety will give
us a clearer understanding of this problematic area.

Recent research in music has only begun to examine the multifaceted
dimensions of anxiety, and as indicated by Salmon (1990), "much of our
understanding of music performance anxiety is still derived from studies of other
individuals [from other fields] equally prone to anxiety, but perhaps for different

reasons and in different ways" (p. 9).

CHAPTER 3: PROCEDURES
Proposal

I completed the research proposal during the summer of 1991 and
submitted it to my guidance committee for review in September 1991. The
committee unanimously approved the proposal. l subsequently applied to the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) for
permission to conduct the study. After two minor revisions of the Procedures
section, UCRIHS also approved the proposal. I began collecting data in
November 1991, and finished at the end of the Winter term in March 1992.

Subjects

Forty-two students served as subjects for the research: 11 freshmen, 14
sophomores, 4 juniors, 11 seniors, and 2 graduate students. The graduate
students were so close in age to the seniors that I decided to use them to bolster
the numbers of the "experienced" group. I decided not to use the data for three
subjects in the analysis because of the medications they were using. (Criterion
for medical exclusion from the study is described later in this chapter.) Of the
remaining 39 students: (a) 27 were male and 12 were female; (b) their ages
ranged from 18 to 27 years; (c) there were 11 freshmen, 14 sophomores, 2
juniors, 10 seniors, and 2 graduates; and (d) 7 were horn players, 15 played
trumpet, 9 were trombone players, and 8 were from the tuba/euphonium studio.

Brass area music majors at Michigan State University were required to
perform two jury recitals during the school year. When these data were
collected, the university was on a three-term academic calendar", consequently,
the studio teachers decided in which two terms each student would perform.
Some of the students involved in the research performed a jury recital in both the

Fall and Winter terms, but they were only needed to serve as a subject once.

66

67
Cooperation of the four studio teachers was vitally important to the
successful collection of the data and to maintain each student's interest in the
research. Consequently, I approached the studio teachers very early in the
study to inform them of its nature and to secure their support. I kept the studio
teachers continually informed as to the progress of the data collection.
The Performance

Music for the jury was co-selected by the individual studio teachers and
their students by mid-tenn (either Fall or Winter term). The material consisted of
a solo, several etudes, and possibly some orchestral excerpts or scales and
arpeggios (assignments to prepare orchestral excerpts or scales and arpeggios
were at the studio teacher's discretion). The difficulty of the music was
representative of each student's performance ability, but selected to challenge
the student. All subjects had approximately the same time, in terms of calendar
days, to prepare for the jury. The students rehearsed the music with assistance
from their respective studio teachers.

Jury recitals were held during the first two days of final examinations
week for both Fall and Winter terms; on December 9 and 10, 1991, and on
March 16 and 17, 1992. Each student signed up during the last week of classes
of the Fall term, 1991 and/or Winter term, 1992, for a convenient performance
time.

The performances took place in a large-group rehearsal room (room
103) in the Music Practice Building (MP8). The room is used primarily for choral
rehearsals, and is constructed accordingly with tiered risers. The adjudicating
brass faculty were positioned on the second level, while the performers were on
the main floor.

Performances were 15 minutes each and were adjudicated by the four

members of the brass faculty-this panel remained constant throughout the

68
research. Each student received a grade (4.0, 3.5, 3.0, . . . 0.0) for his or her
performance, which was based on a consensus among the panel members.
This grade, considered along with other factors, became the student's term
grade (the respective studio teachers had the option to raise or lower their
student's jury grade by 0.5 if warranted). After the jury, the subjects received
comment sheets about their performance from each member of the panel. I did
not use the grade or the comment sheets as part of the research. Spectators
were not present in the performance room during the juries.
Obtaining Data

Vital Signs

I used the vital signs of blood pressure, pulse rate, and respiration rate as
measurements of physiological response to anxiety. Temperature was not used
because I thought that it would not vary enough to be an important factor in
determining physiological response. Since I am a licensed Emergency Medical
Technician, I personally obtained the vital sign readings. Blood pressures and
pulses were routinely measured from each subject's left arm so that the
assessments would remain consistent. This was done, because in most
people, blood pressures can vary as much as 10 millimeters of mercury (blood
pressures are numerically expressed in millimeters of mercury-mm Hg)
between their left and right arms.

When taking the vital signs, I assessed pulse rates and respiration rates
first. Pulses were measured by palpating the radial artery in the wrist for 15
seconds and then multiplying by 4. Pulse rates are reported in "beats per
minute." Next, I assessed respirations by watching the rise and fall ofthe
subject's chest. Respirations were also counted for 15 seconds and multiplied
by 4. Respiration rates are reported in "breaths per minute." Full inhalation
followed by a full emalation constitutes 1 breath. The average pulse rate for an

69
adult is between 60 and 80 beats per minute. The average adult respiration
rate is between 12 and 20 breaths per minute.

A person's blood pressure is simply the pressure that the blood exerts
against the walls of the arteries. Blood pressure has two components, the
systole and the diastole. These correspond to the two phases of the cardiac
cycle-the contracting (systole) and relaxing (diastole) of the ventricles of the
heart. Systolic pressure is the point of highest pressure; the period when the
ventrides are contracting. Diastolic pressure is the low pressure point, or the
period when the ventricles are relaxed. Because of the two phases, blood
pressure measurements are expressed as a fraction, the systolic pressure is the
numerator and the diastolic pressure is the denominator.

l assessed blood pressures using a stethoscope and a
sphygmomanometer (blood pressure cuff) consisting of an inflatable cuff and a
pressure gauge. Blood pressure is measured by wrapping the cuff around the
subject's upper arm and placing the stethoscope over the antacubital artery.
The cuff is then inflated until the blood flow through the brachial artery in the
upperann isstopped. Theair inthe cuff isthen slowly released. Asthe
pressure in the cuff decreases, blood will resume flowing througr the brachial
artery. At this point a thumping sound can be ascultated through the
stethoscope; this is recorded from the pressure gauge as the systolic pressure.
As the cuffdeflates further and the blood flow completely resumes, the thumping
will eventually disappear, this point is recorded as the diastolic pressure. The
normal blood pressure for an adult man is roughly between 100/60 to 140/90.
Normal blood pressure for an adult woman is approximately 10 millimeters of
mercury lower for both the systolic and diastolic pressures.

Since the systolic pressure and the diastolic pressure can fluctuate
differently between readings, I decided to calculate the mean arterial pressure,

70
which reduces the reported blood pressure fraction to one number. Using one
number to represent the blood pressure also simplified the statistical analysis.
Mean arterial pressure is "the average pressure tending to push blood through
the systemic circulatory system" (Guyton, 1981, p. 247). Although mean arterial
pressure is the average pressure throughout each cycle of the heartbeat, it is
not mathematically equal to the average of the systolic and diastolic pressures.
The mean arterial pressure is actually slightly less than that average. The
formula for computing mean arterial pressure is as follows:

[(systolic - diastolic) + 3] + diastolic = mean arterial pressure.
Assuming that the average adult blood pressure is 120/80, the average mean
arterial pressure will be 93 millimeters of mercury.

State-Trait Anxiety inventory

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, Gorusch, Lushene, Vagg,
8 Jacobs, 1983) consists of two self-report scales; one scale measures state
anxiety, and the other measures trait anxiety. Both scales consist of 20
questions each that are printed on opposite sides of a test form. The state-
anxietyportion ofthe inventoryassesseshowa person feels "right now, atthis
moment," while the trait-anxiety portion assesses how a person generally feels.
I used the state-anxiety portion of the inventory exclusively in this research, and
will be referring to only this section when "ST Al" is mentioned.

Qualities that are evaluated by the state-anxiety scale are feelings of
apprehension, tension, nervousness, and wony about a situation from me past,
the present, or an event that will occur in the future. Spielberger at al. (1983)
have found that the scale is a sensitive indicator of transitory anxiety in a wide
variety of stressful settings. When I administered the STAI dur'ng this research,
I asked the students to indicate how they were "feeling right now, at this
moment, about the upoorning jury."

7 1

Subjects responded to the STAI items by blackening the appropriate
circled number to the right of each statement that best indicated the intensity of
their feelings: (1) not at all, (2) somewhat, (3) moderately so, and (4) very much
so. Each item was assigned a weighted score of 1 to 4. Marking selection 4
(very much so) indicated the presence of a high anxiety level on 10 of the
statements. For example, on statements such as "I feel uneasy" or "I feel
agitated," a response of 4 would indicate high anxiety and receive a score of 4.
Forthe remaining 10 items, a response of 1 (not at all) indicated high anxiety
and received a weighted score of 4. Statements such as, "I feel sure of myself"
or "I am composed" would be good examples. (I devised these statements for
purposes of example only. They are similar to, but not actual statements from
the Slate-Trait Anxiety Inventory.)

To score the STAI, I added the weighted scores for the 20 items. The
scoring template that is provided with the test manual takes into amount the
reversed scores ofthe items described above. Thetotal scores can varyfrom
20, indicating extremely low anxiety, to as score of 80, which would suggest a
high level of anxiety. Spielberger at al. (1983) reports that the normative mean
score for college students is 36.47 for males, and 38.76 for females.

Heart Monitor

The Polar Vantage XL Heart Rate Monitor (Polar USA, Inc., Stamford,
CT) was used to monitor heart rates throughout the dress rehearsal situations
and during me jury recitals. The Vantage XL is the updated successor to the
CIC Heartwatch, Model 8799, which was evaluated and described in detail by
LeBIanc, Shehan Campbell, and Codding (1992). The monitor is a battery
powered, remote monitorthat operates without the use of cumbersome wires or
adhesive electrodes. Its parts consist of a sensor/transmitter, an elastic chest
band, and a wrist monitor.

72

In order to avoid confusion for the reader, I will refer to all measurements
from the heart monitor as "heart rate," while palpated pulse rates from the vital
signs assessments will always be referred to as "pulse rates." These
designations will remain consistent throughout the dissertation.

The sensor/transmitter is snapped on to the adjustable elastic chest band
that contains conductive electrodes on its inside. The chest band is wom with
the sensor/transmitter wntered on the anterior side of the chest approximately 1
to 2 inches below the pectoral muscles (breasts). The wrist monitor is
approximately the same size as a large wrist watch, and is wom in the same
fashion. It is the computer portion of the Vantage XL and can be programmed to
record a heart rate at either 05, 15, or 60 second intervals. For the purpose of
this study, 15 second intervals were used. The wrist monitor has the capability
of recording eight separate files, after which it can be downloaded to a
computer for data analysis. The computer used throughout the study forthis
purpose was a Zenith, Model 159. Precise instructions for fitting and wearing
the Vantage XL (to be referred to as the "heart monitor" in future references)
were provided for the subjects during their "familiarization" practice session
several weeks before the jury (see Appendix A).

The heart monitor was used to monitor heart rates during the
performances to determine if arousal levels dropped or if they continued to rise.
In several self-report studies from the sport literature, subjects reported lower
anxiety levels during the actual performance (Highlen 8 Bennett, 1979;
Mahoney 8 Avener, 1977; Meyers, Cooke, Cullen, 8 Liles, 1979). Utilizing the
heart monitor, I was able to determine actual levels of physiological arousal
throughout the performance. Of the studies that I reviewed that continuously

monitored arousal during the performance, the performance situations were

73
contrived especially for the research and may not have elicited adequate levels
of arousal.
Gathering Data

After the research proposal was approved by the UCRIHS in November
1991, I presented a lecture on performance anxiety at a brass master class and
explained the proposed research. At this lecture, I provided a concise written
description of the procedures for the studio teachers and for the students (see
Appendix B).

I had originally proposed to start the research during the third week of the
term but did not obtain UCRIHS approval until much later. Consequently, the
dates for the start of the research that are indicated in Appendix B (which was
part of the original proposal) are not completely accurate.

The studio teachers had provided me with a list of students who would be
performing a jury in the Fall or Winter terms. I met these potential subjects at
their lessons during the following week and asked them to participate in the
study. Interested students who volunteered signed a form agreeing to
participate in the research (see Appendix C) and completed a confidential
questionnaire concerning their present health and medications (see Appendix
D).

A medical doctor screened the questionnaires to determine each
subject's medical eligibility to participate in the study. Exclusion resulted if a
subject's vital signs were adversely affected by a medical condition or by
prescribed medications; for example, if a medication caused a significant
deviation from previous vital sign assessments. Students with the following
medical conditions, or who were taking the listed medications, were considered

for exclusion from the study:

74

1. Smokers.

2. Students whose base line vital signs were consistently abnormal (e.g.,
obese students with hypertension).

3. Anyone taking beta-blocking or anxiolytic medication, for any reason,
at any time, during the course of the study.

4. Anyone taking cold medications or antihistamines on the day of the
jury.

5. Anyone taking cardiovascular medications.

6. Anyone taking asthma medications.

7. Anyone taking medications that would directly affect the central
nervous system.

I asked the participants not to consume abnormal amounts (relative to
their usual consumption) of caffeine (coffee, tea, soft drinks, and so forth), and
to refrain from vigorous exercise for at least three hours before each
assessment of vital signs. I also asked them to abstain from alcohol for at least
12 hours before each assessment. I provided all the subjects with a handout
documenting the activities and substances they needed to avoid during the
study. This information was part of the student's copy of the agreement to
participate form (see Appendix C).

During the seventh week of each term (four weeks before the jury), I
obtained baseline vital signs (blood pressure, pulse, and respirations) and
administered the initial State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) before each
student's lesson. For the next three weeks, I monitored vital signs and
administered additional STAls once a week before each student's lesson. Each
subject wore the heart monitor in his or her lesson several weeks before the jury
for purposes of familiarization only. The data from these sessions was not used

in the research.

75

During the week before the jury, each subject's lesson was
predetermined with the brass faculty to be a dress rehearsal situation. When
applicable, the subject's accompanist was present to provide a more realistic
setting. I obtained an additional set of vital signs and an STAI immediately
before their lessons; and had the students wear the heart monitor to record
pulse rates for five minutes before, and for five minutes during theirvlessons. I
recorded an 'interrnediate time" on the computer analysis by pushing a button
on the monitor when the subjects entered their lessons and juries. Using this
'interrnediate time,‘ I was able to calculate 5 minutes before and 5 minutes
during the performances. Pulse rates were recorded by the monitor at 15
second intervals. Jury materials were rehearsed exclusively during the
monitored period.

On the day Of the jury, vital signs and STAIs were obtained at the
following times:

1. In the morning, each subject completed an STAI at home before
leaving for school. Vital signs were not assessed at this time. A few subjects
forgot to do this and were asked, when they arrived at school, to recall how they
felt at home that morning.

2. I asked the subjects to report to room 102 MP3 when they arrived at
the School of Music. Room 102 is a small classroom adjacent to the
performance room. There, they filled out a second STAI and I obtained the first
set of vital signs. I used these assessments to determine if arousal and anxious
cognitions were greater before the students wanned-up and possibly began
"task-oriented' thinking.

3. I obtained a third assessment immediately before the performance. I
asked the students to report to room 102 MP3 no later than 20 minutes before

their assigned performance time; 5 minutes to put on the heart monitor (a small

76
storage room in room 102 was used for privacy), 10 minutes to complete the
STAI, and an additional 5 minutes to obtain vital signs.

Each student's pulse rate was recorded, by way of the heart monitor for 5
minutes before, and for the entire performance. Pulse rates were recorded by
the monitor at 15 second intervals.

After the perionnance. I asked each subject to complete a questionnaire
entitled “Coping With Performance Anxiety Questionnaire“ (see Appendix E)
that asked about the methods they have used to deal with performance anxiety.
I included the results of the questionnaire in this document to provide a
comparison of the answers of the experienced versus the inexperienced
performers. At the end of the questionnaire, I asked the subjects to comment on
the events that transpired during the study and to suggest improvements that

may benefit future research.

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS

To report concisely the findings of this research, I have structured Chapter
4 to first describe how the raw data was organized, and then to define what
statistical procedures were used for the analysis. The remainder of the chapter
will be given over to conveying the results of the data analysis. This will be
accomplished by describing separately the findings for blood pressures, pulse
rates, respiration rates, and STAI scores, and then examining the interactions
between each of these variables. I have devoted the final section to presenting
the monitor readings for the dress rehearsal and jury.

Procedures

Raw Data Collection

I collected raw data for blood pressures, pulse rates, respiration rates, and
scores from the state-anxiety portion of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for each
subject throughout either the Fall or Winter term. These data were recorded on
the Individual Student Record form (see Appendix F). Data from the Polar
Vantage XL Heart Rate Monitor, recorded during the dress rehearsals and juries,
was downloaded on a Zenith, Model 159 computer and stored on two floppy
disks. I made hard cOpies of these data when the juries were completed at the
end of the winter term.

When the data collection process was completed, I compiled plain text,
free format ASCII files on a Macintosh SE computer using the Microsoft Word 4.0
word processing application. Labels for continuous and categorical variables
were constructed using the Data Editor of the SYSTAT 5.1 statistical package
(Wilkinson, 1989b). I then imported the ASCII files to the Data Editor and
arranged the cases by class (freshmen through graduates) for subsequent

analysis.

77

78

It became apparent that several cases had missing values for the vital
signs and STAI scores that were to have been gathered upon the subjects'
arrival at the School of Music on the day of the jury. For the subjects performing
their juries early in the morning, this assessment was impractical because time
did not permit two assessments before their scheduled jury. Other students
simply forgot that this assessment was to be taken. To insure a complete matrix
of values, I decided to eliminate this assessment from the list of dependent
variables. The two remaining assessments on the day of the jury are the STAI
taken at home before leaving for school, and the vital signs and STAI
immediately before the performance. I determined that eliminating this variable
would not impair the results of the study because two measurements were still
available to assess anxiety on the jury day.
Exploratory Analysls

I accomplished the exploratory data analysis by constmcting line graphs
of the raw data using SYGRAPH (Wilkinson, 1989a), which is the graphics
package of the SYSTAT program. I devised the graphs using, as dependent
variables, assessments of the subjects' of blood pressures, pulse rates, and
respiration rates (5 assessments each); ST AI scores (6 scores); heart monitor
readings for the dress rehearsal (10 readings); and heart monitor readings for
the jury (12 readings). These variables comprised the Y axes of the graphs.
The various assessments taken over time comprised the X axes. Each
dependent variable was examined for each of three samples: (a) the entire
research population, (b) the inexperienced subjects (freshmen and
sophomores), and (c) the experienced subjects (juniors, seniors, and
graduates). Throughout the analysis, I made comparisons between the
inexperienced sample and the experienced sample to determine if there were

79
significant differences between the two groups. I determined statistical
significance to be at the .05 level for all the analyses.
Statlstlcal Analysis

I began the statistical analysis by running descriptive statistics for each
dependent variable, and frequencies for the categorical variables of age,
gender, and class level. Frequencies are reported in the “Subjects“ section of
Chapter 3. Like the graphs, descriptive statistics were calculated for the total
research population, inexperienced performers (freshmen and sophomores),
and experienced performers (juniors, seniors, and graduates).

To test for significant differences between the inexperienced and
experienced samples, I ran independent samples t-tests on blood pressures,
pulse rates, respiration rates, STAI scores, and monitor readings for the dress
rehearsal and the jury. Because the number of subjects varied greatly between
the inexperienced group (n = 25) and the experienced group (n = 14), I used the
Hest formula for pooled variances.

One of the major goals of this study was to measure the changes in
anxiety and arousal occurring over time. To accomplish this, I ran a one-way
analysis of variance on repeated measures for each of the five assessments of
blood precsure, pulse, and respirations, and the six assessments of the STAI. I
also ran repeated measures on the monitor readings for the dress rehearsal
and the jury. When the repeated-measures test showed significant changes
overtime, I ran paired samples t-tests to determine those variables that showed
significant differences. A matrix of probabilities for each variable in each
category (population, inexperienced, and experienced) is included in the text.

To 'nterpret these matrices, locate a measurement in the left column to
compare with a measurement in the top row, for an example refer to Table 3. To
compare the blood pressure assessment in week 1 with the blood pressure

80
assessment of week 2, locate "Week 1" in the left column and "Week 2" in the

top row. This paired samples t-test probability is 0.54. It is beneficial to refer
often to the graph corresponding to the matrix being analyzed. The most
important cells of these matrices are those that show changes from week to
week: Week 1 with Week 2, Week 2 with Week 3, Week 3 with Dress, and
Dress with Jury. For the STAI scores the AM score must be considered: Dress
with AM, and AM with Jury is the appropriate order. For a complete set of
statistics from the paired t-test analysis, see Appendix G.

To investigate further the relationships of the data over time, trend
analyses (polynomial contrasts) were run with the ANOVAs on each set of
dependent variables. Since there were five levels of the independent variable
for the vital signs (Weeks 1-3, Dress, and Jury), six levels for the STAI scores,
and even more for the monitor readings, I was able to test for linear, quadratic,
cubic, and quartic trends in the data. These tests were run to determine
whether a trend departed significantly from the linear, and, if so, was the
relationship quadratic, cubic, or quartic. More than one trend was often
statistically significant; for instance, in the case of the ST AI scores for the
population (see Figure 12), a quartic tmnd was accompanied by a linear and a
quadratic trend. In the text, I generally reported only those trends that were
statistically sigiificant.

Another goal of this study was to determine the degree of relationship
between variables, particularly the vital signs relative to the STAI since they
were assessed at the same times. I especially wanted to determine if increases
and decreases between the variables showed a significant correlation. To
achieve this goal I ran Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients on each
assessment of blood pressure, pulse, respirations, and STAI.

