r. xv“? "1- ”a

“auxin-I)”:

w. n I
m -

 

. is on:

11.....7‘:

‘ a...»
~> ¢n,
. 3.3.“:

“a,

J
a“?

 

 

 

 

Brit-.51 I.

:V. ,

 

 

 

 

UNI. 1.! nun:
q, M,
gamma

265%.! .fi. 30% .31
.r..;.;.:.u......u.u. max” m... .
‘ q...”

l

V Wasqnngmg
. , . _ imfiwwmn

‘4
- .
3.1.? 1:9 p . J m ..
,6 __ . €me
4 1
z

a
, mm“?

‘ 3...; I
.5»? «M? n
- .xuuwumwmma. ..m:.1
3R...

Irkutfln . .
.8. .. (.5:

“to.
.7153...“ n.
dwkfiauufifi

.. a. .1
49.5%
.13. 33%....

I 1!
‘57:}:

94W“.

, .Pxxi
1..

TV

”‘1’

{ . ..

.53. 72:92 an.
, .rifiMMfi‘é,
63.3.“,11Jv1un. 451mb. Aritth...
: it L4,)?! .hnmnra .tu

um.

~ ,ar
rigs?“
£2.93? ‘

9

..
. . {Jenni}.
, I5... (I? c: 0,! .
1.15““... :1... .fhnflfli
65?...hnyuxunnefifi. I
.7 Inna: 91.

( |l.. I
z. . .91.. 1g»,
, , é
. st... :13...“ I- . r .
.a H.413 Sizkhkflfh )2‘ Jr ‘

$3343;
LEW”, . .‘ a _

 

it [(-52

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

PERFORMANCE ANXIETY WITHIN THE SECONDARY CHORAL CLASSROOM:

EFFECTS OF THE ALEXANDER TECHNIQUE ON TENSION IN PERFORMANCE

presented by

STEVEN ROBERT LORENZ

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.M. Music Education

degree in

 

 

 
   

Major professor

Date 7! (gal/OZ,

0-7 639 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DAT; POLE U .4 DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

MY 1 2 2006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuepGS-p. 15

PERFORMANCE ANXIETY WITHIN THE SECONDARY CHORAL CLASSROOM:
EFFECTS OF THE ALEXANDER TECHNIQUE ON TENSION IN PERFORMANCE

By

Steven Robert Lorenz

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF MUSIC IN MUSIC EDUCATION
Department of Music Education

2002

ABSTRACT

PERFORMANCE ANXIETY WITHIN THE SECONDARY CHORAL CLASSROOM:
EFFECTS OF THE ALEXANDER TECHNIQUE ON TENSION IN PERFORMANCE

By

Steven Robert Lorenz

The purpose of this research was to increase understanding about the relationship
between musical performance anxiety and Alexander Technique-derived exercises within
the secondary choral classroom. Subjects were enrolled in one of two high school
beginning choral ensembles at a Detroit, Michigan high school. One ensemble (N=11
females) received sensory awareness and body alignment exercises based on the
Alexander Technique over a thirteen week treatment period. The other ensemble (N =11
females) served as the control group and received no such instruction. Only the female’s
data was considered in this research. Criterion measures were administered pre- and
post-treatment, prior to two similar school performances.

Results suggested that the subject population had had substantial experience with
musical performance anxiety in the ensemble setting. Self-reported symptoms most
widely reported included both cognitive (general nervousness, worry, and panicky
feeling) and somatic manifestations (perspiration/sweating, dry mouth, and shortness of
breath). The effect of treatment on musical performance anxiety was largely
inconclusive. The treatment did appear, however, to positively impact some subjects’

singing posture, state of relaxation, stage presence, breath control, and vocal technique.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This document represents an outpouring of support from professors, colleagues,
friends, and family. Without the diverse contributions from each of these individuals,
this project could not have reached completion. First, many thanks to my collegiate voice
teacher, Mr. Benjamin Allen, who fostered in me a love for vocal music and an interest in
alleviating needless tension in vocal performance. Several other professors from Carleton
College, specifically Dr. Lawrence Burnett and Dr. Phillip Rhodes, highlighted the
importance of scholarly inquiry and provided much needed advice and counsel.

Many thanks also to my cooperating teacher, Ms. Nina R. Scott, and the parents
of my students for their willingness to allow me to work with their students in this
research.

The members of my advising committee must also receive countless thanks. Dr.
Albert LeBlanc and Dr. Jonathan Reed both kindly served on my committee and provided
much needed guidance and advice throughout the process. Their diverse perspectives on
the subject also served to expand the philosophical and practical dimensions scope of my
project. I would especially like to thank Dr. Cynthia Taggart for her countless hours of
advising, reviewing, words of encouragement, and friendly smiles that served to guide the
growth of this project.

Throughout the past year, the contributions of family and friends have been
endless. Special appreciation goes to my wife, Rose, whose love, kindness, and support
helped keep me in good spirits and the project moving forward even in moments of

frustration and hopelessness.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... vii
Chapter One ...................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 2
What is Musical Performance Anxiety? ............................................................. 2
Prevalence of Musical Performance Anxiety ....................................................... 3

The Anxiety-Performance Relationship ............................................................. 6
Determinants of Musical Performance Anxiety ................................................. 8
Physiological, Behavioral, and Cognitive Effects .............................................. 11
Treatment and Coping Strategies ......................................................................... 15
Cognitive-behavioral therapy ......................................................................... l6
Cue-controlled relaxation ............................................................................... 19
Systematic desensitization ............................................................................ 20
Pharmacological treatment ............................................................................ 23
Conclusions about treatment and coping strategies ......................................... 28

Guiding principles of the Alexander Technique ........................................... 29

Purpose Statement .................................................................................................... 32
Research Problems .................................................................................................... 32
Chapter Two ................................................................................................................... 34
Related Research ....................................................................................................... 34
Application of the Alexander Technique to Singing ........................................... 34

The Alexander Technique and Effects on Musical Performance Anxiety .......... 37
Summary ............................................................................................................. 40
Chapter Three ................................................................................................................... 41

iv

Method ...................................................................................................................... 41

Participants .......................................................................................................... 41
Design and Procedures ........................................................................................ 42
Criterion Measures .............................................................................................. 43
Analysis ............................................................................................................. 44
Chapter Four ................................................................................................................... 45
Results ...................................................................................................................... 45
Experience with Musical Performance Anxiety ..................... ' ............................ 4S
Self-Reported Symptoms of Musical Performance Anxiety ............................... 47
Effects of Treatment on Self-Reported Symptoms .............................................. 51
The Alexander Technique and Vocal Performance .............................................. 55
Interpretations .......................................................................................................... 59
Chapter Five ................................................................................................................... 63
Summary ................................................................................................................... 63
Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 65
Implications for Music Education ............................................................................ 68
Suggestions for Future Research ............................................................................... 7O
Appendices ...................................................................................................................... 74
Appendix A: Frequency of Musical Performance Anxiety ..................................... 74
Appendix B: Self-Reported Symptoms of Musical Performance Anxiety ............. 75
Appendix C: Effect of the Alexander Technique on Symptoms
Of Musical Performance Anxiety ....................................................... 76
Appendix D: The Alexander Technique and Vocal Performance ............................ 78
Appendix E: Treatment Subjects’ Qualitative Responses ........................................ 80
Appendix F: Consent Form ..................................................................................... 84
Appendix G: UCRIHS Approval Letter ................................................................... 85
References ......................................................................................................................... 86

Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:
Table 6:

LIST OF TABLES

T-tests Between Treatment and Control Groups ........................................... 45
Mean Experience with Musical Performance Anxiety Scores ......................... 46
Subjects’ Pre—Test Self-Reported Experiencing of

Symptoms of Musical Performance Anxiety ................................................. 48

Control & Treatment Groups’ Self-Reported Experiencing of

Symptoms of Musical Performance Anxiety ................................................. 50
Mean Effect of the Alexander Technique Scores ........................................... 52
Interpretation of the Effect of the Alexander Technique Mean Scores .......... 54

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: LeBlanc’s (1993) Sources of Variation in Musical Performance Anxiety ........ 10

vii

Chapter One

Introduction

The house lights flicker on and off...students slowly enter the stage, each carrying their
instrument with care, quickly moving to their assigned seat...the seating arrangement
quickly fills up...house lights are dimmed while a few students adjust their
instruments...others simply wiggle in their chairs in anticipation...only a few more
students meandering onto stage...rustles of programs and squeaky chairs resonate fi'om
the audience and throughout the hall...the members of the band realize that there is one
remaining empty chair...and no one to fill it...it is not a mistake, but rather a missing
student...perhaps this student became ill...perhaps an emergency...perhaps frightened by
the thought of performing in front of others...perhaps terrified by a lack of
preparation...perhaps nervously standing outside the hall, trying to muster enough
courage to enter the stage...

As an undergraduate music major at Carleton College in 1996, I entered the
private voice studio for the first time. Though I was not aware, at the time I was
experiencing significant muscle tension while singing, located primarily in the shoulders,
neck, and face. My instructor, Benjamin Allen, an Alexander-trained vocalist,
incorporated Alexander-derived principles into my voice study to alleviate my tension.
Initial lessons involved no singing, consisting entirely of exercises in which I observed
and explored the range of motion of my head, neck, and torso in isolation, as well as the
engagement of these areas in daily activities such as sitting or walking. Initially, I was
confused as to why Allen was devoting considerable lesson time to non-vocal exercises.
Yet as I progressed, the exercises expanded in scope, my awareness of the interaction of
musculature was heightened, and my tension and performance anxiety gradually
decreased. Over the course of more than 130 private voice lessons and 100 group voice
classes, I came to realize the powerful effect of this Alexander-derived approach on the
study of voice. The focus of those initial lessons -- observation of engagement of the
primary control -- had developed to the extent that I was now able to direct my energy
and musculature towards more efficient and free use. Most of my anxiety provoked by
vocal performance could be quelled on command, as I was able to observe and inhibit the

tension, while consciously redirecting my energy.

Music educators can provide students with a variety of performance opportunities,
both formal (such as auditions, competitions, and juries) and informal (such as solo
recitals, in-class performances, and ensemble performances). Accompanying each
opportunity is a different setting, audience, perception of importance, and subsequent
level of stress and anxiety. While music educators can minimize performance formats
that tend to elicit high levels of anxiety, students may still suffer the effects of musical
performance anxiety. These include altered physiological, behavioral, and cognitive
states, as well as negative effects on both their musical performance and attitudes towards
future study of music. If music educators are to attempt to reduce their students' musical
performance anxiety, they must first consider its prevalence, observable effects, and
differences in those effects between age or experience levels. Once this knowledge has
been gained, music educators can evaluate possible treatments, both in terms of
effectiveness and practicality within the classroom setting.

Literature Review
What is Musical Performance Anxiety?

The terms "stage fright," "stress," and "performance anxiety" are often used
interchangeably when discussing undesired, negative cognitions and physiological
impairments related to public performance. While researchers, clinicians, and teachers
have attributed these kinds of distress to factors such as level of performance experience,
development of technique, and practice habits, such considerations do not account for the
presence of performance anxiety in professional, skilled, or experienced performers, nor
in private playing or practice sessions. Musical performance anxiety has been shown to
meet the criteria for social phobia or social anxiety disorder, as described by the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, but is characteristically different (Sataloff, Rosen, &
Levy, 1999). While phobic anxieties are primarily the result of external, situational cues,
musical performance anxiety is a result of one's own behavior. Further, when entering a

performance situation, the fear felt by the performer is cognitively justified and plausible.

Salmon (1990) has proposed the following working definition for musical performance
anxiety that will be used to guide future discussion:

Musical performance anxiety is defined as the experience of persisting,

distressful apprehension about and/or actual impainnent of, performance

skills in a public context, to a degree unwarranted given the individual's

musical aptitude, training, and level of preparation. (p. 3)
Prevalence of Musical Performance Anxiety

Researchers have focused their efforts predominantly on the presence, effects, and
treatments of musical performance anxiety in and on the careers of professional
musicians, as their performance opportunities are both more frequent and more likely to
be accompanied by occupational stress than those of student or amateur musicians. The
largest study of professional orchestral musicians (F ishbein, Middlestadt, Orsatti, Struas,
& Ellis, 1988) collected data from the International Conference of Symphony and Opera
Musicians (N=2,212). Over 82 percent of respondents reported experiencing medical
problems of some sort, including suffering from stage fright (24%), depression (17%),
and acute anxiety (13%). In studying the presence of anxiety among members of the
Organization of Canadian Symphony Musicians (N=204), Bartel and Thompson (1994)
found that 96 percent reported experiencing some form of performance-related stress.
Qualitatively researching the pressures facing popular musicians (N=70), Cooper and
Wills (1989) found performance and related anxieties to be one of the more predominant
issues. Audience, lifestyle, and financial concerns, as well self-imposed standards of
musicianship were the most frequently attributed causes of anxiety.