81
Results for the Vital Signs and STAI

Assessments for weeks 1, 2, and 3 on the blood pressure, pulse, and
respiration graphs indicate the mean levels of physiological arousal that were
recorded before the student's lessons 4, 3, and 2 weeks respectively, prior to
the jury. The next assessment shows the mean arousal level immediately
before the dress rehearsal during the week prior to the jury. This assessment is
labeled "DRESS“ on the graphs and in the statistical analysis. The last
assessment is the level taken immediately before the jury, and is labeled
'JURY' throughout the analysis.

The levels of psychological anxiety, as depicted by the STAI graphs,
were administered at identical times as the corresponding assessments
presented on the vital signs graphs. An exception is the 'AM" score, which was
taken to indicate the level of anxiety on the day of the jury, before the subjects
left for school in the morning (no vital signs were taken at this time). Descriptive
statistics for each variable accompany their corresponding graphs.

Blood Pressures

I converted the two numbers of the blood pressure (systolic and diastolic)
to one number, the 'mean arterial pressure," to simplify the data analysis;
consequently, all the information on the graphs and in the statistical analysis is
a result of this conversion. The formula to determine mean arterial blood
pressure is found in the 'Vital Signs" section of Chapter 3. Throughout the text, I
have referred to the mean arterial blood pressure as, simply, "blood pressure.“

The blood pressure graph for the research population (see Figure 5)
shows a slight decrease over the first three assessments and then a dramatic
increase before the dress rehearsal. This is followed by another increase
before the jury. The magnitude of the blood pressure increases can also be

seen by examining the 'mean' and 'minimum' in the descriptive statistics (see

82
Table 1). For the first three assessments, the means are slightly above 86, but
before the dress rehearsal, they increase to 90.15 and then to 94.08 before the
jury. This is an increase of over 8 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). An even
more abrupt increase is seen in the 'minimum' statistics. Between the dress
rehearsal and the jury, there is an increase of 10 mm Hg.

The repeated-measures analysis determined that the blood pressure
assessments showed significant changes over time, and that there was a linear
and quadratic relationship between the assessments with the linear effect being
stronger (see Table 2). The results of the paired samples t-tests (see Table 3)
verified the findings of the repeated-measures analysis and explained the
abrupt increases in blood pressure before the dress rehearsal and jury
performance. Significance was found for all comparisons of the dress rehearsal
and jury.

The abrupt increases on the last two assessments are not surprising,
since these assessments were taken before potentially stressful situations.
What is curious, however, is the decrease in blood pressure between the first
and second readings. One explanation may be that for the first assessment the
students were not accustomed to being scrutinized by a researcher before their
lessons. The fact that the data gathering process was new to them during this
first meeting and that they had to fill out three forms, along with an assessment
of their vital signs, may have initiated the relatively slight increase in blood

pressure.

83

95 I I r i I

 

92r- _

88- -

BLOOD PRESSURE
I
l

86 l— -

 

 

 

84 l l l l l
“EEK I ”EEK 2 "EEK 3 DRESS JURV

Figure 5. Mean blood pressures of the research population.

 

Table 1

Descriptive Statlstlcs: Blood Pressures for the Research Populatlon

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
N of Cases 39 39 39 39 39
Minimum 69.00 75.00 70.00 71.00 81.00
Maximum 107.00 108.00 1 16.00 105.00 109.00
Range 38.00 33.00 46.00 34.00 28.00
Mean 86.85 86.13 86.03 90.15 94.08
Variance 66.29 53.54 68.13 57.50 53.70

S D 8.14 7.32 8.25 7.58 7.33

 

84

 

Table 2
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Blood Pressures for the Research

Populatlon

 

Within Subjects Effects

Single Degree-of-Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree S S OF M S F P
1 (linear) 1332.93 1 1332.93 35.69 0.00
Error 1419.17 38 37.35
2 (quadratic) 508.66 1 508.66 14.90 0.00
Error 1297.41 38 34.14
Test Statistics

F-Statistic = 13.29 DF = 4, 35 Probability = 0.00

 

Table 3
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: Blood Pressures for

the Research Population

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
Week 1 0.54 0.58 0.01 0.00
Week 2 0.92 0.00 0.00
Week 3 0.00 0.00
Dress 0.00
Jury

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85

The graph showing the blood pressure comparisons between the
inexperienced and experienced groups (see Figure 6) is noteworthy in that the
experienced subjects were considerably higher for all assessments. The
exception was before the jury when the inexperienced subjects were only
slightly below the experienced group. The experienced subjects showed
steady increases over time, while the inexperienced subjects displayed a
similar pattern to the population chart (see Figure 5). That is, the mean blood
pressures of the inexperienced group decreased slightly after the first reading,
and then rose rapidly before the dress rehearsal and again before the jury. This
resemblance is probably due to the greater number of subjects in the
inexperienced group (25 subjects out of a population of 39) influencing the
overall mean of the research population. The independent samples t-tests
support what is shown on the graph. Significant differences were found
between the inexperienced and experienced subjects for week 2, week 3, and

the dress rehearsal (see Table 6).

100

95

BLOOD PRESSURE

86

 

 

 

 

INEXPERIENCED SUBJECTS

l l

 

"EEK I "EEK 2

"EEK 3

DRESS

JURV

Figure 6. Mean blood pressures: A comparison between the inexperienced
and experienced subjects.

 

Table 4

Descriptive Statistics: Blood Pressures for the lnexperienced

 

Sample
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury

N of Cases 25 25 25 25 25
Minimum 69.00 75.00 70.00 71.00 81 .00
Maximum 100.00 93.00 94.00 100.00 108.00
Range 31.00 18.00 24.00 29.00 27.00
Mean 85.48 83.88 83.56 88.32 93.76
Variance 54.09 29.86 35.340 50.31 49.61
SD 7.36 5.46 5.95 7.09 7.04

 

 

87

 

 

Table 5

Descriptive Statistics: Blood Pressures for the Experienced Sample
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury

N of Cases 14 14 14 14 14

Minimum 78.00 76.00 73.00 76.00 83.00

Maximum 107.00 108.00 116.00 105.00 109.00

Range 29.00 32.00 43.00 29.00 26.00

Mean 89.29 90.14 90.43 93.43 94.64

Variance 83.91 74.29 101 .34 57.19 64.86

SD 9.16 8.62 10.07 7.56 8.05

 

88

 

Table 6

Independent Samples t-tests for Blood Pressures

Grouped by Level of Experience

 

 

 

Week 1

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 85.48 7.36
Experienced 1 4 89.29 9.16

Pooled Variances T = -1.42 DF = 37 Probability = 0.16

Week 2

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 83.88 5.46
Experienced 14 90.14 8.62

Pooled Variances T = -2.78 DF = 37 Probability = 0.01

Week 3

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 83.56 5.95
Experienced 1 4 90.43 10.07

Pooled Variances T = -2.69 DF = 37 Probability = 0.01

 

89
Table 6 (cont'd)

 

Dress Rehearsal

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 88.32 7.09
Experienced 14 93.43 7.56

Pooled Variances T = 211 DF = 37 Probability = 0.04

 

Jury

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 93.76 7.04
Experienced 14 94.64 8.05

Pooled Variances T = 036 DF = 37 Probability = 0.72

 

The repeated-measures ANOVA for the inexperienced sample shows
that there were significant changes over time, and that the data displays both a
linear and quadratic trend (see Table 7). As in the population analysis, the
linear effect is much stronger. Significant differences between the two
experience levels were found on the paired t-tests between weeks 2 and 3 with
the dress rehearsal, and all assessments with the jury performance indicating a
significant increase in blood pressure for the dress rehearsal and the jury (see
Table 8).

The statistics for the experienced subjects, however, do not show
significant changes and display only a linear trend (see Table 9). This finding is
supported by the paired t-tests, which do not show any significant differences

except between week 1 and the dress rehearsal (see Table 10).

 

Table 7

Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Blood Pressures for the lnexperienced

Sample

 

Within Subjects Effects

Single Degree-of-Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree

1 (linear)
Error

2 (quadratic)

Error

Test Statistics

S S
1102.50
821.00
655.55
787.53

F-Statistic = 18.52

DF

_L

24

—L

24

DF =4, 21

MS
1102.50
34.21
655.55
32.81

Probability = 0.00

32.23

19.98

0.00

0.00

 

Table 8

Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: Blood Pressures for

the lnexperienced Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
Week 1 0.28 0.32 0.09 0.00
Week 2 0.78 0.00 0.00
Week 3 0.00 0.00
Dress 0.00
Jury

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

91

 

Table 9
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Blood Pressures for the Experienced

Sample

 

Within Subjects Effects

Single Degree-of-Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree 8 8 OF M S F P
1 (linear) 274.40 1 274.40 6.44 0.03
Error 554.20 1 3 42.63
2 (quadratic) 11 .76 1 11 .76 0.44 0.52
Error 351.25 1 3 27.02

Test Statistics
F-Statistic = 1.50 DF = 4, 10 Probability = 0.28

 

Table 10
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: Blood Pressures for

the Experienced Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
Week 1 0.67 0.61 0.04 0.06
Week 2 0.89 0.11 0.08
Week 3 0.21 0.09
Dress 0.60
Jury

 

 

 

92

Pulse Rates

The graph of mean pulse rates for the population (see Figure 7)
demonstrates a steady increase over time. Like the blood pressure graph, there
is a dramatic increase before the dress rehearsal and another before the jury.
An interesting observation is that the first assessment of pulse rates was not
higher than the second, as was displayed with the blood pressures. The results
of the repeated-measures ANOVA shows corroboration with the graph, as the
changes over time were found to be significant. Like the blood pressure results,
the pulse rates have a very strong linear relationship, as well as a quadratic
trend (see Table 12). The paired t-tests confirm the other statistics by showing
significance on all measures with the dress rehearsal and the jury (see Table
13).

 

 

 

90 I r r r r
85 b ‘
i‘.‘
c 80 h .1
c
III
In
S 75 - ..
0.
7O "' ‘
65 r 1 r r r

 

"EEK I IIEEK 2 IIEEK 3 DRESS JURV

Figure 7. Mean pulse rates of the research population.

93

 

Table 11

Descriptive Statistics: Pulse Rates for the Research Populatlon

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury

N of Cases 39 39 39 39 39

Minimum 52.00 40.00 44.00 60.00 56.00
Maximum 88.00 1 12.00 100.00 100.00 120.00
Range 36.00 72.00 56.00 40.00 64.00
Mean 68.00 70.46 70.77 78.97 86.56
Variance 1 14.53 164.73 137.39 138.50 206.52
SD 10.70 12.84 11.72 11.77 14.37

 

Table 12
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Pulse Rates for the Research

Populatlon

 

Within Subjects Effects

Single Degree-of-Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree 8 5 DP M S F P
1 (linear) 8124.10 1 8124.10 63.66 0.00
Error 4849.50 38 127.62
2 (quadratic) 918.07 1 918.07 9.60 0.00
Error 3635.65 38 95.68
Test Statistics

F-Statistic = 16.02 DF = 4, 35 Probability = 0.00

 

94

 

Table 13
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: Pulse Rates for the

Research Populatlon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
Week 1 0.26 0.11 0.00 0.00
Week 2 0.90 0.00 0.00
Week 3 0.00 0.00
Dress 0.01
Jury

 

 

The graph showing the inexperienced/experienced comparison (see
Figure 8) is complicated by the fact that the relationships are not as simple as
with the blood pressures. In the first assessment, the experienced subjects
were higher than the inexperienced. The second and third assessments
showed no remarkable contrasts, but before the dress rehearsal, the
experienced subjects were again higher. Before the jury, however, the
inexperienced subjects were assessed above the experienced, who showed a
similar level of arousal for the dress rehearsal and jury. This reversal may be
because the inexperienced performers, many of whom were playing a jury for
the first time, did not know what to expect in the performance. The closeness of
these measures is demonstrated by the independent samples t-tests, as no

significant differences were found between the two groups (see Table 16).

95

 

 

  
  

 

 

 

90 1 r 1 1
8'5 - -
m 0
E 80 l- -
C
C
Ill
‘0
54 75 i- -
a. EXPERIENCED SUBJECTS
70 i— —i
INEXPERI EI’ICED SUBJECTS
65 l l l l
"EEK I IIEEK 2 IIEEK 3 DRESS JURV

Figure 8. Mean pulse rates: A comparison between the inexperienced and
experienced subjects.

 

Table 14

Descriptive Statistics: Pulse Rates for the lnexperienced Subjects

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury

N of Cases 25 25 25 25 25

Minimum 52.00 40.00 56.00 60.00 72.00
Maximum 80.00 112.00 100.00 100.00 120.00
Range 28.00 72.00 44.00 40.00 48.00
Mean 66.08 70.08 71.36 77.44 89.20
Variance 105.49 182.83 1 10.24 130.51 158.67
S D 10.27 13.52 10.50 11.42 12.60

 

 

Table 15

Descriptive Statistics: Pulse Rates for the Experienced Subjects

 

N of Cases
Minimum
Maximum

Range

Mean

Variance

SD

Week 1

14

52.00
88.00
36.00
71.43

120.26

10.97

Week 2

14

44.00
96.00
52.00
71.14

143.21

11.97

Week 3

14

44.00
96.00
52.00
69.71

196.22

14.01

Dress
14
60.00

100.00
40.00
81.71

151.30

12.30

Jury

14
56.00

120.00

64.00
81.86

273.52

16.54

 

97

 

Table 16

Independent Samples t-tests for Pulse Rates

Grouped by Level of Experience

 

 

 

Week 1

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 66.08 10.27
Experienced 14 71.43 10.97

Pooled Variances T = -1.52 DF = 37 Probability = 0.14

Week 2

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 70.08 13.52
Experienced 14 71.14 11.97

Pooled Variances T = 025 DF = 37 Probability = 0.81

Week 3

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 71.36 10.50
Experienced 14 69.71 14.01

Pooled Variances T = 0.42 DF = 37 Probability = 0.68

 

98
Table 16 (cont'd)

 

Dress Rehearsal

 

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 77.44 1 1 .42
Experienced 14 81.71 12.30

Pooled Variances = -1.09 DF = 37 Probability = 0.28

Jury

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 89.20 12.60
Experienced 14 81.86 16.54

Pooled Variances T = 1.56 DF = 37 Probability = 0.13

 

Repeated-measures ANOVAs for both the inexperienced and
experienced samples report significant changes in pulse rates over time. The
polynomial contrasts for the inexperienced sample shows a linear and
quadratic trend with the linear being stronger, while the experienced sample
displays only a linear trend (see Tables 17 and 19).

These findings are corroborated by the paired samples t-tests. The
inexperienced sample shows significant differences on all but two measures--
week 1 with week 2, and week 2 with week 3--thus indicating a significant
increase in pulse rate before the dress rehearsal and again before the jury (see
Table 18). In the paired t-test analysis for the experienced sample, significant
differences were found between all but one of the measures with the dress

rehearsal and the jury. The exception was the assessment between the dress

99
rehearsal and the jury where the mean pulse rates were almost identical (see

Table 20).

 

Table 17
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Pulse Rates for the lnexperienced

Sample

 

Within Subjects Effects

Single Degree-of-Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree S S OF M S F P
1 (linear) 7182.40 1 7182.40 50.49 0.00
Error 3414.40 24 142.27
2 (quadratic) 737.33 1 737.33 6.74 0.02
Error 2626.10 24 109.42
Test Statistics

F-Statistic = 13.11 DF = 4, 21 Probability = 0.00

 

100

 

Table 18

Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: Pulse Rates for the

lnexperienced Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
Week 1 0.20 0.02 0.00 0.00
Week 2 0.68 0.05 0.00
Week 3 0.02 0.00
Dress 0.00
Jury
Table 19

Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Pulse Rates for the Experienced

Sample

 

Within Subjects Effects

Single Degree-of-Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree S S DF MS F
1 (linear) 1382.86 1 1382.86 18.09
Error 993.94 1 3 76.46
2 (quadratic) 204.08 1 204.08 2.69
Error 986.20 1 3 75.86
Test Statistics

F—Statistic = 5.04 DF = 4, 10 Probability = 0.02

0.00

0.13

 

 

101

 

Table 20
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: Pulse Rates for the

Experienced Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
Week 1 0.91 0.52 0.02 0.00
Week 2 0.69 0.01 0.02
Week 3 0.01 0.00
Dress 0.98
Jury

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To summarize the data for the pulse rates, it can be noted that the
inexperienced subjects had fairly steady increases in arousal as the
performance time approached. The experienced subjects, on the other hand,
abruptly moved between a lower plateau during the first three weeks of data
collection, and then a higher plateau for the dress rehearsal and jury
performance. One of the more remarkable aspects of this data is the difference
in the range exhibited by the two samples, as represented by the bar graph in
Figure 9. The mean pulse rates for the experienced performers ranged from a
low of 71.43 to a high of 81.86, a difference of 10.43 beats per minute. The
inexperienced subjects, on the other hand, began the study with a mean pulse
rate of 66.08, and increased 23.12 beats per minute to a mean pulse rate of
89.20 immediately before the jury.

A possible explanation for the difference in arousal patterns between the

two samples may be that the experienced subjects did not perceive the

1 02
approaching jury performance as being threatening and consequently did not
exhibit increased arousal for the first three assessments. The increase in pulse
rates for the experienced performers at the dress rehearsal and jury may be
explained as the natural 'psyching-up" process, as described by Weinberg,
Gould, and Jackson (1980), needed to prepare for the performance. The
inexperienced performers, however, may have continued to ruminate about the
approaching jury performance, thereby increasing their pulse rates at each

assessment.

 

75-

PULSE RRTE

 

70-

 

 

 

65 ,. . I. . a. l
I NEXPER l ENCED EXPER I ENCED

 

Figure 9. A comparison of the range of pulse rates between the
inexperienced and experienced subjects.

Respiration Rates

The assessments of respiration rates (see Figure 10) appear to show
dramatic changes, but upon closer inspection, the reader will find that the range
of mean levels is between 13 and 16 breaths per minute-all within the “normal"
range for an average adult. Even within this small scale, however, increased

respiration rates were assessed before the dress rehearsal and again before

1 03
the jury, with the respiration rates at the time of the jury performance being
higher than those recorded at any other time in the study. Since a goal of this
study was to measure changes in arousal and anxiety over time, these
increases were considered to be important and were corroborated by the
repeated-measures ANOVA, which demonstrated that the changes were
significant. The polynomial contrasts showed that these data have both a linear
and a quadratic relationship (see Table 22). In the paired samples t-tests, all
but one of the significant differences are found with the jury situation. This
indicates that the largest increase in respiration rates took place before the jury
(see Table 23). This finding supports the other analyses of respiration rates for

the research population.

 

 

 

‘7 I I r r 1
IO *- '—
Ill
5
=15 - —
G
l-
c
514 - -
a.
9
I3 " "‘
'2 1 r r J r

 

IIEEK I "EEK 2 “EEK 3 DRESS JURV

Figure 10. Mean respiration rates of the research population.

 

Table 21

Descriptive Statistics: Respiration Rates for the Research

 

 

Popu lati on

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
N of Cases 39 39 39 39 39
Minimum 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Maximum 20.00 20.00 16.00 20.00 28.00
Range 8.00 8.00 4.00 8.00 16.00
Mean 13.54 13.64 13.44 14.46 15.80
Variance 6.41 5.66 3.78 7.26 14.27
S D 2.53 2.38 1.94 2.69 3.78
Table 22

Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Respiration Rates for the Research

Populatlon

 

Within Subjects Effects

Single Degree-of-Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree 8 S DF M S F P
1 (linear) 110.93 1 110.93 16.40 0.00
Error 257.07 38 6.77
2 (quadratic) 37.98 1 37.98 6.17 0.02
Error 234.02 38 6.16
Test Statistics
F-Statistic = 4.33 DF = 4, 35 Probability = 0.01

105

 

Table 23

Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: Respiration Rates for

the Research Populatlon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
Week 1 0.82 0.82 0.08 0.00
Week 2 0.66 0.17 0.00
Week 3 0.05 0.00
Dress 0.06
Jury

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The inexperienced/experienced comparison graph (see Figure 11)
shows a rather close relationship between the two groups. The independent
samples t-tests confirm what is seen on the graph by demonstrating that the

differences between the two samples is not significant (see Table 26).

106

 

  
 

 

 

'7 I I I I I

16 — -
I“
j.
c
I

— —i

g '5 EXPERIENCED SUBJECTS
;
C
E 14 - —
R-
Q

13 — _

INEXPERIENCED SUBJECTS
'2 I l l l J

 

IIEEK I IIEEK 2 "EEK 3 DRESS JURV

Figure 11. Mean respiration rates: A comparison between the inexperienced
and experienced subjects.