Additional research has focused on the presence of musical performance anxiety
in the lives of university students and professors. Wesner, Noyes, and Davis (1990)
investigated the experiences with and attitudes towards performance anxiety among
students and faculty at the University of Iowa School of Music (N=302). Over three-

fifths of respondents indicated that they suffered from musical performance anxiety.

Anxiety that caused moderate distress was most prevalent (39.9%), followed by anxiety
that caused marked distress (21.3%). In addition, 29.6 percent of respondents indicated
the presence of anxiety that moderately impaired performance, and 16.5 percent reported
anxiety that markedly impaired performance. Perhaps of greatest importance to music
educators, however, are the respondents who indicated having previously avoided
musical performance opportunities due to anxiety (9%). Such statistics indicate the
extreme reaction to and the disabling effects of musical performance anxiety, highlighting
the need for change in practice.

In a survey of graduate and undergraduate students at three universities (N =201),
Southwest Texas State University, the University of Miami, and the Manhattan School of
Music, Dews and Williams (1989) investigated the psychological and emotional issues
facing music students. Respondents were asked to evaluate a list of twenty-two issues of
concern using a five-point rating scale. Included in the upper half of most highly rated
issues were pre-performance nerves (second highest rating), stage fright (ninth), and
anxiety/concern (eleventh).

Few researchers have focused their efforts on measuring the effects of musical
performance anxiety on musicians at the secondary level or younger. Shoup (1995)
recognized this deficiency in musical performance anxiety research and investigated the
presence of performance-related problems in high school and junior high school band and
orchestra students (N=425). Specifically, he employed a survey to examine the frequency
of performance-related problems in high school musicians. Shoup found that 55.5
percent of the students reported having an anxiety problem that affected their
performance, while 18.0 percent reported severe nervousness.

The high level of self-reported performance anxiety at the secondary level
discovered by Shoup (1995) emphasizes the importance of continuing research and
investigation in this area. Such results suggest that initial experiences with performance

anxiety occur prior to university or professional training. At some point during the early

stages of students' music education, musical performance becomes associated with high
levels of apprehension, resulting in negative physiological, behavioral, and cognitive
states.

Because the effects of musical performance anxiety are also likely to vary based
on experience level, Steptoe and Fidler (1987) examined the role of experience upon
tension levels. The researchers found that of professional, amateur, and student
musicians, students reported the highest level of performance anxiety while professionals
reported the lowest level. In addition, the researchers observed a positive correlation
between both performance anxiety of professionals and a fear of crowds and performance
anxiety of students and a fear of social situations, suggesting that the perception of
audience and potential social repercussions as a result of performance may influence
anxiety levels.

The effects of audience on the musical performance anxiety of high school band
students (N=27) was investigated by LeBlanc, Jin, Obert, and Siivola (1997). Heart rate
measurements were assessed under three solo performance conditions: alone in a practice
room, playing in a practice room with one of the researchers present, and in a rehearsal
space before a small peer-group audience. Prior to each performance, self-reported
anxiety was measured by the Personal Performance Anxiety Report, an analog scale. An
audio recording was made of the final performance condition and was judged by the
researchers. Following the third condition, an exit interview was conducted by a
university student unrelated to the research. LeBlanc et a1. observed increases in self-
reported anxiety in each succeeding condition and increased mean heart rate from the first
and second to the third performance condition. Student responses during the exit
interview solidified the previous measurements, as the majority of students (63%)

identified the peer-group audience condition as the highest anxiety setting.

The Anxiety-Performance Relationship

Does anxiety related to performance automatically detract from or diminish
performance quality and experience? While the aforementioned research indicates that
the effects of anxiety during performance are exclusively negative, many researchers
acknowledge that modest levels of tension contribute positively to the vitality of
performance and creative expression (Gates & Montalbo, 1987; Fogle, 1982; Wilson,
1997). What defines an appropriate, modest level of tension? How are levels of arousal
determined?

The relationship between arousal and performance quality has been explained
through two diverse hypotheses: the Yerkes-Dodson Law, or inverted-U hypothesis, and
the drive theory hypothesis. Studying habit strength formation in mice, Yerkes and
Dodson (1908) developed what is now referred to as the inverted-U hypothesis or Yerkes-
Dodson Law, in which for any given task, there is an optimal level of arousal at which
peak performance occurs. Arousal levels greater or less than optimal both result in
decreased quality of performance. The Yerkes—Dodson Law has been widely accepted as
an explanation of arousal patterns and has guided much research in performance anxiety.
In doing so, however, the Yerkes-Dodson Law has been extrapolated to apply to the
relationships between stress and performance, arousal and performance, and anxiety and
performance. The variation in definition and application has caused much debate as to
the validity of such extrapolations.

The drive theory hypothesis (Martens, 1974) argues that maximum performance
quality is not achieved through an optimal level of arousal, but through a combination of
habit and drive. Researchers have defined drive differently, including the following: the
energy that moves the body; the stimulus leading to activity; general activity itself;
behavioral tendencies; goal-directed activity; and personal motivation. Arousal and drive
are used synonymously in discussions of drive theory, as each focuses on the intensity of

a given behavior without specific function or objective. Habit is defined as “the

hierarchical order or dominance of correct and incorrect responses” (p. 167). As drive
increases, so does the likelihood of the correct response occurring, increasing arousal.
Increases in correct responses, such that they become the dominant response or habit, lead
to increased drive and a positive linear relationship between arousal and performance
quality. Degree of arousal and performance quality are thus directly related, though there
is no single, optimal level of arousal at which performance quality peaks. Instead,
performance quality increases as a direct result of the mastery of correct responses and
subsequent increases in drive or arousal.

The Yerkes-Dodson Law and drive theory hypotheses both assume that anxiety is
one-dimensional. The multidimensional anxiety theory (Burton, 1988; Liebert & Morris,
1967; Morris, Davis, & Hutchings, 1981), however, argues that anxiety responses contain
both cognitive and somatic components. The cognitive component, labeled “worry,”
refers to any cognitive concern related to performance caused by the fear of failure or
poor self-evaluation, and is manifested through negative thoughts and comments and
displeasing facial expressions (Liebert & Morris, 1967, p. 975). Cognitive anxiety is
aroused by situational factors that influence self-evaluation and are expected to remain
constant prior to and during performance, abating only when expectations dramatically
change. The somatic component, or “emotionality,” refers to autonomic arousal directly
related to psychological stress, observed through rapid heart rate, shortness of breath, and
tense muscles. Somatic anxiety is a conditioned response to specific nonevaluative cues
prior to performance. When attention turns to the performance itself, these cues lose their
salience. As such, typical somatic anxiety experiences are short in duration and decrease
rapidly when performance begins.