 

Table 24
Descriptive Statistics: Respiration Rates for the lnexperienced
Subjects

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
N of Cases 25 25 25 25 25
Minimum 12.00 12.000 12.000 12.00 12.00
Maximum 16.00 20.00 16.000 20.00 28.00
Range 4.00 8.00 4.000 8.00 16.00
Mean 13.44 13.76 13.440 14.72 16.32
Variance 3.84 5.44 3.840 7.63 14.56

S D 1.96 2.33 1.960 2.76 3.82

 

107

 

Table 25
Descriptive Statistics: Respiration Rates for the Experienced
Subjects

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
N of Cases 14 14 14 14 14
Minimum 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
Maximum 20.00 20.00 16.00 20.00 24.00
Range 8.00 8.00 4.00 8.00 12.00
Mean 13.71 13.43 13.43 14.00 14.86
Variance 11.60 6.42 3.96 6.77 13.36

S D 3.41 2.53 1.99 2.60 3.66

 

108

 

Table 26

Independent Samples t-tests for Respiration Rates

Grouped by Level of Experience

 

 

 

Week 1

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 13.44 1.96
Experienced 14 13.71 3.41

Pooled Variances T = 032 DF = 37 Probability = 0.75

Week 2

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 13.76 2.33
Experienced 14 13.43 2.53

Pooled Variances T = 0.41 DF = 37 Probability = 0.68

Week 3

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 13.44 1.96
Experienced 14 13.43 1.99

Pooled Variances T = 0.02 DF = 37 Probability = 0.99

 

1 09
Table 26 (cont'd)

 

Dress Rehearsal

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 14.72 2.76
Experienced 14 14.00 2.60

Pooled Variances T = 0.80 DF = 37 Probability = 0.43

 

Jury

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 16.32 3.82
Experienced 14 14.86 3.66

Pooled Variances T = 1.17 DF = 37 Probability = 0.25

 

As observed over time, both the inexperienced and experienced
performers displayed increased respiration rates before the dress rehearsal
and the jury. For the inexperienced subjects, this increase is confirmed by the
repeated-measures ANOVA that shows significant changes, and that the
assessments have both a linear and a quadratic relationship (see Table 27).
The paired samples t—tests show these significant changes occurring between
all assessments with the jury performance (see Table 28). An exception is
between the dress rehearsal and the jury where a significant difference is not
found.

Conversely, for the experienced sample, neither the repeated-measures
ANOVA nor the polynomial contrasts show significance (see Table 29). This
finding is supported by the paired i-tests, which show significance only between
week 2 and the jury (see Table 30).

110

 

Table 27
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Respiration Rates for the

lnexperienced Sample

 

Within Subjects Effects

Single Degree-of-Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree S S OF M S F P
1 (linear) 112.90 1 112.90 17.38 0.00
Error 155.90 24 6.50
2 (quadratic) 30.90 1 30.90 4.24 0.05
Error 174.81 24 7.28
Test Statistics

F-Statistic = 3.89 DF = 4, 21 Probability = 0.02

 

Table 28
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: Respiration Rates for

the lnexperienced Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress JULY
Week 1 0.57 1.00 0.06 0.00
Week 2 0.60 0.27 0.00
Week 3 0.07 0.00
Dress 0.12
Jury

 

 

111

 

Table 29
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Respiration Rates for the Experienced

Sample

 

Within Subjects Effects

Single Degree-of-Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree S 8 OF M S F P
1 (linear) 11.43 1 11.43 1.69 0.22
Error 87.77 1 3 6.75
2 (quadratic) 8.16 1 8.16 1.83 0.20
Error 58.12 1 3 4.47
Test Statistics

F-Statistic = 1.00 DF = 4, 10 Probability = 0.45

 

Table 30
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: Respiration Rates for

the Experienced Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
Week 1 0.72 0.75 0.75 0.30
Week 2 1.00 0.43 0.05
Week 3 0.43 0.14
Dress 0.34
Jury

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 12
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
To begin studying the results of the STAI, I first ran a reliability analysis
on the raw scores of the 20-item state-anxiety portion of the STAI. The Alpha
Coefficients of this analysis are reported in Table 31. The values for
Cronbach's Alpha are at, or above, .95 for each of the six administrations of the
STAI. This value is quite large, indicating that the test was very reliable for this

particular population.

 

Table 31
Reliability Analysis for the STAI Responses

 

Week 1

Scale Statistics Mean Variance Standard Deviation Alpha
39.82 177.73 13.33 .95

Week 2

Scale Statistics Mean Variance Standard Deviation Alpha

41.73 161.88 12.72 .96
Week 3
Scale Statistics Mean Variance Standard Deviation Alpha
37.90 137.04 11.71 .95
Dress 1

Scale Statistics Mean Variance Standard Deviation Alpha
42.49 150.20 12.56 .95

 

1 13
Table 31 (cont'd)

 

AM

Scale Statistics Mean Variance Standard Deviation Alpha
46.41 178.56 13.36 .95

Jury

Scale Statistics Mean Variance Standard Deviation Alpha
46.38 177.93 13.34 .96

 

The pattern of the population data for the STAI (see Figure 12) showed
some unusual fluctuations in the first three weeks of the study. The subjects
reported their anxiety levels to be higher during the second week than during
the first, while the third assessment showed the lowest self-reported anxiety of
the study. It is difficult to speculate why the self-reported anxiety was so low
during the third week. One explanation may be that the students were
experiencing a rising level of self-confidence toward the performance as they
began to perfect their jury materials.

As with the physiological measures, the assessment before the dress
rehearsal was higher than the levels during the first three weeks of the study.
The students assessed their anxiety to be the highest on the morning of the jury,
followed by a decline immediately before the perionnance. This pattern
coincides with other research that suggests that individuals may experience
lower levels of anxiety immediately before a performance due to task-oriented
thinking (Epstein & Fenz, 1965; Fenz, 1975).

The repeated-measures analysis confirmed that the STAI data showed
significant changes over time, and the polynomial contrasts determined that the

data had linear, quadratic and quartic relationships (see Table 33). The paired

114
samples t-tests for the STAI (see Table 34) showed significance differences
between the scores from week 3 and the dress rehearsal, between all
measures and the AM score, and between all measures except the AM score

with the jury.

 

50 I 1 fl I i r

A
UI
l
l

STR I SCORES

A
O
r
r

 

 

35 l 1 l l l l
"EEK I “EEK 2 "EEK 3 DRESS RN JURV

 

Figure 12. Mean STAI scores of the research population.

115

 

Table 32

Descriptive Statistics: STAI Scores for the Research Populatlon

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress AM Jury

N of Cases 39 39 39 39 39 39

Minimum 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00
Maximum 67.00 68.00 58.00 67.00 76.00 69.00
Range 47.00 48.00 38.00 47.00 56.00 49.00
Mean 39.80 41 .77 37.82 42.44 46.59 46.33
Variance 177.96 163.13 136.47 148.04 191.78 176.23
SD 13.34 12.77 11.68 12.17 13.85 13.28

 

116

 

Table 33
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: STAI Scores for the Research

Populatlon

 

Within Subjects Effects

Single Degree-of-Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree S S OF M S F P

1 (linear) 1493.17 1 1493.17 17.87 0.00
Error 3175.13 38 83.56

2 (quadratic) 209.78 1 209.78 5.50 0.02
Error 1449.07 38 38.13

3 (cubic) 82.50 1 82.50 3.21 0.08
Error 977.90 38 25.73

4 (quartic) 473.41 1 473.41 14.13 0.00
Error 1273.41 38 33.51

Test Statistics

F-Statistic = 7.62 DF = 5, 34 Probability = 0.00

 

117

 

Table 34
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: STAI Scores for the

Research Populatlon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress AM Jury
Week 1 0.22 0.18 0.17 0.00 0.00
Week 2 0.02 0.65 0.00 0.01
Week 3 0.01 0.00 0.00
Dress 0.01 0.00
AM 0.81
Jury

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The inexperienced/experienced comparison graph for the STAI (see
Figure 13) is interesting because the inexperienced subjects reported
considerably higher levels of anxiety throughout the study. The graph is
supported by the independent samples t-tests, which determined that there
were significant differences between the two samples on all measures (see
Table 37). These assessments of self-reported anxiety present different results
from some of the physiological measures where the patterns were less obvious.
The overwhelming difference between the two samples in self-reported anxiety
may again be due to the fact that the inexperienced performers did not know
what to expect in the jury and therefore reported higher anxiety levels. Another
reason, although somewhat related to the first, may be that the experienced
subjects were highly confident about the jury, or no longer perceived it as being

threatening.

1 18

The inexperienced subjects reported their highest levels of anxiety in the
morning before leaving for school on the day of the jury, and then a slight
decrease immediately before the perionnance. The experienced subjects, in
contrast, reported a steady increase in anxiety beginning with the third
assessment (the week before the dress rehearsal) and continuing through the
jury. This finding is different from other literature that suggests that it is the
experienced subjects who will generally show a decrease in anxiety

immediately before a performance (Fenz, 1975).

 

   

60 1 I I 1 r 1
SO __ INEXPERIENCED SUBJECTS _
i
8 40 r _
E
.-
(0
3O - _
EXPERIENCED SUBJECTS
20 1 1 l I 1 1

 

 

 

IIEEK I IIEEK 2 IIEEK 3 DRESS RN JURV

Figure 13. Mean STAI scores: A comparison between the inexperienced and
experienced subjects.

119

 

Table 35

Descriptive Statistics: STAI Scores for the lnexperienced Subjects

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress AM Jury

N of Cases 25 25 25 25 25 25

Minimum 23.00 25.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00
Maxim um 67.00 68.00 58.00 67.00 76.00 69.00
Range 44.00 43.00 38.00 47.00 56.00 49.00
Mean 45.40 46.76 41.52 46.84 52.16 50.40
Variance 156.25 136.1 1 125.76 115.81 161 .06 165.17
SD 12.50 11.67 11.21 10.76 12.69 12.85

 

Table 36
Descriptive Statistics: STAI Scores for the Experienced Subjects

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress AM Jury
N of Cases 14 14 14 14 14 14
Minimum 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 21.00 20.00
Maximum 44.00 55.00 49.00 53.00 49.00 53.00

Range 24.00 35.00 29.00 33.00 28.00 33.00
Mean 29.79 32.86 31 .21 34.57 36.64 39.07
Variance 63.41 92.13 93.41 115.03 97.02 121 .61

SD 7.96 9.60 9.67 10.73 9.85 1 1 .03

 

120

 

Table 37

Independent Samples t-tests for STAI Scores

Grouped by Level of Experience

 

 

 

Week 1

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 45.40 12.50
Experienced 1 4 29.79 7.96

Pooled Variances T = 4.20 DF = 37 Probability = 0.00

Week 2

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 46.76 1 1 .67
Experienced 14 32.86 9.60

Pooled Variances T = 3.79 DF = 37 Probability = 0.00

Week 3

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 41 .52 1 1.21
Experienced 14 31.21 9.67

Pooled Variances T = 2.89 DF = 37 Probability = 0.00

 

Table 37 (cont'd)

121

 

Dress Rehearsal

 

 

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 46.84 10.76
Experienced 1 4 34.57 10.73

Pooled Variances T = 3.42 DF = 37 Probability = 0.00

Morning of the Jury

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 52.16 12.69
Experienced 1 4 36.64 9.85

Pooled Variances T = 3.95 DF = 37 Probability = 0.00

Jury

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 50.40 12.85
Experienced 14 39.07 1 1 .03

Pooled Variances T = 2.77 DF = 37 Probability = 0.01

 

The inexperienced sample data exhibits significant changes over time,

as shown by the repeated-measures ANOVA (see Table 38). In addition, the

polynomial contrasts show that the erratic nature of this data pattern displays

four levels of relationships, linear, quadratic, cubic, and quartic, with the quartic

being the strongest effect. The paired samples t-tests show significant

differences most consistently with the AM score (see Table 39). This finding

1 22
reflects that the AM score was the peak level of anxiety for the inexperienced
sample.

The repeated-measures ANOVA for the experienced sample also shows
significant changes over time, however, the polynomial contrasts show only a
linear trend (see Table 40). Statistically significant differences on the paired
t-tests (see Table 41) are congregated mainly with the dress rehearsal, AM, and
jury scores, thus suggesting the higher scores reported by the subjects during

theses stress-provoking situations.

 

Table 38
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: STAI Scores for the lnexperienced

Sample

 

Within Subjects Effects

Single Degree-of—Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree S 8 OF M S F P

1 (linear) 772.90 1 772.90 7.51 0.01
Error 2469.92 24 102.91

2 (quadratic) 21 1.22 1 211.22 4.09 0.05
Error 1239.95 24 51 .66

3 (cubic) 161.31 1 161.31 4.70 0.04
Error 823.59 24 34.32

4 (quartic) 524.62 1 524.62 13.31 0.00
Error 945.88 24 39.41

Test Statistics

F-Statistic = 4.96 DF = 5, 20 Probability = 0.00

 

123

 

Table 39
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: STAI Scores for the

lnexperienced Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress AM Jury
Week 1 0.58 0.06 0.60 0.01 0.06
Week 2 0.03 0.97 0.03 0.16
Week 3 0.04 0.00 0.00
Dress 0.02 0.07
AM 0.24
Jury
Table 40

Repeated-Measures ANOVA: STAI Scores for the Experienced

Sample

 

Within Subjects Effects
Single Degree-of-Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree S S DF M S F P
1 (linear) 747.69 1 747.69 14.34 0.00
Error 677.80 13 52.14
2 (quadratic) 22.59 1 22.59 1 .59 0.23
Error 185.09 13 14.24
Test Statistics

F-Statistic = 4.02 DF = 5, 9 Probability = 0.03

124

 

Table 41
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: STAI Scores for the

Experienced Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress AM Jury
Week 1 0.03 0.37 0.04 0.01 0.00
Week 2 0.35 0.39 0.04 0.01
Week 3 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dress 0.10 0.01
AM 0.07
Jury

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Comparison of the Vital Signs and the STAI

Using the same dependent variables of blood pressure, pulse,
respirations, and STAI, l constructed line graphs with all four variables on each
graph to examine visually the interaction of the patterns of change over time. In
addition, I ran Pearson correlations to determine if there were statistically
significant relationships among the four variables. Separate analyses were
performed for the categorical samples of the entire research population, the
inexperienced subjects, and the experienced subjects.

As in the previous graphs, the assessments for weeks 1, 2, and 3
represent the levels recorded before student lessons, 4, 3, and 2 weeks
respectively, prior to the jury. The next assessment is the level before the dress
rehearsal. 'AM" indicates the STAI scores in the moming of the jury day before

the subjects left for school. No vital signs were taken at this time, so they are not

1 25
displayed on the graph. The last assessment represents the levels immediately
before the jury. Each assessment indicates the mean levels for each variable in
each sample. As an aid to identifying the abbreviations on the graphs, 'BP"
indicates mean arterial blood pressure, 'P" is pulse rate, 'R" is respiration rate,
and 'SA" indicates state anxiety or the scores on the STAI.

When interpreting these line graphs, the reader must be aware that the
four variables are not scaled identically. The approximate range of blood
pressures in the average adult is 90/50 to 140/90 millimeters of mercury--
120/80 being "normal." The average range for mean arterial pressure, then,
computes to between 63 and 107, with 93 being “normal." Average adult pulse
rates range from 60 to 80 beats per minute, and average respiration rates are
between 12 to 20 breaths per minute. The possible range of STAI scores is
from 0 to 80. Because the Y axis on each line graph is scaled from 0 to 100 to
accommodate each scale, the individual lines do not show the dramatic
changes that the previous sets of graphs do.

The graph for the total population (see Figure 14) depicts the pulse rates
as showing the greatest increase over time, with blood pressures showing a
similar rise for the last three assessments. The STAI scores, on the other hand,
fluctuate over time and peak in the morning on the day of the jury. Respiration
rates also show a steady but gentle rise throughout the study.

Using blood pressures as constants, the Pearson correlations show
significance between blood pressures and pulse rates, and blood pressures
and respiration rates in week 1; blood pressures and respiration rates, and
blood pressures and the STAI in week 2; and blood pressures and pulse rates
before the jury. By using pulse rates as constants, significance was found
between pulse rates and respiration rates in week 1 and 3, and also before the

jury (see Table 42).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'00 I I I I I I
80 -
A
P G \J
.1 60 F
g
III I r
.I i
40 - 58 M
20 _
{—1 m
a El ._. a ._1 El
0 l l l l l l
"EEK I IIEEK 2 IIEEK 3 DRESS Rl‘l JURV

Figure 14. A comparison of vital signs and STAI scores for the research
population.

127

 

 

Table 42

Pearson Correlations for the Research Populatlon

 

 

Correlations using Blood Pressures as Constants

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
BP/P 0.38 0.10 0.18 0.10 0.33
BP/R 0.43 0.31 0.04 0.08 0.26
BP/SA -0.15 -0.34 -0.23 -0.24 0.02

 

Chart of Probabilities using Blood Pressures as Constants

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
BP/P 0.02 0.53 0.28 0.54 0.04
BP/R 0.01 0.05 0.79 0.61 0.11
BP/SA 0.38 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.89

 

Correlations using Pulse Rates as Constants

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
P/R 0.39 0.13 0.32 0.27 0.36
PISA -0.20 0.17 -0.15 -0.20 0.13

 

Chart of Probabilities using Pulse Rates as Constants

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
P/R 0.02 0.44 0.05 0.10 0.03
PISA 0.23 0.31 0.37 0.23 0.44

 

1 28
Table 42 (cont'd)

 

 

Correlations using Respiration Rates as Constants

 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
R 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
SA -0.19 0.01 -0.03 -0.10 -0.10
Chart of Probabilities using Respiration Rates as Constants
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
R 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
SA 0.24 0.94 0.88 0.55 0.56

 

 

The graph for the inexperienced subjects (see Figure 15) is virtually
identical to the patterns in the population graph. This is again due to the greater
number of subjects in the inexperienced group (25 of 39 total) influencing the

population means. Although the visual patterns on the graph appear to be

similar, the Pearson correlations show significance for only one pair of

assessments--respiration rate with STAI scores for week 1. Most likely this is so
because the inexperienced sample generally shows smaller variances and
standard deviations on the vital signs and STAI scores, and hence, is more
homogeneous than the total population. Because of the greater homogeneity in

the inexperienced sample, the correlation coefficient is decreased and the

probabilities are not statistically significant.

129
'00 I I I I I I

 

BP

LEUEL
I

III

3
I

 

 

 

 

 

4O

20 - -l
B I} 1.: E ._.

O J I I I I I
”EEK I "EEK 2 IIEEK 3 DRESS Rll JURV

Figure 15. A comparison of vital signs and STAI scores for the inexperienced
subjects.

130

 

 

Table 43

Pearson Correlations for the lnexperienced Sample

 

 

Correlations using Blood Pressures as Constants

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
BP/P 0.34 -0.14 0.17 0.04 0.32
BP/R 0.24 0.16 -0.19 0.10 0.18
BP/SA 0.05 -0.07 -0.29 -0.25 0.08

 

Chart of Probabilities using Blood Pressures as Constants

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
BP/P 0.10 0.51 0.41 0.86 0.12
BP/R 0.25 0.44 0.37 0.64 0.40
BP/SA 0.81 0.75 0.16 0.22 0.69

 

Correlations using Pulse Rates as Constants

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
PIR 0.24 0.07 0.24 0.15 0.20
PISA -0.17 0.25 -0.31 0.08 0.07

 

Chart of Probabilities using Pulse Rates as Constants

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
P/R 0.24 0.74 0.25 0.49 0.34
PISA 0.41 0.24 0.13 0.71 0.74

 

1 31
Table 43 (cont'd)

 

 

Correlations using Respiration Rates as Constants
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
R/SA -0.41 -0.07 0.24 -0.02 -0.05

 

Chart of Probabilities using Respiration Rates as Constants
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
R/SA 0.04 0.74 0.25 0.93 0.82

 

 

The experienced subjects' graph (see Figure 16) shows the most abrupt
change to be the pulse rates. Blood pressures show a steady rise throughout
the study, while the STAI scores fluctuate slightly over the first three
assessments and rise steadily afterwards. Respiration rates show a similar rise
after the first three assessments. The Pearson correlations determined
statistical significance for eight pairs of variables (see Table 44). Using blood
pressures as constants, significance was found between blood pressures and
respiration rates in weeks 1 and 2. With pulse rates used as constants,
significance was found between pulse rates and respiration rates for week 1,
before the dress rehearsal, and before the jury. Significance was found
between respiration rates and STAI scores for week 3, before the dress
rehearsal, and before the jury.

By visually comparing the inexperienced and the experienced graphs
(see Figures 15 and 16), it is evident that the STAI scores for the experienced
sample are considerably lower relative to the blood pressures and respiration
rates. I find this difference interesting, and offer several possible reasons for

this occurrence. First is that the experienced subjects may actually have been

132
encountering less cognitive anxiety than the inexperienced subjects because of
their previous involvement with performing jury recitals. A second reason, and
probably just as viable, may be that the inexperienced subjects were more
consciously aware of their elevated levels of physiological arousal and
consequently reported higher cognitive anxiety.

A third possibility may be that the experienced subjects were feeling
considerable cognitive anxiety but denied it due to ego involvement. This
explanation raises some intriguing research questions when considering the
studies comparing gender differences and ego involvement (Abel & Larkin,
1990; Craske & Craig, 1984; Jones & Cale, 1989; Steptoe, 1989). These
studies found that males generally reported lower levels of cognitive anxiety
than did females. Since there is a lower percentage of females in the
experienced sample, the STAI scores may have been influenced by the male
scores. The possibility exists, however, that the majority of experienced
performers in this study (not just the males) may have reported lower levels of

anxiety because of ego involvement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'00 1 I I I I ‘i
39 '_.—«—I-———I-"""""
80 - {D -
P 0 e
60 - -
9‘
III
.I
40 - -
SR
20 - q
['1
n I} 1;) g u D
O I I I l l I
“EEK I "EEK 2 IIEEK 3 DRESS RII JURV

Figure 16. A comparison of vital signs and STAI scores for the experienced
subjects.