In an attempt to clarify the relationship between the cognitive and physiological
components of anxiety and performance, Hardy and Parfitt (1991) continued earlier
research on catastrophe theory. The catastrophe model assumes that a state anxiety

response, or a “transitory state or condition...that varies in intensity and fluctuates over

time,” is a result of the relationship between cognitive and physiological components
(Spielberger, 1966, p. 12). The level of cognitive anxiety in relation to physiological
arousal determines whether the effects on performance are minimal or catastrophic. Low
levels of physiological arousal allow for improved performance as cognitive anxiety
increases, while high levels of physiological arousal result in a negative correlation
between performance quality and cognitive anxiety. Low levels of cognitive anxiety
result in an inverted-U shape relationship between performance and physiological
arousal, while high levels of cognitive anxiety may have positive or negative effects on
performance, depending on the specific level of cognitive anxiety and physiological
arousal.

Determinants of Musical Performance Anxiety

While the Yerkes-Dodson Law, drive theory, multi-dimensional anxiety theory,
and catastrophe theory have been widely discussed, none of them consider what variables
might contribute to heightened or lowered states of arousal and thus to degrees of
performance anxiety. Wilson (1997) acknowledges this and developed an extension of
the Yerkes-Dodson Law in which three additional variables were considered: trait
anxiety, task mastery, and situational stress. Wilson's multi-variable model of optimal
arousal allows teachers and students to reflect on variables potentially involved in
debilitating performance anxiety.

LeBlanc (1994) greatly expanded the variables determining anxiety in his
theoretical model of musical performance anxiety (see Figure 1). His model considers
variables both independently and in mutual interaction, within the context of preparing
and presenting a major solo musical performance. LeBlanc's model is divided into eleven
levels, arranged in a hierarchy according to the passage of time, and he includes the
following areas (from beginning to completion): perfonner's characteristics and learning
history; preparation for performance; performing environment; perfonner's self-

perceptions; the act of performance; and evaluation of performance. LeBlanc provides

music educators with a comprehensive overview of the interactions between variables
related to performance anxiety and their influence on anxiety levels. Though designed
for solo performances, the performance variables involved are also applicable to the

ensemble classroom.

855%. 8558 .
Extra 22.5.9.6“. 02.585; 0:23: 5.52
zsgmo 30sz no >555 no .5592 taéogmn 458:: 45.8: uo<

A502: usEou... vco 3356220 azoccotomv

QMEMOmmmn Swain—O mmméSmnOmn—n? curacy—«ma 0552 to L0 tusuE—a

UZEOrZQZOU xiv—Prim m0 >U<UOMD< hzmiamhmg LO >U§Omo< ’50—th .2055: ".0 5(5de

1.56: 455:3 2.56: SOP—.05

PEP» EEUE kzmmmau
Auoucogotom .8 coaennotv

920 bum . 283:3 .
:8: . 32.353. . .EmEZOmSzu mum—339E
.20 n. o Eurmmsomm 2.2.... . 85:23 . z. .5928 a 3053
mi; 90:05.55 zoEnEoZmz "no «055mm w muzmmmmm 38:...— 55mg

AnacoEcousam 3:583“:

mmamOn—xm
.EOAE aw mungu—mmm 45553:— muz<¢<uan< ZOF<K<AM¢A 0532 to 0552 m0
worm—09‘ m 0 m0 mqu—kOn—S no .9505 :30 m0 m0 >U<UOMO< mwmr—MFSmn—Ozanz tuba—LEO
z OFamummm gamma gamma ZOENUKMA gmmn gamma gum—NA

AmchaaouBméow {octotomv

q<w30m< Ala—OOAO—wta m0 dB.— 4<waom< 4<U_OOJO_._U>WA ".0 g.—

zOFrmtk m0 250...
wovencbotua .o U< ozb

>2ng mUZgOmmmn m0 ¥U<mamwk 5.5825

g0 argon—mm... to 2030mm... hzuaammmcm
eoucuccotom .0 co=o2o>mv

. 32 62:3“.
£3...ch 32m 596:: .2.ng :32

3352 oucmEcoton— £3: E cormtm> .6 mucusom

.:

.2

Figure I. LeBlanc’s (1993) Sources of Variation in Musical Performance Anxiety.I

 

'From “A theory of music performance anxiety,” by A. LeBlanc, 1994, Quarterly Journal of Music

Teaching and Learning, 5(4). p. 71. Copyright 1993 by A. LeBlanc. Reprinted with permission.

10

What aspects of performance are affected by various levels of arousal? When
performance anxiety reaches high levels, what physiological, behavioral, and cognitive
changes occur? Even if catastrophe does not occur, what changes are brought on by
increased tension and heightened performance anxiety?

Physiological, Behavioral, and Cognitive Eflects in Various Performance Settings

Abel and Larkin (1990) also asked these questions in their study of undergraduate
students at the Virginia University School of Music (N=22). Comparing measurements
from a baseline laboratory session and a session immediately prior to a required jury
performance, the researchers sought to identify the physiological and cognitive
components of performance anxiety, as well as the relationship between physiologically
indicated and self-reported levels of performance anxiety. Heart rate and blood pressure
were measured and compared with results from the Personal Report of Confidence as a
Performer, while the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and a self-report of confidence were
administered to assess subjective levels of anxiety.

Results suggested that high-stress performance situations, such as juried
performances, resulted in increased heart rate, blood pressure, and self-reported anxiety.
Significant increases in heart rate (79.8 to 91.0 bpm), systolic blood pressure (112.2 to
128.6 mm Hg), diastolic blood pressure (71.3 to 78.0 mm Hg), and self-reported anxiety
(5.5 to 9.2) were observed between the laboratory and jury sessions. Increases in
physiological arousal were not found to be accompanied by increases in self-reported
anxiety, as heart rate and self-reported anxiety co-varied directly, while no relationship
was suggested between blood pressure and self-reported anxiety. In addition to these
physiological effects, cognitive effects were observed; lower levels of self-reported
confidence during the laboratory session were accompanied by an increase in heart rate at
the jury session.

In a study of undergraduate brass musicians (N=39), Tartalone (1992) observed

marked increases in both vital signs and self-reported anxiety levels that differed between

11

low- and high-stress performance situations. Physiological effects were measured in
terms of blood pressure, pulse rates, and respiration rates, while cognitive effects were
measured by the state-anxiety portion of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). All
criterion measures were administered weekly for three weeks prior to a juried
performance to develop baseline data, one week prior to performance before a dress
rehearsal, and three times on the day of the juried performance. Blood pressure was
observed to increase significantly by a total of 7.74 mm Hg between baseline and juried
measurements. Pulse rate also increased significantly throughout the measurement
period, rising a total of 16.82 bpm. Respiration rate increased, though not achieving
statistical significance, by a total of 2.30 breaths per minute. Mean scores from the STAI
increased 6.53 from baseline data to the juried performance. The amount of increase in
vital signs and self-reports suggested that the dress rehearsal and jury performances were
considered higher stress events than those occuring at the time of the baseline
measurements. Additionally, Tartalone found that anxiety and arousal measurements of
inexperienced performers were consistently higher than those of experienced performers,
suggesting that while arousal and anxiety levels are inter-related, performance experience
is a determining factor in both areas.