134

 

 

Table 44

Pearson Correlations for the Experienced Sample

 

Correlations using Blood Pressures as Constants

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
BPIP 0.38 0.42 0.27 0.06 0.41
BP/R 0.59 0.61 0.31 0.20 0.46
BP/SA -0.18 -0.31 0.19 0.16 «0.01

 

Chart of Probabilities using Blood Pressures as Constants

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
BPIP 0.21 0.14 0.35 0.83 0.15
BP/R 0.03 0.02 0.29 0.49 0.10
BP/SA 0.53 0.29 0.51 0.58 0.98

 

Correlations using Pulse Rates as Constants

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
PIR 0.56 0.25 0.44 0.58 0.53
PISA 0.19 0.16 -0.02 -0.49 -0.04

 

Chart of Probabilities using Pulse Rates as Constants

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
PIR 0.04 0.40 0.12 0.03 0.05
PISA 0.52 0.59 0.94 0.08 0.89

 

1 35
Table 44 (cont'd)

 

 

Correlations using Respiration Rates as Constants
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
RISA 0.08 0.06 -0.59 -0.52 -0.53

 

Chart of Probabilities using Respiration Rates as Constants
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Dress Jury
RISA 0.78 0.84 0.03 0.05 0.05

 

 

Exploratory Analysis: Heart Monitor

To complete the exploratory analysis, I constructed several line graphs
using the heart monitor readings for the dress rehearsal and the jury. Again, I
used the categorical variables of population, inexperienced, and experienced
for these graphs.

Readings were taken for five minutes before, and for five minutes during
the dress rehearsal. On the day of the jury, I began the readings five minutes
before each performance and continued monitoring each subject throughout
the performance. Because some students finished the jury earlier than others, a
full table of values for every subject was only available for 7 minutes of the
allotted 15 minute performance time.

I programmed the monitor to record each subject's heart rate at 15
second intervals, and then calculated the mean heart rate for each reading in
each categorical variable (entire research population, inexperienced sample,
and experienced sample). I subsequently combined these 15-second readings

into groups of four and computed the mean of each group. These 'one—minute

1 36
means" helped establish clarity in the graphs and provided the proper matrix for
running an analysis of variance on repeated measures in the statistical
analysis. When reading the heart monitor graphs, it must be noted that the grid
marks on the graphs represent 1 minute intervals. I have inserted vertical lines
at 5 minute intervals for ease of interpretation. As with the previous graphs, a
corresponding table of descriptive statistics will accompany each figure.
Monitor Readings: Dress Rehearsal

The heart rate monitor readings of the dress rehearsal for the research
population display a relatively jagged pattern that shows a dramatic increase at
the start of the rehearsal compared to the five minute period before the
rehearsal began (see Figure 17). This uneven heart rate pattern may be due to
the starting and stopping in a rehearsal situation where the performer is allowed
to relax momentarily for comments by the instructor.

The repeated-measures analysis determined that there were significant
changes over time (see Table 46). The paired samples t-tests showed that the
majority of statistically significant differences occurred on readings 6 and 7 (see
Table 47). Relative to the graph, reading 6 is the largest upward leap, while

reading 7 is the highest recorded heart rate.

137

 

96 I I I I I I I I I

953 -

93 f- BEFORE

92 '-

RERRT RRTE

90| -

B9l —

 

 

88 l l l l l l l l l

 

 

I 2 13 4 £5 6 '7 II 9 IO
NONITOR RERDINGS RT I NINUTE INTERURLS

Figure 17. Heart monitor readings of the research population taken at the
dress rehearsal.

138

 

Table 45
Descriptive Statistics: Monltor Readings of the Dress Rehearsal for

the Research Populatlon

 

 

Readl 119 1 2 3 4 5

N of Cases 39 39 39 39 39

Minimum 65.50 63.75 65.00 64.25 62.75
Maximum 1 18.25 11 1.25 105.25 1 15.50 123.25
Range 52.75 47.50 40.25 51 .25 60.50
Mean 89.37 90.28 88.42 90.47 89.53
Variance 113.93 104.50 113.01 159.64 163.13
SD 10.67 10.22 10.63 12.64 12.77
Read I ng 6 7 8 9 1 0

N of Cases 39 39 39 39 39

Minimum 71.75 71.50 61.50 67.75 63.50
Maximum 121 .75 130.00 1 17.00 125.25 125.75
Range 50.00 58.50 55.50 57.50 62.25
Mean 93.13 ~ 95.37 92.26 93.63 92.50
Variance 1 19.05 175.75 182.15 177.56 221 .55
SD 10.91 13.26 13.50 13.33 14.88

 

139

 

Table 46
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Monitor Readings of the Dress

Rehearsal for the Research Populatlon

 

Test Statistics

F-Statistic = 2.25 DF = 9, 30 Probability = 0.05

 

Table 47
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: Monitor Readings of

the Dress Rehearsal for the Research Population

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 0
I 0.47 0.53 0.52 0.92 0.02 0.00 0.17 0.04 0.14
2 0.10 0.91 0.66 0.10 0.02 0.36 0.08 0.29
3 0.11 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.05
4 0.46 0.10 0.02 0.35 0.10 0.32
5 0.04 0.01 0.16 0.04 0.15
6 0.05 0.67 0.79 0.76
7 0.13 0.41 0.24
8 0.24 0.89
9 0.29
I 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 40

The monitor readings of the dress rehearsal comparing the
inexperienced and experienced subjects (see Figure 18) shows the
experienced group as having higher mean arousal levels except for the 6th and
7th measurements. During this two-minute period, which was the start of the
dress rehearsal, the mean heart rates of the inexperienced performers
accelerated rapidly and surpassed the experienced group. The fact that the
monitor readings showed the inexperienced subjects as having lower heart
rates than the experienced subjects before the dress rehearsal, is corroborated
by the palpated pulse rates assessed at the same time (see Figure 8). l
speculate that this dramatic rise in heart rates for the inexperienced subjects
could again be explained by their cognitive uncertainty, as demonstrated by
their higher STAI scores (see Figure 9).

Another interesting aspect of Figure 18 is that the experienced subjects
show a steadier heart rate than the inexperienced. After a low point during the
third minute of readings, the experienced subjects display a slow but steady
increase in heart rate until their peak, four minutes into the dress rehearsal.
Conversely, the inexperienced subjects display abrupt peaks and valleys
throughout the monitored period.

Although there are visible differences between the inexperienced sample
and the experienced sample on the graphs, the independent samples t-tests did
not reveal statistically significant differences between the two groups on any of
the readings (see Table 50). In addition, the repeated-measures ANOVAs for
the inexperienced and experienced samples showed no significant changes
over time (see Tables 51 and 53). As with the paired samples t-test analysis for
the research population, all of the significant differences for the inexperienced

sample, save one, are found in readings 6 and 7 (see Table 52). Paired

141

samples t-tests for the experienced group (see Table 54) show only two

significant differences, both with reading 9, which is the peak of their graph.

IOO

HERRT RRTE
0
UI

Figure 18. Heart monitor readings taken at the dress rehearsal: A
comparison between the inexperienced and experienced subjects.

 

 

 

I I

 

 

BEFORE nunrne
EXPERIENCED SUBJECTS
INEXPERIENCED SUBJECTS
I I I I I I l l I
1 2 3 «4 :5 o 7 8 <9 10

RONITOR RERDINGS RT I NINUTE INTERURLS

 

Table 48

Descriptive Statistics: Monitor Readings of the Dress Rehearsal for

the lnexperienced Subjects

 

 

Reading 1 2 3 4 5

N of Cases 25 25 25 25 25

Minimum 65.50 63.75 65.00 64.25 62.75
Maximum 118.25 111.25 105.25 114.50 111.75
Range 52.75 47.50 40.25 50.25 49.00
Mean 87.95 89.61 88.10 90.08 88.06
Variance 147.30 106.97 130.12 187.66 180.15
SD 12.14 10.34 11.41 13.70 13.42
Reading 6 7 8 9 1 0

N of Cases 25 25 25 25 25

Minimum 72.75 75.25 61.50 67.75 63.50
Maximum 121.75 130.00 117.00 125.25 125.75
Range 49.00 54.75 55.50 57.50 62.25
Mean 93.62 96.68 91.28 92.39 91 .79
Variance 142.33 187.34 219.75 235.88 283.14
SD 11.93 13.69 14.82 15.36 16.83

 

 

Table 49

Descriptive Statistics: Monltor Readings of the Dress Rehearsal for

the Experienced Subjects

 

 

Read I ng 1 2 3 4 5

N of Cases 14 14 14 14 14

Minimum 79.00 71 .50 71 .50 75.00 76.25
Maximum 103.25 109.50 102.50 1 15.50 123.25
Range 24.25 38.00 31 .00 40.50 47.00
Mean 91.89 91.46 89.00 91.16 92.16
Variance 50.36 105.61 89.56 119.37 132.64
SD 7.10 10.28 9.46 10.93 1 1 .52
Read I ng 6 7 8 9 1 0

N of Cases 14 14 14 14 14

Minimum 71 .75 71.50 69.25 78.25 77.50
Maximum 1 14.75 1 12.25 112.25 107.25 1 14.00
Range 43.00 40.75 43.00 29.00 36.50
Mean 92.25 93.02 94.02 95.84 93.77
Variance 83.93 158.62 121.55 75.35 122.18
SD 9.161 12.59 11.03 8.68 11.05

 

144

 

Table 50

Independent Samples t-tests: Monltor Readings for the Dress

 

 

 

Rehearsal Grouped by Level of Experience

1

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 87.95 12.14
Experienced 14 91.89 7.10

Pooled Variances T = -1.11 DF = 37 Probability = 0.27

2

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 89.61 10.34
Experienced 14 91.46 10.28

Pooled Variances = 054 DF = 37 Probability = 0.59

3

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 88.10 11.41
Experienced 1 4 89.00 9.46

Pooled Variances T = 025 DF = 37 Probability = 0.80

 

Table 50 (cont'd)

145

 

 

 

 

4

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 90.08 13.70
Experienced 14 91.16 10.93

Pooled Variances T = 025 DF = 37 Probability = 0.80

5

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 88.06 13.42
Experienced 14 92.16 1 1 .52

Pooled Variances = 096 DF = 37 Probability = 0.34

6

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 93.62 1 1 .93
Experienced 14 92.25 9.16

Pooled Variances T = 0.37 DF = 37 Probability = 0.71

7

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 96.68 13.69
Experienced 14 93.02 12.59

Pooled Variances T = 0.82 DF = 37 Probability = 0.42

 

Table 50 (cont'd)

146

 

 

 

8

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 91.28 14.82
Experienced 14 94.02 1 1 .03

Pooled Variances T = 060 DF = 37 Probability = 0.55

9

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 92.390 15.36
Experienced 1 4 95.84 8.68

Pooled Variances T = 077 DF = 37 Probability = 0.45

1 0

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 91.790 16.83
Experienced 14 93.77 1 1 .05

Pooled Variances T = 039 DF = 37 Probability = 0.70

 

147

 

Table 51
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Monltor Readings of the Dress

Rehearsal for the lnexperienced Sample

 

Test Statistics

F-Statistic = 2.11 DF = 9, 16 Probability = 0.09

 

Table 52
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: Monltor Readings of

the Dress Rehearsal for the lnexperienced Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 0
I 0.36 0.94 0.38 0.96 0.01 0.00 0.24 0.14 0.23
2 0.28 0.83 0.49 0.05 0.00 0.56 0.31 0.46
3 0.19 0.98 0.01 0.00 0.23 0.11 0.20
4 0.25 0.09 0.01 0.59 0.37 0.54
5 0.01 0.00 0.18 0.10 0.19
6 0.01 0.37 0.62 0.48
7 0.05 0.10 0.09
8 0.42 0.77
9 0.60
I 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

148

 

Table 53
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Monitor Readings of the Dress

Rehearsal for the Experienced Sample

 

Test Statistics

F-Statistic = 1.04 DF = 9, 5 Probability = 0.51

 

Table 54
Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: Monitor Readings of

the Dress Rehearsal for the Experienced Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I 0
1 0.77 0.09 0.73 0.88 0.89 0.78 0.49 0.05 0.39
2 0.21 0.91 0.80 0.82 0.74 0.46 0.07 0.39
3 0.36 0.16 0.20 0.29 0.09 0.00 0.08
4 0.55 0.70 0.63 0.44 0.12 0.36
5 0.97 0.83 0.59 0.19 0.56
6 0.76 0.59 0.21 0.64
7 0.73 0.43 0.87
8 0.40 0.95
9 0.35
I 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 49
Monitor Readings: Jury
The graph for the research population of the jury performance (see
Figure 19) shows a smoother, more steady increase in heart rate as contrasted
with the jagged graph for the dress rehearsal (see Figure 17). I speculate that
this is due to increased cognitive anxiety and continued physical exertion
during the jury as opposed to the intermittent cognitive and physical relaxation

in the dress rehearsal.

 

 

   
     

 

 

 

‘40 I I I I I I 1 I I I
I30 "' ‘
III BEFORE
)—
C
C
'- I20
2 DUR I NO
III
I
I I0 r- ..
'00 I I I I I r I I I

 

   

 

I 2 3 4 S 6 7 B 9 IO II I2
IIONITOR RERDINOS RT I IIINUTE INTERURLS

Figure 19. Heart monitor readings of the research population taken at the jury
performance.

When comparing the arousal patterns of the dress rehearsal (see Figure
17) and the jury (see Figure 19), the range of the heart rates must be
considered. In the dress rehearsal the range was from 88.42 to 95.37 beats per
minute-a difference of 6.95 beats per minute. In the jury situation, however, the
lowest mean heart rate was 100.97, which was 5.6 beats per minute above the

maximum mean heart rate for the dress rehearsal. The range of heart rates for

1 50
the jury performance was from 100.97 to 130.46--a difference of 29.49 beats per
minute. This difference in heart rates between the two situations makes the
vertical scaling of the two graphs very different. The scale for the jury
performance is much larger than the dress rehearsal, and consequently, has a
smoothing effect on the line. A graph depicting the difference in heart rate
ranges of the research population between the dress rehearsal and the jury

performance is presented in Figure 20.

 

140 , 1

I30 -

I20 r

IIO -

 

RERRT RRTE

I e I
o I s n e

'3'I'I'3'flo

'aze'e:e:n:e:c.e.

'e's‘e . . . 'e

 

 

 

 

80 I J
DRESS JURV

Figure 20. A comparison of heart rate ranges for the research population
between the dress rehearsal and the jury.

The repeated-measures ANOVA shows that there are significant
changes over time, and the polynomial contrasts reveal both linear and cubic
trends for the data (see Table 56). Paired samples t-tests run on these data
show a higher percentage of significant differences than were found with any of
the other variables (see Table 57). I believe that this reflects the wide range

and rapid increase of heart rates that were assessed by the monitor.

151

 

Table 55

Descriptive Statistics: Monitor Readings of the Jury for the

Research Populatlon

 

 

Reading 1 2 3 4 5 6

N of Cases 39 39 39 39 39 39

Minimum 62.25 63.75 71.25 71.00 75.75 77.75
Maximum 136.75 140.50 147.75 155.25 160.25 170.00
Range 74.50 76.75 76.50 84.25 84.50 92.25
Mean 103.12 100.97 105.49 107.32 112.23 118.94
Variance 239.23 290.54 274.44 294.46 371 .53 395.23
SD 15.47 17.05 16.57 17.16 19.28 19.88
Read I 119 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2

N of Cases 39 39 39 39 39 39

Minimum 74.50 87.00 86.75 87.50 86.50 80.75
Maximum 172.00 175.50 178.50 184.75 184.00 177.50
Range 97.50 88.50 91 .75 97.25 97.50 96.75
Mean 119.40 122.89 126.01 128.73 130.46 127.27
Variance 383.85 494.90 437.64 451 .62 497.20 471 .16
SD 19.59 22.25 20.92 21.25 22.30 21.71

 

152

 

Table 56
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Monltor Readings of the Jury

for the Research Populatlon

 

Within Subjects Effects

Single Degree-of-Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree S S OF M S F P

1 (linear) 45791 .71 1 45791.71 94.74 0.00
Error 18367.89 38 483.37

2 (quadratic) 615.83 1 615.83 1.17 0.29
Error 20039.12 38 527.35

3 (cubic) 1551.67 1 1551.67 5.82 0.02
Error 10140.18 38 266.85

4 (quartic) 36.73 1 36.73 0.50 0.48
Error 2798.35 38 73.64

Test Statistics

F-Statistic = 11.42 DF = 11, 28 Probability = 0.00

 

153

 

Table 57

Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities:

the Jury for the Research Population

Monltor Readings of

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I2
1 0.09 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.38 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6 0.73 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06
7 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06
8 0.08 0.01 0.12 0.36
9 0.07 0.34 0.78
10 0.70 0.74
1 1 0.03
12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the jury situation, both the inexperienced and experienced groups

show relatively steady increases in heart rates throughout the monitored period

(see Figure 21), with both groups peaking at the same time-approximately 6

minutes into the performance. An interesting aspect of this graph, in relation to

the graph of the dress rehearsal, is that the inexperienced and experienced

groups are closer together and their arousal patterns are very similar. The

154
experienced group is again higher for the majority of the readings. As with the
dress rehearsal statistics, the independent samples t-tests revealed no

significant differences between the two groups (see Table 60).

 

     
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘40 ‘ I I l I l I I l I I
Q EXPER I ENCED \ ‘0
I30 I- . I NEXPER I ENCED ..
u.l
'- 120 - -
E BEFORE
)-
E DUR I NO
2 I I0 - ..
I00 " \ ‘5 _
90 I I I I I I I I I J

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12
IIONITOR RERDINOS RT I IIINUTE INTERURLS

Figure 21. Heart monitor readings taken at the jury performance:
A comparison between the inexperienced and experienced subjects.

155

 

Table 58

Descriptive Statistics: Monltor Readings of the Jury for the

lnexperienced Subjects

 

 

Read I ng 1 2 3 4 5 6

N of Cases 25 25 25 25 25 25

Minimum 78.75 70.75 83.50 71 .000 75.750 77.75
Maximum 136.75 140.50 139.25 148.500 160.250 152.00
Range 58.00 69.75 55.75 77.500 84.500 74.25
Mean 103.45 102.42 105.37 107.140 1 10.790 1 18.43
Variance 199.95 253.99 1 77.50 265.036 310.754 327.27
SD 14.14 15.94 13.32 16.280 17.638 18.09
Read l 119 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2

N of Cases 25 25 25 25 25 25

Minimum 83.25 87.00 86.75 87.50 86.50 80.75
Maximum 146.50 159.25 173.25 173.00 177.50 177.50
Range 63.25 72.25 86.50 85.50 91 .00 96.75
Mean 1 18.68 121.67 124.00 127.24 128.02 124.68
Variance 308.82 454.07 399.87 390.19 547.41 538.31
SD 17.57 21.31 19.10 19.75 23.40 23.20

 

156

 

Table 59

Descriptive Statistics: Monitor Readings of the Jury for the

Experienced Subjects

 

 

Read I 119 1 2 3 4 5 6

NofCases 14 14 14 14 14 14

Minimum 62.25 63.75 71 .25 74.00 80.25 82.75
Maximum 132.50 132.75 147.75 155.25 156.50 170.00
Range 70.25 69.00 76.50 81 .25 76.25 87.25
Mean 102.54 98.39 105.70 107.64 114.80 119.86
Variance 329.56 369.15 474.43 371 .28 501 .20 549.68
SD 18.15 19.21 21.78 19.27 22.39 23.44
Reading 7 8 9 10 1 1 12

N of Cases 14 14 14 14 14 14

Minimum 74.50 90.00 101.25 97.50 108.00 106.50
Maximum 172.00 175.50 178.50 184.75 184.00 174.25
Range 97.50 85.50 77.25 87.25 76.00 67.75
Mean 120.68 125.07 129.59 131.39 134.80 131.89
Variance 549.13 600.36 519.49 587.87 410.99 347.52
SD 23.43 24.50 22.79 24.25 20.27 18.64

 

157

 

Table 60

Independent Samples t-tests: Monltor Readings of the Jury

Grouped by Level of Experience

 

1

 

 

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 103.45 14.14
Experienced 14 102.54 18.15

Pooled Variances T = 0.18 DF = 37 Probability = 0.86

2

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 102.42 15.94
Experienced 14 98.39 19.21

Pooled Variances T = 0.70 DF = 37 Probability = 0.49

3

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 105.37 13.32
Experienced 14 105.70 21.78

Pooled Variances T = 006 DF = 37 Probability = 0.95

 

Table 60 (cont'd)

158

 

 

 

 

4

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 107.14 16.28
Experienced 14 107.64 19.27

Pooled Variances T = 009 DF = 37 Probability = 0.93

5

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 110.79 17.63
Experienced 14 1 14.80 22.39

Pooled Variances T = 062 DF = 37 Probability = 0.54

6

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 118.43 18.09
Experienced 14 1 19.86 23.45

Pooled Variances = 021 DF = 37 Probability = 0.83

7

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 1 18.68 17.57
Experienced 14 120.68 23.43

Pooled Variances T = 030 DF = 37 Probability = 0.76

 

Table 60 (cont'd)

159

 

 

 

 

8

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 121.67 21.31
Experienced 1 4 125.07 24.50

Pooled Variances T = 045 DF = 37 Probability = 0.65

9

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 124.00 19.10
Experienced 1 4 129.59 22.79

Pooled Variances T = 080 DF = 37 Probability = 0.43

1 0

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 127.24 19.75
Experienced 1 4 131 .39 24.25

Pooled Variances T = 058 DF = 37 Probability = 0.57

1 1

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 128.02 23.40
Experienced 1 4 134.80 20.27

Pooled Variances T = 091 DF = 37 Probability = 0.37

 

1 60
Table 60 (cont'd)

 

1 2

Group Number Mean Standard Deviation
lnexperienced 25 124.68 23.20
Experienced 14 131.89 18.64

Pooled Variances = 010 DF = 37 Probability = 0.33

 

The repeated-measures ANOVAs revealed that both the inexperienced
and experienced samples showed significant changes over time and the data
for both samples showed strong linear trends (see Tables 61 and 63). In
addition, both groups showed high percentages of significant differences for the
paired samples t-tests (see Table 62 and 64). Again, I believe this is due to the
wide range of heart rate readings and the rapid increase in arousal. An
interesting observation is that the comparisons between measurement 8
through 12 on both the inexperienced and experienced matrix (with one
exception) do not show significance. Relative to the graph (see Figure 21), this
is the area were the arousal levels peaked and began their downward curve,

thus making these readings closer together than the rest of the graph.