Wesner et al. (1990) identified the prevalence of several symptoms of
performance anxiety in university faculty and students (N=302). Based on self-reports,
subjects reporting marked impairment (N=49) were compared with those reporting little
or no impairment (N=160) due to performance anxiety. Poor concentration (63.3%),
rapid heart rate (57.1%), trembling (45.8%), dry mouth (42.6%), sweating (42.6%), and
shortness of breath (39.6%) were the most highly reported symptoms of those considered
significantly impaired. Of those who reported little or no impairment, dry mouth (14.4%)
and rapid heart rate (11.5%) were the most widely reported symptoms. In regards to
performance setting, the researchers found that 63.6 percent of respondents found

auditions to be significantly anxiety provoking, while only 52.6 percent felt similarly

l2

towards solo performances. Small ensembles (10.6%), large ensembles (3.3%), and
private lessons (9.3%) were reported as significantly less stressful performance
opportunities.

While the previous discussion acknowledged that moderate levels of arousal
facilitate an optimal performance, excessively high levels of arousal can result in another
physiological symptom of performance anxiety: hyperventilation. Widmer, Conway,
Choen, and Davies (1997) investigated the role of hyperventilation in musical
performance, studying full-time undergraduate music students of two British colleges of
music (N=70) and professional musicians of three London-based orchestras (N=71). The
researchers used several criterion measures, including self-reports of symptoms
experienced in both general life and public performances, the Nijmegen Questionnaire,
which identifies hyperventilators, the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Personal Report
of Confidence as a Performer, and demographic data.

Using upper and lower quartiles of anxiety scores as a guide, subjects were
divided into groups of low, medium, and high-anxiety musicians. Results indicated that
public performances were associated with significantly higher levels of musical
performance anxiety than measurements taken from daily life. This linear association
suggests that increased hyperventilation results in increased musical performance anxiety,
and vice versa, which is a potentially vicious and destructive cycle for performers.
Comparison of general anxiety and anxiety in public performances of the entire sample
yielded significant mean increases in hyperventilation from non-performance to
performance situations.

In addition to the physiological symptoms discussed, there are several behavioral
and cognitive changes associated with musical performance anxiety. To determine the
relationship between physiological and psychological levels of performance anxiety and
jury and non-jury conditions, Brotons (1994) used a pre- and post-test control group

design (N=64). To measure subjects’ behavior during performance, judges completed a

13

researcher-designed observation form, identifying twenty-three behavioral indicators of
nervousness. Nervous behaviors most frequently observed were: 1) shifting or tapping of
feet and legs; 2) body swaying or excessive movement while breathing; 3) arm and hand
movements; 4) facial or head movements; and 5) adjusting, manipulating or inspecting
the instrument.

Tobacyk and Downs (1986) hypothesized that increased levels of musical
performance anxiety in college music majors (N=33 in original trial and N=29 in
replication of research) between jury and non-jury conditions would result in specific
cognitive changes. Specifically, the researchers anticipated a positive correlation
between anxiety levels and levels of threat and irrational beliefs, based on Kelly's
personal construct theory and Ellis' rational emotive theory (Tobacyk & Downs, 1986).
Using a pre- and post-test design, the researchers administered the State-Trait Anxiety
Inventory (STAI), the Threat Index, and an Irrational Belief Questionnaire (IBQ).
Tobacyk and Downs observed a direct correlation between heightened levels of self-
reported anxiety and increases in levels of threat. In addition, the IBQ was found to be a
significant predictor of increases in the STAI. Such results indicate that self—construal
and patterns of belief are negatively affected by increased tension, in turn suggesting that
musicians' notions of self are directly related to success and/or failure in performance.

Cognitive changes, including heightened self-reports of anger and anxiety were
observed to significantly increase prior to high-stress performances, as measured by
Hamann (1982). The researcher compared undergraduates’ (N=90) self-reported state
and trait anxiety, through the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and curiosity and
anger, via the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI). Measurements were taken prior
to an enhanced anxiety performing condition, in front of an instructor and peers, and a
reduced anxiety condition, privately, with tape recording equipment. Significant

differences were observed in subjects’ mean STAI state anxiety scores between enhanced

14

and reduced anxiety conditions. Similar significant increases were observed in mean
STPI state anger scores.

How do the two genders respond differently to various performance conditions?
LeBlanc et al. (1997) observed that high school female band members (N=11)
experienced greater anxiety than male participants during solo performance in high
anxiety performance settings. Self-reports of anxiety and mean heart rate were both
markedly higher for females during the third condition, solo performance before a peer-
group audience with audio recording. Performance quality ratings of the audio
recordings were considerably higher for females as well.

Abel and Larkin ( 1990) also investigated the question of gender in their study of
undergraduate students (N =22, Male=8, F emale=l4). The researchers observed that
females’ state-anxiety, as measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, experienced
higher increases than males’ between baseline and juried performance conditions.
Additionally, females reported increased confidence prior to juried performances, as
measured by the Personal Report of Confidence as a Performer and a self-report of
confidence. Males experienced higher levels of systolic blood pressure than females,
while no differences in heart rate were observed.

Treatment and Coping Strategies

How do musicians cope with debilitating levels of musical performance anxiety?
Unfortunately for secondary music educators, the majority of published research has
focused on the treatment approaches used by professional and university student
musicians. From this body of research, cognitive-behavioral therapy, cue-controlled
relaxation, systematic desensitization, and pharmacological treatment have been
investigated most thoroughly. Music educators should be familiar with the predominant
treatments, so as to evaluate each in terms of its applicability and feasibility within the

classroom setting.

15

Cognitive-behavioral therapy. Performance anxiety has been shown to cause
development of negative thought (Steptoe & Fidler 1987; Tobacyk & Downs, 1986),
which exacerbates the predominant physical symptoms. To avoid the development of
negative thought, researchers have suggested coping strategies commonly referred to as
cognitive-behavioral treatment, which involve exposure to and reconditioning of
behaviors and cognitive approaches to performance. The combination of cognitive
psychology and behavior modification came largely as a result of philosophical
developments in the 1960s. While behavior therapy and modification were on the decline
in the mid-19603, behaviorist researchers, including Skinner and Bandura, began
investigating the influence of self-control on development. Behaviorism was previously
based on the assumption that the external environment serves as the greatest influence on
an individuals' life. As such, the interest in self-control’s impact on development
signified a philosophical change in behaviorist theory. Human beings were now viewed
as active participants in their own development, in constant interaction with their
environment, rather than solely being a product of their environment. Behavior therapy
thus adopted cognitive processing models to explain behavioral change, from which
developed cognitive-behavioral therapy (Mahoney & Amkoff, 1978).

Procedurally, traditional cognitive-behavioral therapy requires that subjects first
identify negativity upon impact, replacing negative thoughts with positive thoughts.
Subjects then train themselves to counter such negativity with positive, task-oriented
thought processes. In the performance arena, positive performance opportunities are
created and experienced, so as to increase levels of confidence and develop positive
associations with performance.

Clark and Agras (1991) compared the effects of cognitive-behavioral treatment
and the use of the drug busiprone, both in isolation and combination. Using a mass
media campaign to recruit subjects, the authors used several self-reporting measures to

confirm that subjects did suffer from performance anxiety and met criteria for social

16

phobia. A total of thirty-four subjects were eligible and elected to participate in the
study.

The applied cognitive-behavioral treatment included listing positive and negative
self-statements, exploring techniques for statement modification, extensive training in
applied relaxation, and exposure to feared performance situations. Using a double-blind,
placebo-controlled format, the researchers administered numerous criterion measures
every week over a five-week period, including the Personal Report of Confidence as a
Performer (PRCP), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Self-Statement Questionnaire, Fear
Survey Schedule, Social Avoidance and Distress Scale, and the Fear of Negative
Evaluation Scale. Subjects who had undergone cognitive-behavioral treatment were
shown to have a greater reduction in performance anxiety than all other conditions and
statistically significant mean improvements in several measures, including the PRCP.
Results of the busiprone treatment group will be examined later in this discussion.

In a comparison of cognitive-behavioral therapy, behavioral rehearsal programs,
and wait-list control groups, Kendrick, Craig, Lawson, and Davidson (1982) investigated
the effects of each treatment approach on the performance anxiety of amateur pianists
(N=53). The cognitive-behavioral therapy, referred to as attentional training, included
recognizing and challenging negative and task-irrelevant cognitions, substituting positive
self-statements in their place, observing slide-tape, cognitive modeling sequences,
verbalizing self-statements while performing, and guided imagery. Kendrick et al.
measured anxiety multidimensionally, addressing the subjective, physiological, and
behavioral components of performance anxiety. Both the cognitive-behavioral therapy
and behavioral rehearsal programs reduced musical performance anxiety relative to the
control condition. In addition, the cognitive-behavioral therapy treatment group provided
enhanced reports of self-efficacy, as measured by the Expectations of Personal Efficacy

Scale for Musicians.

17

While the cognitive-behavioral therapy approach relies on the development of
self-control techniques to modify behavior, cognitive learning therapies recognize the
combination of cognitive processes and behavioristic procedures. There are three distinct
types of cognitive learning therapy: cognitive restructuring, coping skills therapy, and
problem-solving therapy (Mahoney & Amkoff, 1978). Of these differing approaches,
cognitive restructuring has been applied most frequently to musical performance anxiety
research and will be investigated further in this document (Sweeney & Horan, 1982;
Nagel, Himle, & Papsdorf, 1989).

Cognitive restructuring enables the subject to discover and detect maladaptive
cognitions, observe the resulting negative effects, and substitute more adaptive thought
patterns in their place. As a therapeutic method, there are three documented approaches
to cognitive restructuring: rational-emotive therapy, self-instruction, and cognitive
therapy. Rational-emotive therapy, developed primarily by Ellis (Mahoney & Arnkof’f,
1978), is the most prevalent of these approaches and has been observed to have positive
effects on musical performance anxiety. Ellis argued that emotional distress was the
direct result of irrational thoughts or perceptions, rather than realistic environmental or
situational changes. In practice, rational-emotive therapy includes the following
procedures: discussion about the influence of irrational thoughts; monitoring thought
patterns; modeling rational self-evaluations, including the modification of thought
patterns; providing feedback on those modifications; and performance experience so as to
recognize performance-relevant cognitions. Focusing on the rationality of thought,
rational-emotive therapy emphasizes the elimination of irrational, maladaptive thoughts
and beliefs.

Sweeney and Horan (1982) investigated the effects of cognitive restructuring on
musical performance anxiety at the university level, using undergraduate music majors at
Penn State University (N=49) as subjects. Using a pre- and post-test design, the

researchers administered several state anxiety indices, including the Musical Performance

18

Competence, Behavioral Index of Anxiety, Piano Performance Anxiety Scale, and pulse
rate prior to two public recitals. The cognitive restructuring treatment consisted of
identifying self-defeating thought patterns, analyzing them in terms of their
consequences, and replacing them with coping statements that maintained task attention
and diminished anxiety. Sweeney and Horan observed a significant decline in physical
manifestations of anxiety by the cognitive restructuring treatment group, as measured by
the Behavioral Index of Anxiety.

Nagel et al. (1989) developed a treatment program that combined several of the
aforementioned approaches, including cognitive-behavioral treatment, rational-emotive
therapy, progressive muscle relaxation, and temperature biofeedback training. Subjects
consisted of volunteer undergraduate music performance majors (N=20), all self-
identified sufferers of debilitating anxiety. Randomly divided into treatment and wait-list
control groups, the subjects received treatment weekly in both group and individual
sessions, each over a six-week period. Subjects in the treatment group were instructed in
cognitive-coping strategies and rational-emotive therapy, including presentation of a
rationale for relating negative thought and performance anxiety, substitution of positive
statements for negative thoughts, and challenging of irrational self-destructive statements
related to performance anxiety. Group sessions provided additional focus on progressive
muscle relaxation, while individual sessions included biofeedback temperature regulation
training as related to relaxation techniques. Anxiety during performance, as measured by
the Performance Anxiety Inventory, and general test anxiety, as measured by the Test
Anxiety Inventory, were significantly reduced for the treatment group, while their were
no significant changes observed for the control group.