161

 

Table 61
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Monltor Readings of the Jury

for the lnexperienced Sample

 

Within Subjects Effects

Single Degree-of-Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree S S OF M S F P
1 (linear) 23560.50 1 23560.50 47.79 0.00
Error 1 1831 .56 24 492.98
Test Statistics

F-Statistic = 7.62 DF = 11, 14 Probability = 0.00

 

162

 

Table 62

Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: Monitor Readings of

the Jury for the lnexperienced Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.54 0.42 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.18 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.51 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02
6 0.89 0.28 0.04 0.00 0.10 0.27
7 0.26 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.28
8 0.23 0.04 0.34 0.65
9 0.12 0.51 0.91
10 0.89 0.66
11 0.13
12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

163

 

Table 63
Repeated-Measures ANOVA: Monltor Readings of the Jury

for the Experienced Sample

 

Within Subjects Effects

Single Degree-of-Freedom Polynomial Contrasts

Degree S S DF M S F P
1 (linear) 23117.29 1 23117.29 53.19 0.00
Error 5650.26 1 3 434.64
Test Statistics

F-Statistic = 21.26 DF = 11, 3 Probability = 0.01

 

164

 

Table 64

Paired Samples t-tests Matrix of Probabilities: Monltor Readings of

the Jury for the Experienced Sample

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 0.03 0.28 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3 0.58 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5 0.21 0.19 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01
6 0.69 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.08
7 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.10
8 0.21 0.07 0.18 0.31
9 0.39 0.50 0.76
10 0.65 0.94
11 0.03
12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The monitor readings in Figures 19 and 21 ended at the peak period of
arousal during the jury, but I wanted to determine if the subjects 'got
comfortable' in the performance and showed a decrease in heart rate. Enough
data was available to complete the jury graphs for the entire 15 minutes of the
performance (see Figures 22 and 23). The reader must be aware, however,

that there are missing values in these data beginning with reading 13. Some

1 65
subjects finished their performance before the 15 minute time limit and could no
longer contribute data.

In the population graph (see Figure 22) there was a total of 39 subjects
for readings 1-12, and the number gradually diminished to 21 subjects by
reading 20. The graph shows a distinct inverted-V shaped pattern, with a
steady increase in heart rate to reading 11 (about 6 minutes into the
performance) and a rapid decrease aftenlvards.

On the inexperienced/experienced comparison graph (see Figure 23),
there were 25 inexperienced subjects for readings 1-12 and 13 available for
measurement 20. Fourteen subjects comprised the experienced group for
readings 1-12 and only 8 were available by reading 20. Although the number
of subjects after reading 12 gradually declined, the graph clearly depicts the
inexperienced subjects showing a more rapid decrease in heart rate than the
experienced. The experienced subjects begin their decrease at the same time
as the inexperienced, but do not begin to decline rapidly until after 10 minutes

into the performance.

 

 

  
   
  

 

   

'40 I I ID I I I I I I I I l I I I I
130 — -
III
E BEFORE
120 - -
I-
c
G
g ounlne
11o - -
'00 I I I I L I I I I I I I LI I

 

 

 

 

12 3 4 S 6 7 B 91011121314151617181920
IIONITOR RERDINOS RT 1 NINUTE INTERURLS

Figure 22. Heart monitor readings of the research population taken at the jury
performance (entire 15 minutes).

167

 

Table 65

Descriptive Statistics: An Additional 8 Monitor Readings of the Jury

for the Research Populatlon

 

 

Read I ng 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6

N of Cases 38 36 36 36

Minimum 68.75 77.00 77.00 77.50
Maximum 179.75 181.00 176.75 175.50
Range 1 1 1.00 104.00 99.75 98.00
Mean 125.43 123.23 123.56 122.15
Variance 626.07 608.01 587.04 606.69
SD 25.02 24.66 24.23 24.63
Reading 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0

N of Cases 33 30 27 21

Minimum 70.00 73.50 72.75 84.25
Maximum 178.50 178.50 185.50 174.25
Range 108.50 105.00 1 12.75 90.00
Mean 123.68 1 18.80 1 18.53 1 18.30
Variance 707.10 549.67 508.73 395.06
SD 26.61 23.45 22.56 19.88

 

 

‘40 I I I I I I I I I I n I I I I l l I
Q EXPERIENCED 2. a
.I.’ ‘0 \ a"
‘ 30 _ e INEXPERIENCED e“ a ‘R
’0’ “
III ’ ‘
h l— a“ o 9
c 120 , .
I: / ‘t
'- BEFORE ,, b
E r
g 1 IO "' "
x DURING
\ I,
'00 \01
90 I I I I I I I I I I

 

 

 

 

I
8 9101112131415161718 I92O

I J I l I I
I 2 3 4 5 6 7
RERDINGS RT I NINUTE INTERURLS

Figure 23. Heart monitor readings for the jury (entire 15 minutes): A
comparison between the inexperienced and experienced subjects.

169

 

Table 66

Descriptive Statistics: An Additional 8 Monitor Readings of the Jury

for the lnexperienced Subjects

 

 

Reading 13 14 15 16

N of Cases 24 22 22 22

Minimum 68.75 77.00 77.00 77.50
Maximum 174.25 169.75 164.00 161.25
Range 105.50 92.75 87.00 83.75
Mean 120.88 118.67 118.17 117.81
Variance 658.54 580.09 547.52 477.51
SD 25.66 24.09 23.40 21 .85
Read I ng 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0

Nof Cases 19 18 16 13

Minimum 85.00 90.50 91.50 106.50
Maximum 171 .75 175.25 159.75 152.25
Range 86.75 84.75 68.25 45.75
Mean 125.59 1 17.32 1 18.48 120.89
Variance 648.04 476.86 264.72 177.78
SD 25.46 21 .84 16.27 13.33

 

170

 

Table 67

Descriptive Statistics: An Additional 8 Monitor Readings of the Jury

for the Experienced Subjects

 

 

Reading 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6

N of Cases 14 14 14 14

Minimum 93.00 82.25 86.50 84.50
Maximum 179.75 181 .00 176.75 175.50
Range 86.75 98.75 90.25 91 .00
Mean 133.23 130.39 132.04 128.96
Variance 512.92 609.46 569.53 780.22
SD 2.65 24.69 23.87 27.93
Read I ng 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0

N of Cases 14 12 11 8

Minimum 70.00 73.50 72.75 84.25
Maximum 178.50 178.50 185.50 174.25
Range 108.50 105.00 1 12.75 90.00
Mean 121.08 121.02 118.59 114.09
Variance 832.88 703.20 9 925.60 791.36
SD 28.86 26.52 30.42 28.13

 

1 71
Coping with Performance Anxiety Questionnaire

After each subject completed his or her jury performance, they were
asked to fill out a questionnaire regarding the methods that they may have used
to cope with their performance anxiety problems. The results of this
questionnaire are found in Table 68. All 42 subjects are reported in the results,
including those whose data was not used in the analysis because of medical
exclusion.

The table is organized by coping strategies with the response
frequencies for the inexperienced and experienced samples directly below
each strategy. The list is organized in order of the number of people who
claimed that they tried a particular coping strategy. The numbers of people that
have tried a given method are listed under the "Triad“ columns with the
designation 'Yes' or 'No.‘ To the right of the 'Tried' columns are the
'Effectiveness' columns. These are based on a 5-point Likert-type scale with 1
being ineffective and 5 being most effective. The numbers listed under each
column are the number of people who specified that particular level of
effectiveness.

The cOping techniques tried most often by the students in this study were:
(a) talking to friends, N = 36; (b) rest-stop playing, N = 29; (c) self-talk, N = 28;
and (d) imagery and talking to family, N = 24 each. Of these, perhaps self-talk
was found to be most effective. The majority of people who tried this technique
seemed to think that it had a positive affect on controlling their anxiety.

172

 

Table 68
Responses from the Coping with Performance Anxiety

Questionnaire

 

n Strat Tried Effectiveness
es 0

IO

OURSO n

 

1 73
Table 68 (cont'd)

11 St Tried Effectiveness

            

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

Research that has been conducted in the field of music and in other
disciplines has provided considerable evidence that performance anxiety is a
widespread problem that can manifest itself in cognitive, behavioral, and/or
physiological ways. It has been reported that the symptoms of anxiety can occur
simultaneously in all three of these realms (synchrony), or separately
(desynchrony). Research evidence is still equivocal, however, as to exactly how
these areas interact, or if they interact at all.

In the present research, I have examined the cognitive and physiological
effects of music performance anxiety over a five week period culminating with a
graded 'jury' performance. I reported the results of the raw data collection and
statistical analysis in Chapter 4. In Chapter 5, I will discuss these results by
presenting separately each of the physiological measures (blood pressures,
pulse rates, and respiration rates) and the psychological measures (State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory [STAI] scores). A discussion of response synchrony and
desynchrony between the physiological and psychological measures will follow.
Each area will be examined in the context of the entire research population, and
a comparison of the inexperienced performers (freshmen and sophomores) with
the experienced performers (juniors, seniors, and graduate students). Finally, I
will discuss the results obtained by the Vantage XL Heart Rate Monitor during the
dress rehearsal and the jury performance. In conclusion, I will present some
suggestions for future research.

Vital Signs and STAI
Population

The important results of the vital signs and STAI assessments for the

research population (see Figures 5, 7, 10, 8 12) are their marked increases

before the dress rehearsal and again before the jury. A certain degree of this

174

1 75
increase may be attributed to the natural “psyching-up' process, which
ordinarily occurs before a performance. Judging by the extent of the increases,
however, I would conclude that the students actually considered the dress
rehearsal and jury performance to be relatively stressful situations. Another fact
is that the repeated-measures analyses for each variable demonstrated
statistically significant changes over time (see Tables 2, 12, 22, & 33). A
separate examination of each variable will clarify these points.

The average of the first three weeks of blood pressure assessments for
the population (those taken before 'nonstressful' lessons) was 86.34
millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). The stability of these assessments is evident in
the paired samples t-tests where statistical significance was not achieved
between week 1 and week 2 or between week 2 and week 3 (see Table 3). An
increase of 3.81 mm Hg was recorded before the dress rehearsal, and another
increase of 3.93 mm Hg before the jury--a total increase of 7.74 mm Hg (see
Figure 5). Both of these increases were found to be significant by the paired
samples t-tests in Table 3.

Pulse rate assessments showed an even more pronounced increase, as
they rose steadily throughout the entire research period. The average pulse
rate for the first three weeks was 69.74 beats per minute. This average
increased by 9.23 before the dress rehearsal, and an additional 7.59 beats per
minute before the jury. The total increase between the lesson situations and the
jury was 16.82 beats per minute (see Figure 7). Similar to the blood pressure
assessments, the paired samples t-tests showed no significant changes among
the first three assessments, but were significant before the dress rehearsal and
jury performance—again demonstrating the stability of the first three

assessments relative to the performance situations.

1 76

Respiration rates for the population also showed an increase before the
last two assessments, but their increases were not as dramatic. The average
respiration rate for the first three weeks was 13.54 breaths per minute. The rate
before the dress rehearsal was 14.46, and before the jury, it was 15.80--a total
increase of 2.30 breaths per minute (see Figure 10). Statistical significance
was demonstrated by the paired samples t-tests only between week 3 and the
dress rehearsal, although the difference between the dress and jury was close
at a .06 probability (see Table 23).

The STAI scores also yielded some interesting results. The most
intriguing was that the highest level of self-reported anxiety was on the morning
of the jury before leaving for school (the 'AM" score). A slight decrease
immediately before the jury performance followed (see Figure 12). The STAI
scores, as demonstrated by the paired samples t-tests, were the least stable of
all the variables (see Table 34). Significant changes from week to week were
found between week 2 and week 3, week 3 and the dress rehearsal, and the
dress rehearsal and the 'AM' score. If the 'AM' STAI score is eliminated, the
pattern of assessments is very similar to the vital sign assessment patterns that
showed marked increases before the dress rehearsal and again before the jury.

The average STAI score for the first three weeks was 39.80. The mean
score that was reported before the dress rehearsal was 42.44, an increase of
2.64. Before the jury, the mean score was 46.33, which was an additional
increase of 3.90. The total increase of the mean STAI scores between the
average of the first three weeks and the jury performance was 6.53.

An additional interesting fact is that the national normative mean scores
for college students, as reported by Spielberger, Gorusch, Lushene, Vagg, and
Jacobs (1983), was 36.47 for males and 38.76 for females. These scores were

gathered during nonstress-provoking situations. The 27 males in the present

1 77
study had an average score of 36.64 for the first three assessments (the
'nonstressful" situations), which was slightly higher than the national average.
The 12 females participating in the present study reported an average score of
46.89 for the first three assessments, which is well above the national average.
The higher scores obtained by the females in this study are consistent with
other research that has specifically compared gender differences on self-
reported anxiety measurements (Abel & Larkin, 1990; Craske & Craig, 1984;
Jones & Cale, 1989; Steptoe, 1989). These studies all found that females
generally reported higher levels of anxiety, and often lower levels of self-
confidence, than males.
Comparison of the lnexperienced and Experienced Performers

Among the research studies involving levels of experience, evidence of
significant differences between inexperienced and experienced performers is
largely equivocal. Mahoney and Avener (1977) and Fenz (1975) found support
for experience differences, but other researchers have not (Gould, Horn, &
Spreemann, 1983; Gould, Petlichkoff, & Weinberg, 1984; Highlen & Bennett,
1979).

In this study, I determined that the basic patterns of anxiety and arousal
between inexperienced and experienced performers closely resembled each
other before and during the stressful situations of the dress rehearsal and jury.
Other similarities between the two groups were that all the vital sign
assessments reached their highest points immediately before the jury
performance.

I have also found important differences to exist between the
inexperienced and experienced performers. Probably the most noteworthy
were the distinct levels of anxiety and arousal that separated the two samples,

as well as the expanded range and abrupt increases in the inexperienced

1 78

group. In the following sections I will highlight these and other specific
differences and similarities that distinguished the inexperienced from the
experienced performers.

Vital Signs

On all the vital signs assessments except blood pressure, the
inexperienced performers showed higher terminal levels of arousal than did the
experienced performers (see Figures 6, 8, & 11). For all the blood pressure
assessments, however, the experienced performers were higher. I feel that,
when interpreting the vital sign assessments, the most important consideration
must be a comparison of the degree of change throughout the study. In each
case, the inexperienced performers displayed a much greater increase
between the average of the first three assessments and the jury perionnance.

The independent samples t-tests for the blood pressure assessments
showed the experienced performers to be significantly higher on all
assessments except for week 1 and the jury (see Table 6). The inexperienced
performers had an average blood pressure of 84.31 mm Hg for the first three
assessments, which did not show significant changes by the paired samples
t-tests in Table 8. This average increased 9.45 mm Hg to an assessment of
93.76 before the jury, which was statistically significant. The experienced
performers, conversely, had an average blood pressure of 89.95 mm Hg for the
first three assessments and rose to 94.64 before the jury. This was an increase
of only 4.69 mm Hg--about half the amount demonstrated by the inexperienced
performers. The repeated-measures analyses showed the inexperience
performers to have significant changes over time, while the experienced
performers did not.

The comparison of palpated pulse rates for the inexperienced and

experienced performers throughout the study also exhibited noteworthy

1 79
pattems (see Figure 8). Most interesting was that the experienced performers
showed relatively stable pulse rates for the first three assessments. These were
followed by an abrupt increase before the dress rehearsal and then only a .14
beat per minute increase before the jury. The paired samples t-tests
corroborate the graph by showing a significant change only between week 3
and the dress rehearsal. Conversely, the inexperienced performers displayed
constant increases for the duration of the study, finishing 7.34 beats per minute
higher than the experienced performers. This pattern could certainly indicate
that the experienced performers were less anxious than the inexperienced due
to their decreased level of arousal. Both groups showed significant changes
over time by the repeated-measures analysis.

The respiration rates demonstrated most clearly the increased range of
arousal in the inexperienced performers. The average respiration rate for both
groups for the first three assessments was nearly the same, 13.55 for the
inexperienced and 13.52 for the experienced, which provided an excellent
baseline for comparison. The inexperienced subjects were assessed at 16.32
breaths per minute before the jury, which was an increase of 2.77; while the
experienced performers showed only a 1.34 breath per minute increase (to
14.86) between the 'nonstressful" lessons and the jury performance. These
findings are statistically confirmed by the repeated-measures analysis that
showed significance for the inexperienced performers but not for the
experienced (see Tables 27 & 29). Neither group showed significant week to
week changes on the paired samples t-tests (see Tables 28 & 30).

State-Trait Anxlety Inventory

The results of the STAI showed that self-reported anxiety levels of the
inexperienced performers were significantly higher than the experienced

performers on all assessments (see Figure 13 and Table 37). The STAI scores

1 80
revealed even more distinct separation between the two groups than did the
blood pressure assessments.

An important observation for the STAI scores is that the self-reported
anxiety patterns (not the levels) of both groups were nearly identical; the
exception being the 'AM" score taken in the morning on the day of the jury. This
was the peak period of anxiety for the inexperienced performers, who then
reported a decrease in anxiety before the jury. Conversely, the experienced
subjects indicated a steady increase in anxiety beginning with the third
assessment and continuing to the jury performance. Both the inexperienced
and experienced samples showed significant changes over time on the
repeated-measures analyses (see Tables 38 & 40). These patterns contradict
the findings of Fenz (1975) who reported opposite anxiety patterns for the same
two assessments between his inexperienced and experienced subjects.

If self-report psychological tests are more indicative of anxiety than
physiological measures, as indicated by some test-anxiety researchers
(Deffenbacher & Hazaleus, 1985; Holroyd & Appel, 1980), then the
inexperienced performers were, without a doubt, considerably more anxious
about the jury than the experienced performers.

Response Synchrony and Response Desynchrony

Agreement on the correlation between physiological and psychological
measurements is largely equivocal. Some researchers have shown a
significant correlation between the two domains (Kelly & Walter, 1968; McLeod
et al., 1986), while other studies have shown little correlation (Pennebaker,
1982; Ray, Cole, & Raczynski, 1983). One of the major research concerns of
this study was to compare physiological measures (the vital signs, including
blood pressure, pulse rate and respiration rate) and psychological measures

(STAI scores--seIf-reported anxiety) to determine if, when taken concurrently,

1 81
they showed the same patterns of anxiety and arousal. Response synchrony is
achieved when measurements are all moving in the same direction but not
necessarily parallel to each other. Response desynchrony occurs when the
measurement patterns are moving in opposite directions. In the following
discussion, I have ignored the 'AM" scores of the STAI because there were no
concurrent vital sign assessments.

As a general observation, response desynchrony was recorded for the
'nonstressful" lesson situations-the first three assessments. Response
synchrony was noted for the dress rehearsal and jury assessments among all
four variables (blood pressure, pulse rate, respiration rate, and STAI). This
analysis was comparable within each sample; the research population, the
inexperienced performers, and the experienced performers (see Figures 14, 15,
81 16). These results concur with Lang, Miller, and Levin (1988) who found that
response synchrony occurs under conditions of extreme anxiety, while
response desynchrony will occur in relatively less anxious conditions.

Comparisons between the vital signs assessments and the self-reported
anxiety measurements did not show a high degree of statistical significance by
the Pearson correlations (see Tables 42, 43, & 44). All methods of
measurement (blood pressures, pulse rates, respiration rates, and STAI
scores), however, demonstrated elevated levels before the stress provoking
situations of the dress rehearsal and jury perionnance. Because of the range of
elevation found in these patterns, I am convinced that physiological and
psychological measurements are both valid predictors of music performance
anxiety and will show response synchrony in stressful situations. The results of
the comparisons between physiological and psychological patterns in this study
support the definition of anxiety offered by Spielberger (1966): Anxiety is

'characterized by subjective, consciously perceived feelings of apprehension

1 82
and tension, accompanied by or associated with activation or arousal of the
autonomic nervous system“ (p. 17).

Perhaps the most remarkable comparison between the vital signs
assessments and the self-reported anxiety measurements were the lower STAI
scores relative to the blood pressures and pulse rates in the experienced
sample (see Figures 15 and 16). As indicated in Chapter 4, these results may
have been due to actual lower levels of anxiety in the experienced sample,
more cognitive attention paid to physiological arousal by the inexperienced
sample, or gender differences and ego involvement by the experienced sample.

Heart Rate Monitor

I found the graphs of the heart monitor readings from the dress rehearsal
and jury performance extremely informative (see Figures 17 - 23). Because I
was able to monitor the student's heart rates during the performances, I have
documented objective levels of arousal throughout an actual graded
performance that was not contrived for the research. This is extremely
significant in that l have not discovered such a study in the music performance
anxiety literature.