Cue-controlled relaxation. Also referred to as conditioned relaxation (Russell &
Sipich, 1974), cue-controlled relaxation enables the subject to achieve a relaxed state
through the use of a self-produced cue-word. Training consists of two phases, the first of

which is instruction in deep, progressive muscle relaxation. When fully relaxed, the

19

subject attends to their breathing while the therapist speaks a cue word simultaneous to
the subjects’ exhalation. The subject then speaks the cue word while maintaining the
relaxed state. As a result, when initial signs of anxiety emerge, the subject is able to use
the cue word while exhaling, and subsequently achieve the relaxed state (Grimm, 1980).
The minimal procedures involved in achieving a relaxed state allow for great flexibility,
as cue-controlled relaxation can be adapted to many anxiety-producing situations or
settings.

In addition to considering the effects of cognitive restructuring at the
undergraduate level, Sweeney and Horan (1982) also measured the impact of cue-
controlled relaxation upon musical performance (N=49). Using a pre- and post-test
design, the researchers observed statistically significant improvements in self-reported
trait anxiety through the Debilitating subscale of the Achievement Anxiety Test Scale and
state anxiety measured by the Anxiety Differential, and improvements in performance as
measured by the Musical Performance Competence.

Cue-controlled relaxation has also been found to positively affect test anxiety, as
measured by Russell and Sipich (1974) in a university case study. Using a pre- and post-
test format, the researchers measured anxiety in terms of self-reports, through the Test
Anxiety Scale and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and cognitive experiences, through
the Anxiety Differential. Treatment instructing the subjects to utilize the cue-controlled
relaxation techniques occurred weekly over a five-week period prior to test
administration. In all measurements, Russell and Sipich observed large reductions in
anxiety levels.

Systematic desensitization. Evolved from the methodology of reciprocal
inhibition, in which the “elicitation of one response appears to bring about a decrement in
the strength of evocation of a simultaneous response” (Wolpe, 1958, 29), systematic
desensitization combines elements of cognitive-behavioral therapy and cue-controlled

relaxation in efforts to reduce anxiety. Treatment consists of three procedural steps: 1)

20

Training in deep muscle relaxation; 2) construction of anxiety hierarchies; and 3)
counterposing the relaxed and anxious states through the use of imagery.

Subjects are initially trained in deep muscle relaxation, developing a familiarity
with the relaxed state. Second, subjects construct anxiety hierarchies, listing all anxiety-
evoking stimuli from low to high. Once completed, subjects are hypnotized, and, while
in the trance, are encouraged to relax deeply. The therapist then depicts vivid images
from the subjects’ anxiety hierarchy, beginning with the lowest ranked situation. If the
subject is disturbed by any image, they provide physical indication and the therapist
moves to the next situation. Those images that elicit no reaction or disturbance are
eliminated. Each successive presentation tends to elicit weaker reactions, until even the
highest ranked stimuli fails to evoke an anxious response. The average number of
sessions required for successful treatment is estimated to be approximately 10 to 25
(Wolpe, 1958).

Wardle (1969) investigated the effects of systematic desensitization treatment and
variations thereof on the performance anxiety of university male brass performers
(N=30). Using a pre- and post-test design, subjects were randomly assigned to one of
three treatment groups: behavioral techniques of systematic desensitization (Group A),
psychotherapeutic technique of insight coupled with desensitization-relaxation
procedures (Group B), or control group (Group C). Groups A and B each received seven
forty-five minute sessions of their specific treatment.

Performing without accompaniment and before a small audience, subjects were
evaluated pre- and post-test using sight reading examples from the Watkins-Famum
Performance Scale. Heart rate was monitored prior to, during, and immediately
following performance. In addition, trained observers monitored subjects’ behavioral
indications of nervousness prior to and after performance. Finally, three independent

judges evaluated audio recordings in terms of performance quality.

21

Groups A and B, each of which received a form of systematic desensitization,
showed significant reductions in heart rate means, though Group B was greater.
Behaviorally, both treatment groups indicated a reduction in outward physical
expressions of anxiety. Results from the Watlcins-Farnum Performance Scale indicated
no significant differences between groups, though the desensitization group (Group A)
showed the greatest positive change from pre-test to post-test. Analyses of variance
indicated no significant differences between treatment groups in terms of judged
performance quality.

In an effort to combat the shortage of available therapists, Paul (1966)
investigated the effects of modified systematic desensitization on anxiety when
administered in therapy groups. Subjects were undergraduates at the University of
Illinois (N=50) enrolled in a required public speaking course. All students enrolled in the
course (N=710) completed several personality and anxiety scales at the beginning of the
semester, including the IPAT Anxiety Scale Questionnaire, the Pittsburg Social
Extroversion-Introversion and Emotionality Scales, the Interpersonal Anxiety Scales, and
the Personal Report of Confidence as a Speaker. Those students with the highest scores
and interest in treatment were selected as subjects for the research. Subjects were then
divided into five groups of ten subjects, using the initial performance anxiety scales to
create equivalent groups. Three groups received individual treatment in systematic
desensitization, sight-oriented psychotherapy, or attention-placebo during the first
semester. The fourth group served as a waitlist control, and was assigned to combined
group desensitization and discussion during the second semester. The fifth group served
as the untreated control.

Subjects receiving group desensitization (N=10) met weekly for nine sessions.
Treatment was administered to five subjects at a time. Sessions one through three

included training in progressive muscle relaxation and construction of anxiety

22

hierarchies. Sessions four through eight focused predominantly on imagining situations
from the hierarchies after having achieved the relaxed state.

The personality and anxiety scales administered pre-test were also given
following each groups’ treatment. Because the fourth group waited until second semester
to receive treatment, they completed all criterion measures a total of three times: initial
pre-test, following first semester but prior to treatment, and post-treatment. In addition,
grade point averages of all subjects were reported pre- and post-treatment.

Comparison of the effects of individual desensitization and group desensitization
indicated no significant differences. Both approaches to desensitization were superior to
individual insight-oriented psychotherapy and attention-placebo treatment groups in self-
report measures and grade point averages. As a result, it appears that both approaches are
equally beneficial towards the reduction of subjects’ anxiety. Differences between
individual and group desensitization groups were observed, however, by the therapists.
Both therapists noted that subjects from the group setting perceived the treatment as a
method capable of mastering, encouraging confidence that they could develop the ability
to combat anxiety. The researchers hypothesized that the group interaction may also
improve subjects confidence and expedite treatment as they encounter other anxiety
sufferers and discuss individuals’ anxiety hierarchies.

Pharmacological treatment. Alcohol and drugs, specifically beta blockers, are
widely used by professional performing musicians to combat musical performance
anxiety (Bartel & Thompson, 1994; Neftel, Adler, Kappeli, Rossi, Dolder, Kaser, et al.,
1982; Cooper & Wills, 1989; Gates & Montalbo, 1987). Bartel and Thompson (1994)
discovered that nearly one half of reporting Canadian professional symphonic musicians
(N=204) indicated previous or current use of pharmacological treatment, specifically beta
blockers (37.7%) and alcohol (9.8%). Pharmacological approaches to reducing

performance anxiety have also been observed amongst popular musicians; Cooper and

23

Wills (1989) qualitatively found several male popular musicians who indicated using
drugs and/or alcohol as a treatment method for musical performance anxiety.