When interpreting the patterns assessed by the heart rate monitor, it is
important to remember that the levels of recorded heart rates are probably due
to a combination of both performance anxiety and physical exertion; obviously,
it is difficult to segregate the two completely.

Heart Rates In the Dress Rehearsal

The graph of the dress rehearsal for the research population showed a
sporadic pattern for the first five minutes. This was the period before the
subjects began the dress rehearsal. Upon the start of the rehearsal there was a
dramatic increase in heart rate, which was followed by an equally sharp

decrease about two minutes into the performance. A smaller increase and

1 83
another decrease followed. I speculate that the dramatic increase in heart rate
at the start of the dress rehearsal can be attributed primarily to anxiety, because,
for many of the subjects (primarily the inexperienced), this was the first time that
they performed with their accompanist in the presence of the instructor. The
smaller fluctuations, however, can possibly be accounted for by considering the
starting and stopping that transpires in a rehearsal situation. The dramatic
increases for readings 6 and 7 are confirmed by statistical significance for the
two periods on the paired t-test analysis (see Table 47).

The pattern displayed by the inexperienced subjects during the dress
rehearsal was nearly identical to that of the population (see Figures 17 81 18).
Along with the reasons given above for the sudden increase in heart rate during
the first minutes of the performance, another possibility may be that five subjects
in the inexperienced sample were markedly tachycardic (abnormally rapid heart
rate) during this period. Their individual heart rates were monitored between
127 and 138 beats per minute, and could have easily skewed the data.
Although statistical significance was found on the paired t-test analysis for
readings 5 with 6, 6 with 7, and 7 with 8, the repeated-measures analysis did
not demonstrate significant changes over time.

The graph for the experienced subjects (see Figure 18) shows their heart
rates to be higher than those of the inexperienced; the exception being the
'spike' in the inexperienced graph for minutes 6 and 7. What is more important,
however, is that the pattern shown by the experienced subjects is much
smoother in relation to the inexperienced and did not show statistically
significant changes over time (see Table 53). l speculate that this smoothness
may be evidence that the experienced subjects were more self-confident about
the upcoming jury performance. By knowing what to expect in the jury, the

experienced subjects may have practiced to meet the goals of the jury, and

1 84

therefore, approached the dress rehearsal with a higher degree of self-efficacy.
In addition, many of the experienced subjects were preparing music to be
performed on recitals during the following term and were using the jury as a
type of ”dress-rehearsal.“ Because of this ultimate goal, they had rehearsed
with their accompanists more often under the tutelage of their instructors, and
were generally more prepared for the upcoming jury than were the
inexperienced subjects.

An interesting note is the difference in range between the two samples.
The lowest mean heart rate for the inexperienced performers was 87.95, taken
on the first reading. Their highest point was 96.68, which was taken
approximately two minutes into the dress rehearsal. Conversely, the low point
for the experienced subjects was 89.00 during the third minute of monitoring.
Their highest reading was 95.84, which was taken approximately four minutes
into the performance. The range for the experienced subjects was only 6.84
beats per minute, as compared to a range of 8.73 for the inexperienced--not a
large difference when compared to the range of the palpated pulse rates (see
Figure 9),
Heart Rates In the Jury Performance

By following the heart monitor readings through the entire jury
performance, I have determined that the absolute peak level of arousal
occurred for both the inexperienced and experienced subjects at approximately
six minutes into the performance and decreased steadily afterwards. The graph
for the population (see Figure 22) and the graph for the inexperienced sample
(see Figure 23) showed distinct inverted-V shaped patterns, which exhibited a
rapid decrease in heart rate after the peak. The experienced performers
displayed an inverted-U shaped pattern that indicated a slower rate of

relaxation after the peak of arousal and a more gradual decline in heart rate

185
(see Figure 23). Statistically significance was achieved on the repeated-
measures analysis for all three samples (see Tables 56, 61, & 63).

This peak of arousal that occurred six minutes into the performance
contradicts the reports of several test anxiety researchers (Doctor & Altman,
1969; Geen, 1980; Liebert & Morris, 1967; Morris & Liebert, 1970; Sarason,
1960) who found that arousal (emotionality in their terms) peaked immediately
before the evaluative situation and was followed by a rapid decline. I attribute
this striking difference in results to the nature of the evaluative situation. In a
test anxiety setting, the constant emotional and physical demands needed for a
successful music performance are not imposed upon the subject. He or she
may concentrate solely on taking the test, become increasingly task-oriented,
and consequently, experience less anxiety.

For the majority of readings, the experienced performers recorded a
more rapid heart rate than the inexperienced, although the independent
samples t-test comparison of the two samples showed no significant differences
(see Table 60). I found the elevated heart rates of the experienced sample to
be unusual because I hypothesized that they would have been more task-
oriented, and as suggested by the sports researchers Mahoney and Avener
(1977), and Meyers, Cooke, Cullen, & Liles (1979), assessed with less anxiety.
I speculate that this difference was not necessarily due to the inexperienced
performers being less anxious. The increased heart rates of the experienced
performers may have been attributed to more physical exertion and increased
anxiety for two specific reasons. First, the music of the experienced performers
was, in most cases, more technically and physically demanding. The second
reason is that the experienced subjects may have felt a psychological need to
perform well for the brass faculty, thus producing an elevated heart rate. The

latter situation was exacerbated because two members of the faculty were new

186
and the experienced subjects may have felt a need to impress them. Indeed, I
overheard several of the experienced subjects discussing this very topic before
their performances.
Comparison of the Dress Rehearsal and Jury Performance

A comparison of the heart rate monitor graphs of the dress rehearsal and
jury performance yield a number of interesting differences. These differences
are observed in the graphs of the inexperienced and experienced samples, and
evident in the population graphs as well. Because of the general similarity of
heart rate patterns in all three samples, I will only discuss the graphs for the
population.

The first difference is the rapidity at which the heart rates increased
during the jury situation. The dress rehearsal readings were sporadic for the
five minutes before the rehearsal and rose abruptly to a peak two minutes later.
The jury graph, on the other hand, started a steady climb that began almost
immediately and peaked during the sixth minute of the performance.

An important difference between the inexperienced and experienced
graph of the dress rehearsal must be recognized before continuing. The
pattern displayed by the inexperienced sample was almost identical to that of
the population, while the experienced subjects showed a very slow and smooth
increase throughout the dress rehearsal and peaked two minutes later than the
inexperienced performers. This slow rate of change in the experienced sample
provided for an even more noticeable contrast between the dress rehearsal and
the jury.

Another difference displayed by the population is the smoothness of the
jury graph relative to the dress rehearsal graph. I believe this demonstrates a

more constant level of arousal, possibly due to higher levels of anxiety. Another

1 87
explanation may be a greater level of task or goal-oriented thinking that
produced a more consistent level of arousal.

Perhaps the most significant difference between the dress rehearsal and
the jury graphs was the range and level of heart rates (see Figure 20). The
range of the dress rehearsal (see Figure 17) was from 88.42 to 95.37 beats per
minute--a difference of 6.95 beats per minute. The range for the jury
performance (see Figure 19) showed a low of 100.97 (taken on the second
reading), which was 5.6 beats per minute higher than the peak heart rate during
the dress rehearsal, and ranged to a mean high of 130.46 beats per minute--a
difference of 29.49 beats per minute.

I must highlight a small research concem at this point. The last palpated
pulse rate, assessed before the subjects were to perform the jury, was 86.56
beats per minute (see Figure 7). The first recorded heart rate from the monitor
was 103.12 (see Figure 19)--a difference of 16.56 beats per minute. This
difference is accounted for because an unspecified amount of time elapsed
between the assessment of the vital signs and when the subjects actually
walked into the performance room. This was a factor I could not control for
because the jury performance times were not consistent from subject to subject.
I do not feel that this gap in the continuity of pulse rates was detrimental to the
study, but only reinforced the accelerated rate at which pulses quickened
anticipating the approach of the performance.

The most incredible data found during this research was that the heart
rates for several subjects were being recorded in the 170s and 1805 range
during the peak period of the jury. The highest recorded individual heart rate
was 188 beats per minute. This is an amazing figure considering that the
average resting adult heart rate is between 60 and 80 beats per minute. In

addition, the theoretical maximum heart rate for an average 20 year old, as

1 88

recognized by the American College of Sports Medicine, is 200 beats per
minute. The recommended cardiorespiratory training range for exercise is
between 75 to 90 percent of this theoretical maximum, which is 150 to 180
beats per minute for an average 20 year old (American College of Sports
Medicine, 1986). Perhaps individuals who are tachycardic to this extent are
viable candidates for the controlled use of beta-blockers.

Suggestions for Future Research

A vast amount of study involving anxiety and arousal has been done
outside the field of music, and that research has not yet been fully employed by
music performance anxiety researchers. Unfortunately, due to situation-specific
criteria, it is often difficult to draw conclusions on music performance anxiety by
utilizing this research; the multi-faceted emotional, physical, and aesthetic
demands placed on performing musicians make them vulnerable to stresses
not recognized in other endeavors. For this reason it is imperative that
continued research be accomplished, exploring both the psychological and
physiological effects specific to music performance anxiety. To this end, I offer
several suggestions, in addition to the ones previously recommended, for
expanded research. I have drawn these ideas from my own research, and from
research in other disciplines that could be adapted to music performance.

First and foremost, this study should be replicated in the junior and senior
high school setting. The majority of the music performance anxiety studies are
accomplished using university musicians because they are readily available,
are exposed to research, and are adults who are able to give consent.
Although doing research with a younger student would involve additional time
and preparation, I believe this important area is largely unexplored in the music

performance anxiety literature.

189

Not only would it be useful to compare the patterns of arousal and
anxiety across a variety of ages, but also beneficial to determine if it is in the
junior and senior high schools that the roots of performance anxiety actually
begin. Perhaps through unfavorable performance experiences at solo and
ensemble festivals, the music profession has lost students who were ill-
prepared or overwhelmed by the ordeal and are now afraid to perform. These
may have been good students, excellent players, and promising future teachers
who chose not to continue a career in music because of their deleterious
experiences. Perhaps an informative study would be to survey incoming
college students who were involved with music in high school and are now
pursuing other interests. Questions on the survey could be structured to
determine if performance anxiety was an important factor in circumventing
further participation in musical activities.

By utilizing graded performance situations, either a jury performance, a
concerto competition, or a high school solo and ensemble festival, a study could
be done comparing how the subjects fared while being evaluated. Several
studies from the sports literature have compared successful and unsuccessful
performers, or finalists and nonfinalists in competition (Fenz, 1975; Highlen and
Bennett, 1979; Mahoney and Avener, 1977; Meyers, Cooke, Cullen, & Liles,
1979). These studies compared the anxiety and/or arousal levels of successful
and unsuccessful performers before and during competition, their anxiety
coping strategies, and their training habits.

Replication of these studies in a music performance setting would be
highly applicable. A relevant adaptation of the sports investigations could be a
comparison of those students receiving 'Superior' and 'Fair' ratings during a
solo and ensemble festival, or finalists and nonfinalists in a concerto

competition. Research questions that could be addressed are: what

1 90
techniques or strategies the two groups use to cope with their anxiety, what are
their levels of self-efficacy, and how much time do members of each group
spend on preparation for the performance. An additional area might be to
explore anxiety and arousal levels before and during performance by
replicating the techniques of this study, but compare successful and
unsuccessful performers rather than the inexperienced and experienced.

Additional follow-up studies addressing the cognitive processes of
inexperienced and experienced individuals (or successful and unsuccessful
individuals) may be beneficial in the assessment of performance anxiety
specifically in music school jury performance situations. Research problems
could range from the role of the faculty to the psychological mind-set of the
performer. Do upperclassmen have an ovenlvhelming need to impress the
adjudicating faculty? Do they feel that they have a standard to live up to, or a
reputation as a performer to maintain in the faculty’s eyes? What are the
thoughts of the freshmen preparing for their first juries? What are their thoughts
during the actual performance? Answers to these questions, juxtaposed with
heart monitor readings during the jury performance, may yield valuable insights
as to the differences in the levels of arousal between the inexperienced and
experienced performers found in the present study.

Future studies could also approach experience levels from the
standpoint of ego involvement. Several researchers (Abel & Larkin, 1990;
Craske & Craig, 1984; Jones & Cale, 1989; Steptoe, 1989) have already
addressed gender differences relative to anxiety and arousal and found that
ego involvement may have played an important role. Perhaps research
focused on ego involvement between inexperienced and experienced

individuals may be beneficial. Such a study could possibly answer the

1 91
questions posed in this study regarding the lower STAI scores of the
experienced sample in the comparison of Figures 15 and 16.

Given the magnitude of the heart rates recorded by the heart monitor in
this study, I propose that the measurement of heart rates during a performance
is a viable indicator of arousal and anxiety. In future research utilizing a heart
rate monitor, it would be beneficial to have the subjects complete a post-
performance STAI to indicate their perceived arousal during the performance. I
believe it would be interesting to determine if there is a correlation between
perceived anxiety and the actual state of arousal. Such a study may seriously
challenge the findings of Morris and Leibert (1970) and Pennebaker (1982)
who concluded that perceived elevation of somatic arousal and actual
increases are poorly correlated.

A similar study may also attempt to segregate the physical and emotional
elements causing an elevated heart rate. If the monitor recorded a high heart
rate and the post-perfonnance STAI indicated a low level of perceived anxiety,
perhaps the high heart rate could be attributed to physical exertion.
Conversely, if the monitor recorded a high heart rate and the post-perfonnance
STAI indicated a high level of perceived anxiety, it could be concluded that the
elevated heart rate was due to anxiety.

Other attempts to segregate physical and cognitive elements might yield
answers to the question regarding which of these symptoms occurs first. Wine
(1971) and Kohut (1977) speculated that physiological arousal may occur first
and precipitate worry and cognitive overawareness of that arousal. Other
studies (Ellis, 1977; Fishbein & Middlestadt, 1988; Steptoe, 1989; Steptoe 81
Fidler, 1987), however, have indicated that negative cognitions may be the
major factor in the onset of performance anxiety. I feel that this issue must be

clarified in order to assist researchers who are attempting to treat performance

1 92
anxiety problems, especially those prescribing beta-blockers. With beta-
blockading medications, the physiological symptoms of anxiety are eliminated
without considering the cognitive aspects. Perhaps, with the aid of a heart
monitor, a study could be conducted to determine if physiological symptoms are
controllable with psychological treatment.

Further research is obviously needed to explore more thoroughly the
many complex variables associated with music performance anxiety. Effective
treatment of its debilitating effects can only be accomplished if we completely
understand its causes, be they psychological or physiological, and in which
sample of the population do the symptoms occur at the greatest levels.

Conclusion

With the results of this study, I have determined that the patterns of
anxiety between inexperienced and experienced performers are relatively
similar. There are, however, significant differences that exist in the levels of
anxiety and arousal between the two samples. I determined these differences
to be present among the physiological, as well as the psychological
measurements.

Using the patterns of anxiety and arousal taken over time, I have
demonstrated that physiological and psychological measures exhibit response
synchrony during stress-provoking situations, but during nonstressful situations,
the results are equivocal. Because the response patterns were similar among
the vital signs and the STAI scores, I have concluded that both physiological
and psychological measures are viable indicators of anxiety and arousal.

The Polar Vantage XL Heart Rate Monitor proved a reliable measurer of
arousal during the dress rehearsal and jury performance. Accurate heart rates
were recorded with a minimum of discomfort and inconvenience to the students

wearing the monitor. The results of the heart monitor were extremely I

1 93
informative and could be used by future researchers who need a simple,
nonintrusive instrument to record physiological response.

This exploratory research, or variations thereof, must be replicated and
refined. An equal number of inexperienced and experienced performers, as
well as an equal representation of males and females would be an ideal
situation, and might yield different results.

I am confident that the outcomes of this study will be beneficial to future
researchers. I also hope that the results will have significant ramifications
toward the study of anxiety reduction techniques, as well as the efficacy of using
beta-blockers and anxiolytic medications for controlling the debilitating

physiological effects of performance anxiety.

APPENDICES

194
APPENDIX A

Instructions for Wearing and Operating
the Polar Vantage XL Heart Rate Monitor

There are three components to the Polar Vantage XL Heart Rate Monitor:
(1) the elastic chest band which contains the conductive electrodes and
transmitter connectors, (2) the sensor/transmitter that snaps on to the chest
band, and (3) the wrist monitor, the system's computer, which is worn like a wrist
watch.

There will be five minutes allotted before your performance to put on the
heart monitor. The restrooms on the first floor of the Music Practice Building will
provide privacy to accomplish this. A research assistant will be available to
help if needed. Be sure to wear clothing that will allow you easy access to the
lower portion of your chest.

The diagrams used in these instructions are reproduced from the Users
Instruction Manual that accompanies the Polar Vantage XL Heart Rate Monitor.
Polar CIC: Port Washington, NY. Reproduced by permission.

Wearing the Sensor/Transmitter

The instructions needed to operate the Polar Vantage XL Heart Rate
Monitor have been obtained from the Polar Vantage XL Heart Rate Monitor
User's Instruction Manual (1989).

1. Adjust the elastic chest band so that it fits snugly, but not too tight.

2. With the plastic end of the band in your left hand, and the elastic end
in your right, insert the round and of the band into the buckle and snap it into

place on a bare chest.

195

.JK,

 

 

Figure 24. Positioning the chest band.

3. Center the plastic portion of the chest band on the lower part of your
chest, approximately 1-2 inches below the pectoral muscles (breasts).

4. Snap the transmitter onto the chest band. Be certain that the red snap
is on your left, and the black snap is on your right ('Polar Transmitter' is printed
on the front of the transmitter. Simply ensure that the printing is right-side-up

and the transmitter will be snapped on correctly).

 

 

 

Figure 25. Snapping the transmitter on to the chest band.

5. Pull the unit away from your chest by stretching the belt. Moisten (with

water) the area of your skin where the conductive electrode strips will contact

1 96
your chest. This process must be done to insure a good electrical contact
between your body and the electrodes.

6. Put the wrist monitor on as you would an ordinary wrist watch.

7. The transmitter will switch on automatically when you are wearing it. It
will also turn itself off when your remove it from your body.

Operating the Wrist Monltor

The Polar Vantage XL is designed to monitor athletic workouts,
consequently, the wrist monitor can be programmed to perform several different
functions. For the purposes of this study, all that will be needed is to record your
heart rate at 15 second intervals. The monitor will be programmed in advance
to perform this function.

When you receive the preprogramed wrist monitor it will be set to start
recording your heart rate. On the face of the monitor you will see three rows of
numbers: The top row is the time of day, the middle row is a stopwatch that will
be set at 0:0000, and the bottom row will automatically be monitoring (but not

recording) your heart rate in beats per minute.

 

 

 

-IIIIIIII-

 

Figure 26. The face of the wrist monitor.

A flashing heart will be seen to the right of the heart rate display, it is
flashing at the speed of your pulse. To the left of the heart rate display is an

1 97
alarm indicator. The alarm will be turned off and will not be visible. If it is
accidentally activated, it can be turned off again by pressing the lower button on
the right side of the watch. The alarm function is designed to beep during a
workout when your heart rate goes above or below a preprogramed 'target
zone." This function is not necessary for our purposes and the target zone will
be preprogramed to an extremely high and low range. Therefore, even if the
function is accidently activated, it will not emit a distracting beep in the middle of
your performance.

To begin recording your heart rate, simply press the Set/Start/Stop button
on the left side of the monitor. The stopwatch will be activated and your heart
rate will start to be recorded at 15 second intervals. To stop recording, simply
press the Set/Start/Stop button once again. The stopwatch will stop and the
monitor will quit recording your heart rate. The flashing heart will continue,
however, and the beats per minute display will continue to function until the belt
and transmitter are removed from your chest. 00 not start or stop the
monitor until told to do so. ‘

Removing the Sensor/Transmitter

1. Unsnap the transmitter and lay it in a safe place.

2. Lift the unit away from your chest and turn the round and of the buckle
with your right hand.

3. Thoroughly dry both the transmitter and the conductive electrodes.

4. Return the unit to room 102 MP8.

198
APPENDIX 8

Description of Procedures Involved

If you decide that you are interested in volunteering to participate in this
study, you must first read and sign an agreement to participate form. In addition,
you will be asked to complete a confidential form indicating your general health
and medications that you are presently taking. This is necessary because the
research involves assessment of your vital signs (blood pressure, pulse rate,
and respiration rate) and certain health conditions and medications may affect
these measurements. The health and medications questionnaire will be
screened by a medical doctor to determine your eligibility to participate.

Once you have been cleared to participate in the study, your baseline
vital signs will be obtained and the initial State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)
will be administered, at your convenience, during the third week of the term. (All
vital signs and other medical assessments will be conducted by licensed
medical care professionals and will be confidential.) Vital signs will continue to
be monitored and additional STAls will be administered once a week during
relatively low stress practice sessions. Dates and times to obtain vital signs will
be set up with you in advance.

A heart monitor, which will be demonstrated for you, will be worn in
practice sessions several weeks before the jury for purposes of familiarization
only. The data from these sessions will not be used in the research. A detailed
description of how to wear and operate the monitor will be provided for you.

An additional set of vital signs and an STAI will be obtained at your
lesson (dress rehearsal situation) during the week prior to the jury. The STAI
will be administered fifteen minutes before the lesson, and your vital signs will

be obtained five minutes before and five minutes after the lesson. Your pulse

1 99
will be monitored via the heart monitor during the lesson, and for five minutes
before and after.

On the day of the jury, vital signs and STAls will be obtained at the
following times:

1. An STAI will be completed in the morning before leaving for school.
No vital signs will be assessed at this time.

2. Upon arrival at the School of Music (please report to room 102 MP8).

3. Prior to the performance. Please report to room 102 MP3 no later
than 20 minutes prior to your assigned performance time; 5 minutes to put on
the heart monitor (restrooms are next to the performance room for privacy), 10
minutes to complete the STAI, and an additional 5 minutes to obtain vital signs.

4. Five minutes after the performance (vital signs only--the STAI will not
be administered at this time).

5. Pulse rate will be monitored during the perionnance. and for five
minutes before and after, via the heart monitor.

6. After the final set of vital signs are obtained, you will be asked to
complete a questionnaire regarding: 'How do you cope with performance
anxiety?‘ At the end of the questionnaire, you will be asked to comment on the
events that transpired during the study and to suggest improvements that may

benefit future research.

200
APPENDIX C

Agreement to Participate Form
Name

Phone #

 

 

I, «Student's Name» if selected to participate in this study, choose do so
voluntarily and without coercion. I may choose not to participate at all, may
refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer certain questions, or may
discontinue participation at any time without penalty.

I agree that I will not consume caffeine (coffee, tea, soft drinks, chocolate,
etc.), and will refrain from vigorous exercise for at least three hours prior to each
assessment of vital signs. In addition, I agree to abstain from alcohol for at least
12 hours prior to each assessment.

I understand that all data gathered in this research is strictly confidential,
and no one, except Philip Tartalone, author of the study; Dr. Albert LeBIanc,
faculty supervisor of the study; and the licensed medical professionals who will
be assessing vital signs, will have access to information that can personally
identify me.

I further understand that I may obtain a copy of the results of this research
through a written request to the author.

Student's signature

 

Date

 

201
APPENDIX D

Medical Health and Present Medications Form
Due to the nature of this study, which involves the assessment of
physiological measurements, students wishing to participate must meet specific
medical criteria. As certain health conditions and prescribed medications will
affect blood pressure, heart rate, and respirations, interested students will be
screened to insure their eligibility for the study. The screening of this
questionnaire will be done by a medical doctor. Each subject can be insured of
complete confidentiality. No one will have access to this information except the
medical doctor for screening, the author of the study, and the faculty supervisor
of the study.
Please answer the following questions truthfully.
1. Are you a smoker? Yes No

If yes, how much/often do you smoke?

 

 

2. Is your blood pressure consistently abnormal? Yes No

If yes, is it high or low

 

 

3. Is your pulse rate consistently abnormal? Yes No

 

If yes, please explain your condition.

 

4. Do you have respiratory problems? Yes No

If yes, please explain your condition.

 

 

5. Are you taking asthma medications? Yes No

If yes, please list medications.

 

 

202
6. Are you taking cardiovascular medications? Yes No

If yes, please list medications.

 

 

7. Are you taking beta-blocking or anxiolytic medication? Yes No

 

If yes, please list medications.

 

8. Do you have any other medical condition, or are you taking any
other medications that have not been mentioned that may affect

the data that is collected? Please list medications and/or explain

condition.

 

 

 

203
APPENDIX E

Coping With Performance Anxiety Questionnaire

The presence of stage fright is common, in varying degrees, in all
musicians. In some performers, it may manifest itself as an obvious overt
physiological response, in others it may be simply a minor cognitive issue that is
imperceptible to an audience. Treatments of stage fright are numerous, and
vary in their aggressiveness relative to an individual's needs.

The following list are some of the more common treatments. Please
check the ones that you have tried (yes or no), and indicate their effectiveness
(1 is ineffective, 5 is effective).

Class: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior

Treatment Tried? Effectiveness?
es
-ta as
a to OS
to SS
OUflSG n as
est es
GS
Relaxation es
es
as
68
as
GS
medication as
medication as
as

 

204

Other treatments?--please list below

Treatment Effectiveness?

 

Comments on the Events During the Research
With the remaining space left on this page, please comment on your
experiences during this research and provide possible suggestions that may

benefit future research.

205

 

macs—Samoa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$3M“
.......... 2 332.... poem
Eml
22cm 20m $2 9630 Quip]
>6 x5... $65 288..
EoEEfiE
ocean. maaEmo $263 $9.30
oEmz

 

 

.8832 segmen—

Eooom «ca—55 3:229...

“— x52maa<

 

206
APPENDIX G

Paired t-tests Analyses

 

Paired t-tests: Blood Pressures for the Research Populatlon

 

Week 1 with Week 2
Mean Difference = 0.72
SD Difference = 7.27
T = 0.62 DF = 38 Probability = 0.54

 

Week 2 with Week 3
Mean Difference = 0.10
SD Difference = 6.50
T = 0.10 DF = 38 Probability = 0.92

 

Week 3 with Dress
Mean Difference = -4.13
SD Difference = 7.42
T = -3.43 DF = 38 Probability = 0.00

 

Dress with Jury
Mean Difference = -3.92
SD Difference = 7.81
T = -3.14 DF = 38 Probability = 0.00

 

 

207

 

Paired t-tests: Blood Pressures for the lnexperienced Sample

 

Week 1 with Week 2
Mean Difference = 1.60
SD Difference = 7.21
T = 1.11 DF = 24 Probability = 0.28

 

Week 2 with Week 3
Mean Difference = 0.32
SD Difference = 5.77
T = 0.28 DF = 24 Probability = 0.78

 

Week 3 with Dress
Mean Difference = -4.76
SD Difference = 6.81
T = 349 DF = 24 Probability = 0.00

 

Dress with Jury
Mean Difference = -5.44
SD Difference = 7.22
T = -3.77 DF = 24 Probability = 0.00

 

208

 

Paired t-tests: Blood Pressures for the Experienced Sample

 

Week 1 with Week 2
Mean Difference = -0.86
SD Difference = 7.38
T = -o.43 DF = 13 Probability = 0.67

 

Week 2 with Week 3
Mean Difference = -0.29
SD Difference = 7.85
T = -c.14 DF = 13 Probability = 0.89

 

Week 3 with Dress
Mean Difference = -3.00
SD Difference = 8.54
T = -1.31 DF = 13 Probability = 0.21

 

Dress with Jury
Mean Difference = -1.21
SD Difference = 8.36
T = -0.54 DF = 13 Probability = 0.60

 

209

 

Paired t-tests: Pulse Rates for the Research Populatlon

 

Week 1 with Week 2
Mean Difference = -2.46
SD Difference = 13.32
T = -1.15 DF = 38 Probability = 0.26

 

Week 2 with Week 3
Mean Difference = -0.31
SD Difference = 14.55
T = -0.13 DF = 38 Probability = 0.90

 

Week 3 with Dress
Mean Difference = -8.21
SD Difference = 13.45
T = 381 DF = 38 Probability = 0.00

 

Dress with Jury
Mean Difference = -7.59
SD Difference = 16.46
T = -2.88 DF = 38 Probability = 0.01

 

210

 

Paired t-tests: Pulse Rates for the lnexperienced Sample

 

Week 1 with Week 2
Mean Difference = -4.00
SD Difference = 15.23
T = -1.31 DF = 24 Probability = 0.20

 

Week 2 with Week 3
Mean Difference = -1.28
SD Difference = 15.57
T = -0.41 DF = 24 Probability = 0.68

 

Week 3 with Dress
Mean Difference = -6.08
SD Difference = 11.67
T = -2.61 DF = 24 Probability = 0.02

 

Dress with Jury
Mean Difference = -11.76
SD Difference = 14.66
T = 4.01 DF = 24 Probability = 0.00

 

211

 

Paired t-tests: Pulse Rates for the Experienced Sample

 

Week 1 with Week 2
Mean Difference = 0.29
SD Difference = 8.80
T = 0.12 or: = 13 Probability = 0.91

 

Week 2 with Week 3
Mean Difference = 1.43
SD Difference = 12.90
T = 0.41 DF = 13 Probability = 0.69

 

Week 3 with Dress
Mean Difference = -12.00
SD Difference = 15.90
T = -2.82 DF = 13 Probability = 0.01

 

Dress with Jury
Mean Difference = -0.14
SD Difference = 17.39
T = 003 DF = 13 Probability = 0.98

 

212

 

Paired t-tests: Respiration Rates for the Research Populatlon

 

Week 1 with Week 2
Mean Difference = -0.10
SD Difference = 2.83
T = 023 DF = 38 Probability = 0.82

 

Week 2 with Week 3
Mean Difference = 0.21
SD Difference = 2.89
T = 0.44 DF = 38 Probability = 0.66

 

Week 3 with Dress
Mean Difference = -1.03
SD Difference = 3.14
T = -2.04 DF = 38 Probability = 0.05

 

Dress with Jury
Mean Difference = -1.33
SD Difference = 4.34
T = -1.92 DF = 33 Probability = 0.06

 

213

 

Paired t-tests: Respiration Rates for the lnexperienced Sample

 

Week 1 with Week 2
Mean Difference = -0.32
SD Difference = 2.81
T = 057 DF = 24 Probability = 0.57

 

Week 2 with Week 3
Mean Difference = 0.32
SD Difference = 3.04
T = 0.53 DF = 24 Probability = 0.60

 

Week 3 with Dress
Mean Difference = -1.28
SD Difference = 3.41
T = -1.88 DF = 24 Probability = 0.07

 

Dress with Jury
Mean Difference = -1.60
SD Difference = 4.90
T = -1.63 DF = 24 Probability = 0.12

 

214

 

Paired t-tests: Respiration Rates for the Experienced Sample

 

Week 1 with Week 2
Mean Difference = 0.29
SD Difference = 2.92
T = 0.37 DF = 13 Probability = 0.72

 

Week 2 with Week 3
Mean Difference = 0.00
SD Difference = 2.72
T = 0.00 DF = 13 Probability = 1.00

 

Week 3 with Dress
Mean Difference = -0.57
SD Difference = 2.65
T = -o.s1 DF = 13 Probability = 0.43

 

Dress with Jury
Mean Difference = -0.86
SD Difference = 3.21
T = -1.00 DF = 13 Probability = 0.34

 

215

 

Paired t-tests: STAI Scores for the Research Populatlon

 

Week 1 with Week 2
Mean Difference = -1.97
SD Difference = 9.96
T = -1.24 DF = 38 Probability = 0.22

 

Week 2 with Week 3
Mean Difference = 3.95
SD Difference = 10.04
T = 2.46 DF = 38 Probability = 0.02

 

Week 3 with Dress
Mean Difference = -4.62
SD Difference = 9.99
T = -2.88 DF = 38 Probability = 0.01

 

Dress with AM
Mean Difference = -4.15
SD Difference = 8.94
T = 290 DF = 38 Probability = 0.01

 

AM with Jury
Mean Difference = 0.26
SD Difference = 6.77
T = 0.24 DF = 38 Probability = 0.81

216

 

Paired t-tests: STAI Scores for the lnexperienced Sample

 

Week 1 with Week 2
Mean Difference = -1.36
SD Difference = 12.03
T = -0.57 DF = 24 Probability = 0.58

 

Week 2 with Week 3
Mean Difference = 5.24
SD Difference = 11.53
T = 2.27 DF = 24 Probability = 0.03

 

Week 3 with Dress
Mean Difference = -5.32
SD Difference = 12.26
T = -2.17 DF = 24 Probability = 0.04

 

Dress with AM
Mean Difference = -5.32
SD Difference = 10.60
T = 251 DF = 24 Probability = 0.02

 

AM with Jury
Mean Difference = 1.76
SD Difference = 7.35
T = 1.20 DF = 24 Probability = 0.24

217

 

Paired t-tests: STAI Scores for the Experienced Sample

 

Week 1 with Week 2
Mean Difference = -3.07
SD Difference = 4.55
T = 253 DF = 13 Probability = 0.03

 

Week 2 with Week 3
Mean Difference = 1.64
SD Difference = 6.37
T = 0.97 DF = 13 Probability = 0.35

 

Week 3 with Dress
Mean Difference = -3.36
SD Difference = 3.43
T = -3.66 DF = 13 Probability = 0.00

 

Dress with AM
Mean Difference = -2.07
SD Difference = 4.36
T = -1.78 DF = 13 Probability = 0.10

 

AM with Jury
Mean Difference = -2.43
SD Difference = 4.69
T = -1.94 DF = 13 Probability = 0.07

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Abel, J. L., & Larkin, K. T. (1990). Anticipation of performance among musicians:
Physiological arousal, confidence, and state-anxiety. Psychology of Music, 18,
1 71 -1 82.

Agnew, N., & Agnew, M. (1963). Drive level effects on tasks of narrow and broad
attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 5862.

American College of Sports Medicine. (1986). Guidelines for exercise testing
and prescription (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.

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

Ayres, J. (1986). Perceptions of speaking ability: An explanation for stage fright.
Communication Education, 35, 275-287.

Bahrick, H. P. (1954). Incidental Ieaming under two incentive conditions. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 47, 170-172.

Bahrick, H. P., Fitts, P. M., & Rankin, R. E. (1952). Effects of incentives upon
reactions to peripheral stimuli. Joumal of Experimental Psychology, 44, 400-
406.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Towards a unifying theory of behavior change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bartlett, F. (1950). Program for experiments on thinking. Quarterly Joumalof
Experimental Psychology, 2, 145-152.

Bartlett, M. S. (1947). Multivariate analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, Series B, 9, 176-197.

Behnke, R. R., & Carlile, L. W. (1971). Heart rate as an index of speech anxiety.
Speech Monographs, 38, 65-69.

Bejjani, F. J., & Snow, 8. S. (1990). Use of mood scores as indices of athletic

character and stress reactivity among musicians. Medical Problems of
Performing Artists, 5, 45-48.

218

219

Borkovec, T. D. (1976). Physiological and cognitive processes in the regulation
of anxiety. in G. E. Schwartz & D. Shapiro (Eds), Consciousness and self-
regulation: Advances in research (Vol. 1, pp. 205-278). New York: Plenum.

Borkovec, T. D., Robinson, E., Pruzinsky, T., & DePree, J. A. (1983). Preliminary
exploration of worry: Some characteristics and processes. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 21, 9-16.

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

Brantigan, C. 0., Brantigan, T. A., & Joseph, N. (1982). Effect of beta blockade
and beta stimulation on stage fright. American Journal of Medicine, 72, 88-
94.

Brantigan, T. A., Joseph, N. H., & Brantigan, C. O. (1978). Beta-blockade and
musical performance. The Lancet, 2, 896.

Brantigan, T. A., Joseph, N. H., & Brantigan, C. O. (1979). Stage fright revisited.
The American Organist, 13, 20-21.

Bruner, J. P., Matter, J., & Papanek, M. L. (1955). Breadth of Ieaming as a
function of drive level and mechanization. Psychological Review, 62, 1-10.

Bruning, J. L., Capage, J. E., Kozuh, G. F., Young, P. F., & Young, W. E. (1968).
Socially induced drive and range of cue utilization. Joumal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 9, 242-244.

Buck, R., Miller, R. E., & Caul, W. F. (1974). Sex, personality and physiological
variables in the communication of affect via facial expression. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 587-596.

Callaway, E., & Dembo, E. (1958). Narrowed attention: A psychological
phenomenon that accompanies a certain physiological change. Archives of
Neurology and Psychiatry, 79, 74-90.

Callaway, E., 8 Thompson, S. V. (1953). Sympathetic activity and perception.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 15, 443-455.

Carron, A. V. (1971). Reactions to “Anxiety and Motor Behavior.“ Joumal of
Motor Behavior, 3, 181-188.

Carron, A. V., & Morford, W. R. (1968). Anxiety, stress and motor learning.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 27, 507-511.

Cox, R. H. (1985). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications. Dubuque, IA:
Brown.

220

Craske, M. G., & Craig, K. D. (1984). Musical performance anxiety: The three-
systems model and self-efficacy theory. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
22, 267-280.

Cutietta, R. (1986). Biofeedback training in music: From experimental to clinical
applications. Council for Research in Music Education, 87, 35-42.

Davidson, R. J. (1978). Specificity and patterning in biobehavioral systems:
implications for behavior change. American Psychologist, 33, 430-436.

Davidson, R. J., & Schwartz, G. E. (1976). The psychobiology of relaxation and
related states: A multiprocess theory. In D. l. Mostofsky (Ed.), Behavior
control and modification of psysiological activity (pp. 399-442). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Deffenbacher, J. L. (1978). Worry, emotionality and task-generated interference
in test anxiety: An empirical test of attentional theory. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 70, 248-254.

Deffenbacher, J. L. (1980). Worry and emotionality in test anxiety. In I. G.
Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 111-
128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Deffenbacher, J. L., & Hazaleus, S. L. (1985). Cognitive, emotional and
physiological components of test anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
9. 169-180.

Deffenbacher, J. L., Zwemer, W. A., Whisman, M. A., Hill, R. A., & Sloan, R. D.
(1986). irrational beliefs and anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 10,
281-292.

Dews, C. L. B., & Williams, M. S. (1989). Student musicians' personality styles,
stresses, and coping patterns. Psychology of Music, 17, 37-47.

Doctor, R. M., & Altman, F. (1969). Worry and emotionality as components of
test anxiety: Replication and further data. Psychological Reports, 24, 563-
568.

Dodge, C. L. (1989). School, stress, and the harp. American String Teacher;
39 (2), 71 -73.

Duffy, E. (1934). Emotion: An example of the need for reorientation in
psychology. Psychological Review, 41, 184-198.

Duffy, E. (1941 ). The conceptual categories of psychology: A suggestion for
revision. Psychological Review, 48, 177-203.

Duffy, E. (1957). The psychological significance of the concept of 'arousal' or
'activation.‘ Psychological Review, 64, 265-271.

221

Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the
organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183-201.

Ellis, A. (1977). Rational-emotive therapy: Research data that supports the
clinical and personality hypotheses of RET and other modes of cognitive-
behavior therapy. The Counselling Psychologist, 7, 2-42.

Epstein, S., & Fenz, W. D. (1962). Theory and experiment on the measurement
of approach-avoidance conflict. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
64, 97-112.

Epstein, S., & Fenz, W. D. (1965). Steepness of approach and avoidance
gradients in humans as a function of experience: Theory and experiment.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 1-12.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1964). Manual of the Eysenck personality
inventory. London: University of London.

Feltz, D. L., & Mugno, D. A. (1983). A replication of the path analysis of the
causal elements in Bandura's theory of self-efficacy and the influence of
autonomic perception. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 263-277.

Feltz, D. L., Landers, D. M., & Raeder, U. (1979). Enhancing self-efficacy in
high-avoidance motor tasks: A comparison of modeling techniques. Journal
of Sport Psychology, 1, 112-124.

Fenz, W. D. (1964). Conflict and stress as related to physiological activation
and sensory, perceptual and cognitive functioning. Psychological
Monographs, 78(8), 1-33.

Fenz, W. D. (1973). Stress and its mastery: Predicting from laboratory to real
life. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 5, 332-346.

Fenz, W. D. (1975). Coping mechanisms and performance under stress. in D.
M. Landers (Ed.), Psychology of sport and motor behavior II (pp. 2-24).
University Park, PA: Penn State HPER Series No. 10.

Fenz, W. D., & Epstein, S. (1962). Measurement of approach-avoidance conflict
along a stimulus dimension by a thematic apperception test. Journal of
Personality, 30, 61 3- 632.

Fenz, W. D., & Epstein, S. (1967). Changes in gradients of skin conductance,
heart rate and respiration rate as a function of experience. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 29, 33-51.

Fenz, W. D., & Jones, G. B. (1972a). individual differences in physiological
arousal and performance in sport parachutists. Psychosomatic Medicine, 34,
1-8.

222

Fenz, W. D., & Jones, G. B. (1972b). The effect of uncertainty on mastery of
stress: A case study. Psychophysiology. 9, 615-619.

Fenz, w. 0., & Jones, G. B. (1974). Cardiac conditioning in a reaction time task
and heart rate control during real life stress. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 18, 199-203.

Fenz, W. D., Kluck, B. L., & Bankart, C. P. (1969). The effect of threat and
uncertainty on mastery of stress. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79,
473-479.

Fishbein, M., & Middlestadt, S. (1988). Medical problems among lCSOM
musicians: Overview of a national survey. Medical Problems of Performing
Artists, 3, 1-8.

Fogle, D. O. (1979). Preparing students for the worst: The power of negative
thinking. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 57, 364-367.

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

Fridlund, A. J., Schwartz, G. F., & Fowler, 8. C. (1984). Pattern recognition of
self-reported emotional state from multiple-site facial EMG activity during
affective imagery. Psychophysiology, 21, 622-631.

Gabbard, G. (1979). Stage fright. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 60,
383-392.

Gabbard, G. O. (1983). Further contributions to the understanding of stage
fright: Narcissistic issues. Joumal of the American Psychoanalytic
Association, 31, 423-441.

Gates, G. A. (1988). Performance anxiety (stage fright): Causes and control.
National Association of Teachers of Singing Bulletin, 45 (2), 26-27.

Geen, R. G. (1976). Test anxiety, observation, and range of cue utilization.
British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 253-259.

Geen, R. G. (1977). The effects of anticipation of positive and negative
outcomes on audience anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 45, 715-716.

Geen, R. G. (1980). Test anxiety and cue utilization. In I. G. Sarason (Ed.), Test
anxiety: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 43-61). Hillsdale, NJ:
Earlbaum.

Gentile, A. M. (1972). A working model of skill acquisition with application to
teaching. Guest, 17, 3-23.

223

Gould, D., Horn, T., & Spreemann, J. (1983). Competitive anxiety in junior elite
wrestlers. Joumal of Sport Psychology, 5, 58-71.

Gould, D., Petlichkoff, L., & Weinberg, R. S. (1984). Antecedents of, temporal
changes in, and relationships between CSAl-2 components. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 6, 289-304.

Gould, D., Weiss, M., & Weinberg, R. (1981 ). Psychological characteristics of
successful and nonsuccessful Big Ten wrestlers. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 3, 69-81.

Griffin, M. R. (1972, Spring). An analysis of state and trait anxiety experienced
in sports competition at different age levels. Foil, pp. 58-64.

Gur, R. C., Gur, R. E., Skolnick, B. E., Resnick, S. M., Silver, F. L., Chawluk, J.,
Muenz, L., Obrist, W. D., & Reivich, M. (1988). Effects of task difficulty on
regional cerebral blood flow: Relationships with anxiety and performance.
Psychophysiology, 25, 392-399.

Guyton, A. C. (1981). Textbook of medical physiology (6th ed.). Philadelphia:
Saunders.

Hamann, D. L. (1982). An assessment of anxiety in instrumental and vocal
performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, 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,
37-50.

Hanson, D. G. (1967). Cardiac response to participation in Little League
baseball competition as determined by telemetry. Research Quarterly, 38,
384-388.

Harris, S. R. (1988). A study of musical performance anxiety: A brief report on
the results of an important survey. American Music Teacher, 37(4), 15-1 6.

Highlen, P. S., & Bennett, 8. B. (1979). Psychological characteristics of
successful and nonsuccessful elite wrestlers: An exploratory study. Joumal
of Sport Psychology, 1, 123-137.

Hockey, R. (1970). Signal probability and spatial location as possible bases for
increased selectivity in noise. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 22, 37-42.

Hockey, R. (1973). Changes in information-selection patterns in multi-source
monitoring as a function of induced arousal shifts. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 101, 35-42.

 

224

Hockey, R., & Hamilton, P. (1983). The cognitive patterning of stress states. in
R. Hockey (Ed), Stress and fatigue in human performance (pp. 331 -362).
Chichester: Wiley.

Holroyd, K. A., & Appel, M. A. (1980). Test anxiety and physiological
responding. In l. G. Sarason (Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and
applications (pp. 129-151). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century.

Ingram, R. E., & Kendall, P. C. (1987). The cognitive side of anxiety. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 11 , 523-536.

James, l. M., Griffith, D. N. W., Pearson, R. M., 8 Newbury, P. (1977). Effect of
oxprenolol on stage-fright in musicians. The Lancet, 2, 952-954.

James, l., & Savage, l. (1984). Beneficial effect of nadolol on anxiety-induced
disturbances of performance in musicians: A comparison with diazepam and
placebo. American Heart Journal, 108, 1150-1155.

Johnson, W. R. (1949). A study of emotion revealed in two types of athletic
sports contests. Research Quarterly, 20, 72-79.

Jones, J. G., & Cale, A. (1989). Precompetition temporal patterning of anxiety
and self-confidence in males and females. Journal of Sport Behavior, 12,
183-195.

Kanefield, E. L. (1990). Psychological services at The Juilliard School. Medical
Problems of Performing Artists, 5, 41 -44.

Kaplan, D. (1969). On stage fright. Drama Review, 14, 60-83.

Karasek, R. A. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain:
Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 285-
307.

Karteroliotis, C., & Gill, D. L. (1987). Temporal changes in psychological and
physiological components of state anxiety. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9,
261-274.

Keene, J. A. (1982). A history of music education in the United States.
Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

Kelly, D. H. W., & Walter, C. J. S. (1968). The relationship between clinical
diagnosis and anxiety, assessed by forearm blood flow and other
measurements. British Journal of Psychiatry, 114, 611-626.

 

225

Kendrick, M. J., Craig, K. D., Lawson, D. M., & Davidson, P. O. (1982). Cognitive
and behavioural therapy for musical performance anxiety. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50 , 353-362.

Klavora, P. (1978). An attempt to derive inverted-U curves based on the
relationship between anxiety and athletic performance. In D. M. Landers & R.
W. Christina (Eds), Psychology of motor behavior and sport, 1977 (pp. 367-
377). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self: A systematic approach to the
psychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personality disorders. New York:
lntemational Universities.

Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: lntemational
Universities.

Koksal, F. (1990). Four systems anxiety questionnaire (FSAQ): A self-report
measure of somatic, cognitive, behavioral, and feeling components. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 54, 534-545.

Korchin, S. J. (1964). Anxiety and cognition. In C. Scheerer (Ed.), Cognition:
Theory, research, promise (pp. 58-78). New York: Harper & Row.

Krane, V., & Williams, J. (1987). Performance and somatic anxiety, cognitive
anxiety, and confidence changes prior to competition. Joumal of Sport
Behavior, 10, 47-56.

Landers, D. M. (1980). The arousal-performance relationship revisited.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 51, 77-90.

Lang, P. J. (1978). The application of psychophysiological methods to the study
of psychotherapy and behaviour modification. In A. Bergin & 8. Garfield
(Eds), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (2nd ed., pp. 75-
125). New York: Wiley.

Lang, P. J., Miller, G. A., & Levin, D. (1988). Anxiety and fear. In R. J. Davidson,
G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds), Consciousness and self-regulation (pp.
123-151). New York: Plenum.

Leary, M. R. (1990). Anxiety, cognition, and behavior. in search of a broader
perspective. in M. Booth-Butterfield (Ed.), Communication, cognition &
anxiety [Special issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(2),
39-44.

LeBIanc, A., Shehan-Campbell, P., & Codding, P. (1992, April). Suitability ofa
personal heart rate monitor for use in music research. Paper presented at
the Music Educators National Conference National Biennial ln-Service
Conference, New Orleans, LA.

226
Levitt, E. E. (1980). The psychology of anxiety. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ”

Lidén, S., & Gottfries, C. G. (1974). Beta-blocking agents in the treatment of
catecholamine-induced symptoms in musicians. The Lancet, 2, 529.

Liebert, R. M., & Morris, L. W. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of
test anxiety: A distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20,
975-978.

Lund, D. R. (1972). A comparative study of three therapeutic techniques in the
modification of anxiety behavior in instrumental music performance.
Dissertation Abstracts lntemational, 33, 1189A. (University Microfilms No.
72-23,026).

Mahoney, M. J., & Avener, M. (1977). Psychology of the elite athlete: An
exploratory study. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1, 135-141.

Malmo, R. B. (1959). Activation: A neurophysiological dimension.
Psychological Review, 66, 367-386.

Martens, R. (1971). Anxiety and motor behavior: A review. Journal of Motor
Behavior, 3, 151-179.

Martens, R. (1974). Arousal and motor perionnance. In J. H. Wilmore (Ed),
Exercise and sport science reviews (Vol. 2, pp. 155-188). New York:
Academic Press.

Martens, R. (1977). Sport commtition anxiety test. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.

Martens, R., Burton, 0., Rivkin, F., & Simon, J. (1980). Reliability and validity of
the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory (CSAl). In C. H. Nadeau, W. C.
Halliwell, K. M. Newell, & G. C. Roberts (Eds), Psychology of motor behavior
and sport, 1979 (pp. 91-99). Champaign, lL: Human Kinetics.

Martens, R., Burton, 0., Vealey, R. S., Bump, L. A., & Smith, D. E. (1990).
Development and validation of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2. In
R. Martens, R. S. Vealey, & D. Burton, Competitive anxiety in sport (pp. 117-
190). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Martens, R., & Gill, D. L. (1976). State anxiety among successful and
unsuccessful competitors who differ in competitive trait anxiety. Research
Quarterly, 47, 698-708.

Martens, R., & Landers, D. M. (1970). Motor performance under stress: A test of
the inverted-U hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16,
29-37.

227

Martin, A. Y. (1964, January). The physiological and the psychological
concomitants of stage fright. Music Educators Journal, pp. 100-108.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1990). Willingness to communicate: A
cognitive view. In M. Booth-Butterfield (Ed.), Communication, cognition &
anxiety [Special issue]. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5 (2),
19-37.

McLeod, D. R., Hoehn-Saric, R., & Stefan, R. L. (1986). Somatic symptoms of
anxiety: Comparison of self-report and physiological measures. Biological
Psychiatry, 21, 301-310.

McNamara, H. J., & Fisch, R. l. (1964). Effect of high and low motivation on two
aspects of attention. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 19, 571-578.

Meichenbaum, D. H. (1977). Cognitive behavior modification. New York:
Plenum.

Meichenbaum, D., & Butler, L. (1980). Toward a conceptual model for the
treatment of test anxiety: Implications for research and treatment. In I. G.
Sarason (Ed.) Test anxiety: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 187-
208). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mendelsohn, G. A., & Griswold, B. B. (1987). Anxiety and repression as
predictors of the use of incidental cues in problem solving. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 353-359.

Meyers, A. W., Cooke, C. J., Cullen, J., & Liles, L. (1979). Psychological aspects
of athletic competitors: A replication across sports. Cognitive Therapy and
Research, 3, 361 -366.

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

Morris, L. W., & Fulmer, R. S. (1976). Test anxiety (worry and emotionality)
changes during academic testing as a function of feedback and test
importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 817-824.

Morris, L. W., & Liebert, R. M. (1970). Relationship of cognitive and emotional
components of test anxiety to physiological arousal and academic
performance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 332-337.

Motley, M. T. (1990). Public speaking anxiety qua performance anxiety: A
revised model and an alternative therapy. In M. Booth-Butterfield (Ed.),
Communication, cognition, and anxiety [Special issue]. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 5 (2), 85-104.

228

Mueller, J. H. (1976). Anxiety and cue utilization in human learning and
memory. In M. Zuckerman & C. D. Spielberger (Eds), Emotions and anxiety:
New concepts, methods, and applications (pp. 197-229). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

Nagel, J., Himle, D., & Papsdorf, J. (1981). Coping with performance anxiety.
National Association of Teachers of Singing Bulletin, 37(4), 26-33.

Neftel, K. A., Adler, R. H., Kappeli, L., Rossi, M., Dolder, M., Kaser, H. E.,
Bruggesser H. H., & Vorkauf, H. (1982). Stage fright in musicians: A model
illustrating the effect of beta blockers. Psychosomatic Medicine, 44, 461 -
469.

Neiss, R. (1988). Reconceptualizing arousal: Psychobiological states in motor
performance. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 345-366.

Neubert, D. (1990). How to cope with performance anxiety and use it to your
advantage. American String Teacher, 40(1), 63-65.

Nideffer, R. M., & Hessler, N. D. (1978). Controlling performance anxiety.
College Music Symposium, 18, 146-153.

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

O'Malley, J. J., & Poplawsky, A. (1971). Noise-induced arousal and breadth of
attention. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 33, 887-890.

Oxendine, J. B. (1970). Emotional arousal and motor perionnance. Quest, 13,
23-32.

Pennebaker, J. W. (1982). The psychology of physical symptoms. New York:
Springer-Verlag.

Polar Vantage XL Heart Rate Monitor user's instruction manual. (1989).
Stamford, CT: Polar USA.

Polar Vantage XL Heart Rate Analysis Software. (1990). Kempele, Finland:
Polar Electro OY.

Purdy, D. A., Haufler, S. E., & Eitzen, D. S. (1981). Stress among child athletes:
Perceptions by parents, coaches, and athletes. Journal of Sport Behavior, 4,
32-44.

Rachman, S., & Hodgson, R. (1974). Synchrony and desynchrony in fear and
avoidance. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 12, 311-318.

229

Ray, W. J., Cole, H. W., & Raczynski, J. M. (1983). Psychophysiological
assessment. in J. Hersen, A. E. Kazdin, & A. S. Bellack (Eds), The clinical
psychology handbook (pp. 427-453). New York: Pergamon.

Reiman, E. M., Fusselman, M. J., Fox, P. T., & Raichle, M. E. (1989).
Neuroanatomical correlates of anticipatory anxiety. Science, 243, 1071-
1074.

Salmon, P. G. (1990). A psychological perspective on musical performance
anxiety: A review of the literature. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 5,
2-11.

Sandin, B., & Chorot, P. (1985). Changes in skin, salivary, and urinary pH as
indicators of anxiety level in humans. Psychophysiology, 22, 226-334.

Sarason, l. G. (1960). Empirical findings and theoretical problems in the use of
anxiety scales. Psychological Bulletin, 57, 403-415.

Sarason, l. G. (1961 ). The effects of anxiety and threat on the solution of a
difficult task. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 165-168.

Sarason, I. G. (1972). Experimental approaches to test anxiety: Attention and
the uses of information. in C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in
theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 382-403). New York: Academic Press.

Sarason, l. G. (1973). Test anxiety and cognitive modeling. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 58-61.

Sarason, I. G. (1978). The test anxiety scale: Concept and research. In C. D.
Spielberger & l. G. Sarason (Eds), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 5, pp. 193-216).
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Sarason, l. G. (1981). Test anxiety, stress, and social support. Journal of
Personality, 49, 101-114.

Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions to
tests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 929-938.

Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., & Pierce, G. R. (1990). Anxiety, cognitive
interference, and performance. In M. Booth-Butterfield (Ed),
Communication, cognition & anxiety [Special issue]. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 5(2), 1-18.

Scanlan, T. K. (1984). Competitive stress and the child athlete. In J. M. Silva, &
R. S. Weinberg (Eds), Psychological foundations of sport (pp.118—129).
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Scanlan, T. K., & Lewthwaite, R. (1984). Social psychological aspects of
competition for male youth sport participants: I. Predictors of competitive
stress. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6, 208-226.

230

Scanlan, T. K., & Passer, M. W. (1978). Factors related to competitive stress
among male youth sports participants. Medicine and Science in Sports, 10,
103-108.

Scanlan, T. K., & Passer, M. W. (1979). Sources of competitive stress in young
female athletes. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 151-159.

Schwartz, G. E., Davidson, R. J., & Goleman, D. (1978). Patterning of cognitive
and somatic processes in the self-regulation of anxiety: Effects of meditation
versus exercise. Psychosomatic Medicine, 40, 321 -328.

Schwarzer, R., & Quast, H. (1985). Multidimensionality of the anxiety
experience: Evidence for additional components. In H. M. van der Ploeg, R.
Schwarzer, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds), Advances in test anxiety research
(Vol. 4, pp. 3-14). Lissa, Netherlands: Swetz & Zeitlinger.

Shapiro, A. H., & Fenz, W. D. (1969). Changes in heart rate as a function of an
unconditional stimulus presented under varying conditions of certainty.
Psychonomic Science, 16, 177-179.

Simon, J. A., & Martens, R. (1979). Children's anxiety in sport and nonsport
evaluative activities. Journal of Sport Psychology, 1, 160-169.

Sjbberg, H., Frankenhaeuser, M., & Bjurstedt, H. (1979). lnteractions‘between
heart rate, psychomotor performance and perceived effort during physical
work as influenced by beta-andenergic blockade. Biological Psychology. 8,
31-43.

Sm ith, C. A., & Morris, L. W. (1976). Effects of stimulative and sedative music on
two components of test anxiety. Psychological Reports, 38, 1187-1193.

Smith, N. C., Burwitz, L., & Jakeman, P. (1988). Precompetitive anxiety and
motor performance: A psychophysiological examination. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 6, 115-130.

Solso, R. L. (1968). The effect of anxiety on cue selection in the A-Br paradigm.
Psychonomic Science, 13, 105-106.

Solso, R. L., Johnson, J. E., & Schatz, G. C. (1968). Perceptual perimeters and
generalized drive. Psychonomic Science, 13, 71-72.

Sonstroem, R. J., & Bernardo, P. (1982). Intraindividual pregame state-anxiety
and basketball performance: A reexamination of the inverted-U curve.
Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, 235-245.

Spence, J. T., & Spence, K. W. (1966). The motivational components of
manifest anxiety: Drive and drive stimuli. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety
and Behavior (pp. 291 -326). New York: Academic Press.

231

Spence, K. W. (1951). Theoretical interpretations of Ieaming. In S. 8. Stevens
(Ed), Handbook of experimental psychology (pp. 690-729). New York:
Wiley.

Spielberger, C. D. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D.
Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and Behavior (pp. 3-20). New York: Academic
Press.

Spielberger, C. D. (1971). Trait-state anxiety and motor behavior. Journal of
Motor Behavior, 3, 256-279.

Spielberger, C. D. (1972). Anxiety as an emotional state. in C. D. Spielberger
(Ed.), Anxiety: Current trends in theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 23-49).
New York: Academic Press.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorusch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). Manual for the
State- Trait Anxiety Inventory (Self-evaluation questionnaire). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists.

Spielberger, C. D., Gorusch, R. L., Lushene, R. E., Vagg, P. R., Jacobs, G. A.
(1983). Manual for the State- Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y): Self-evaluation
questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.

Starkman, M. N., Cameron, 0. G., Nesse, R. M., & Zelnik, T. (1990). Peripheral
catecholamine levels and the symptoms of anxiety: Studies in patients with
and without pheochromocytoma. Psychosomatic Medicine, 52, 129-142.

Steptoe, A. (1989). Stress, coping and stage fright in professional musicians.
Psychology of Music, 17, 3-11.

Steptoe, A., & Fidler, H. (1987). Stage fright in orchestral musicians: A study of
cognitive and behavioural strategies in performance anxiety. British Journal
of Psychology, 78, 241 -249.

Stollak, G. E., & Stollak, M. A. (1988). Psychological contributions to
understanding and alleviating stage fright. National Association of Teachers
of Singing Bulletin, 44(5), 10-34.

Sweeney, G. A., & Horan, J. J. (1982). Separate and combined effects of cue-
controlled relaxation and cognitive restructuring in the treatment of musical
performance anxiety. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 29, 486-497.

Taber, C. W. (1985). Taber’s cyclopedic medical dictionary (16th ed.) (C. L.
Thomas, Ed.). Philadelphia: F. A. Davis.

Terwilliger, R. D. (1972). The effect of group counseling on the vocal recital
performance of undergraduate education vocal music majors. Dissertation
Abstracts lntemational, 33, 577A. (University Microfilms No. 72-22,715).

232

Tyrer, P. J., & Lader, M. (1974). Response to propranolol and diazepam in
somatic and psychic anxiety. British Medical Journal, 2, 14-16.

Ussher, M. H., & Hardy, L. (1985). The effect of competitive anxiety on a number
of cognitive and motor subsystems. Journal of Sports Sciences, 3, 232-233.

Waal-Manning, H. J., Knight, R. G., Spears, G. F., & Paulin, J. M. (1986). The
relationship between blood pressure and personality in a large unselected
adult sample. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 30, 361-368.

Wachtel, P. L. (1968). Anxiety, attention, and 00ping with threat. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 73, 137-143.

Wardle, A. (1974). Behavior modification by reciprocal inhibition of instrumental
music performance anxiety. Journal of Band Research, 11, 18-26.

Weinberg, R. S., & Genuchi, M. (1980). Relationship between competitive trait
anxiety, state anxiety, and golf performance: A field study. Journal of Sport
Psychology. 2, 148-154.

Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1979). Expectations and
performance: An empirical test of Bandura's self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Sport Psychology, 1, 320-331.

Weinberg, R. S., Gould, D., & Jackson, A. (1980). Cognition and motor
performance effect of psyching-up strategies on three motor tasks. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 4, 239-245.

Weinberg, R. S., & Hunt, V. V. (1976). The interrelationships between anxiety,
motor behavior, motor performance and electromyography. Journal of Motor
Behavior, 8, 219-224.

Wesner, R. B., Noyes, R. Jr., & Davis, T. L (1990). The occurrence of
performance anxiety among musicians. Joumal of Affective Disorders, 18,
177-185.

West, C. K., Lee, J. F., & Anderson, T. H. (1969). The influence of test anxiety on
the selection of relevant from irrelevant information. Journal of Educational
Research, 63, 51 ~52.

Wilkinson, L. (1989a). SYGRAPH: The system for graphics. Evanston, IL:
SYSTAT.

Wilkinson, L. (1989b). SYSTAT: The system for statistics. Evanston, IL:
SYSTAT.

Wine, J. D. (1971). Test anxiety and direction of attention. Psychological
Bulletin, 76, 92-104.

233

Wine, J. D. (1980). Cognitive-attentional theory of test anxiety. In l. G. Sarason
(Ed.), Test anxiety: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 349-385).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wolfe, M. L. (1990). Coping with musical performance anxiety: Problem-
focused and emotion-focused strategies. Medical Problems of Performing
Artists, 5, 33-36.

Wolfe, R. L. (1977). A comparison of self- versus therapist-administered
biofeedback relaxation training and desensitization. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 388, 923B-924B. (University Microfilms No. 77-16,258).

Wolpe, J. (1973). The practice of behavior therapy (2nd ed.). New York:
Pergamon.

Wright, M. R., Wright, J., & Frankenhaeuser, M. (1981). Relationships between
sex-related psychological characteristics during adolescence and
catecholamine excretion during achievement stress. Psychophysiology, 18,
459-482.

Yan Lan, L., & Gill, D. L. (1984). The relationships among self-efficacy, stress
responses, and a cognitive feedback manipulation. Journal of Sport
Psychology, 6, 227-238.

Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to
rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and
Psychology. 18, 459-482.

Zaffy, D. J., & Bruning, J. L. (1966). Drive and the range of cue utilization.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 382-384.