At the university level, such approaches to reducing musical performance anxiety
are far more infrequent, as observed by Wesner et al. (1990). Measuring faculty and
student (N =3 02) drug and alcohol use, the researchers discovered that few subjects
reported occasional or frequent use of either prescription drugs (3.3%) or alcohol (1.0%).
These results suggest a sharp increase in the reliance on pharmacological coping methods
for performance anxiety as musicians move from academic to professional performance
environments.

Despite such high self-reports of pharmacological use by professional musicians,
their effectiveness in reducing musical performance anxiety and appropriateness of use
remains in question. Because beta blockefs are the most widely prescribed and used
pharmacological treatment for general performance anxiety, researchers have focused
their efforts on measuring the effect of beta blocking drugs on musicians (Fishbein et al.,
1988; Clark & Agras, 1991; Neftel et al., 1982).

Clinically, this family of drugs is referred to as beta-adrenergic blockers because
of their role in blocking activity in the beta-adrenergic areas of the sympathetic nervous
system (Wilson, 1986; Norris, 1993). While the sympathetic nervous system promotes
optimal cardiac, respiratory, and muscular functioning, when its activity is increased,
many physiological symptoms of performance anxiety, including increased heart rate and
blood pressure, sweating, dry mouth, loss of breath control, hypertension, and tremors,
are simultaneously heightened. Adrenaline, a hormone that stimulates the sympathetic
nervous system, is secreted by the adrenal glands during the "flight or flight" response
typical in high anxiety settings. When beta blocking drugs are in the system, they are
absorbed by the same receptor sites as adrenaline, minimizing the response to heightened

levels of adrenaline.

24

There are two-subtypes of receptors, called beta-adrenoceptors, that are affected
differently by the specific type of beta blocking drug. Type one beta-adrenoceptors are
located primarily in the heart and kidneys, overseeing responses to catcholamines and the
release of resin. Type two beta-adrenoceptors are present in the lung, skeletal muscle,
vascular smooth muscle, and liver, addressing tremor, bronchodilation, and metabolic
effects (Nies, 1986). Certain beta blocking drugs possess selectivity of either type one or
type two adrenoceptors, directly affecting specific areas of the body and resulting in
physical manifestations of performance anxiety. In clinical practice, where they are
administered to treat high blood pressure, chest pains, heart arrhythmias, tremor, and
hyperventilation, beta blocking drugs have been found to have minimal addictive
potential and high levels of tolerance (Noyes, 1982; Nies, 1986).

Many researchers have observed reduced self-reports of performance anxiety,
outward symptoms, and improved quality of performance as a result of beta blocker
treatment (Lidén & Gottfries, 1974; Neftel et al., 1982; Brantigan, C., Brantigan, T. &
Joseph, 1982; Lehrer, Rosen, Kostis, & Greenfield, 1987; Noyes, 1982; James, Griffith,
Pearson, & Newbury, 1977). One of the first investigations of the effect of beta blocking
drugs on performance anxiety was conducted by Lidén and Gottfries (1974). Using a
double-blind, crossover format, the researchers measured the effect of alprenolol on
symptoms directly related to subjects' (N =1 9) heightened catecholarnine output,
specifically palpitation, increased muscular tonus, and tremor. Results indicated a
significant decrease in self-reported severity of symptoms during alprenolol treatment.

A double-blind, crossover design was used by James et al. (1977) to measure the
effect of oxprenolol on university music students’ (N=24) self-reported anxiety and
performance quality. Subjects completed self—reports of nervousness prior to
performance and of performance quality immediately following, though neither changed

significantly as a result of treatment. However, blind adjudication of musical

25

performance quality was found to improve significantly for subjects during oxprenolol '
treatment.

Neftel et al. (1982) studied the effect of atenolol on acute anxiety and technical-
motor performance of string musicians. Using a double-blind procedure, the researchers
created a stage-flight provoking stress model of performances with and without an
audience. Immediately prior to and following performance, subjects (N=22) completed a
Stage-Fright Rating Scale, while continuous heart rate and urine catecholarnine levels
were measured. Reported stage fi'ight decreased significantly immediately following the
performance under beta blockade, while it increased significantly under placebo. In
addition, reduced heart rate and increased adrenaline and noradrenaline were observed in
all settings under beta blockade.

Administration of propranolol, another beta blocker, has also been shown to
reduce self-reports of musical performance anxiety and related physical manifestations
(Brantigan et al., 1982). A double-blind, crossover design was used, with undergraduate
musical performance majors (N=13) as subjects. Criterion measures were self-reports,
including the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), monitored physical changes,
including heart rate, blood pressure, saliva production, and outward signs of stage fright
during performance, and blind evaluations of performance quality. Brantigan et al.
observed significant decreases in average heart rate and situational anxiety as measured
by the STA]. In addition, saliva production significantly increased for the treatment
group, suggesting a reduction in the occurrence of dry mouth in performance.

The influence of beta blockers on attaining optimal arousal has resulted in much
philosophical discussion and reluctance about their application to treatment of musical
performance anxiety. Because beta blockers limit muscle response and cardiac output,
use in a musical performance setting may fail to provide the physical energy required for
optimal performance. In clinical practice, patients have reported lethargy, muscle fatigue,

and exhaustion as a result of beta blocker administration (Lehrer et al., 1987).

26

Additionally, skill, coordination, vitality, emotional intensity, and judgment during
performance may be limited as a result of depleted adrenaline levels (Gates & Montalbo,
1987; James et al., 1977; Lehrer et al., 1987).

There is a significant body of research suggesting that the use of beta blockers
results in minimal reductions in performance anxiety and may in fact have deleterious
effects upon performance. Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled format, Clark and
Agras (1991) investigated the affect of the beta blocker busiprone on the quality of
musical performance and anxiety levels in laboratory performances. Busiprone and
placebo treatment groups initially received 5-mg tablets at a dosage of three per day,
which increased to a maximum of twelve tablets per day based on individual tolerance.
After a six-week treatment period, subjects (N=34) were assessed in terms of self-reports
of anxiety, including the Personal Report of Confidence as a Performer and the State-
Trait Anxiety Inventory, and physiologically in terms of heart rate. In all criterion
measures, the busiprone treatment group displayed non-statistically significant
improvements. Because of the sample size and the variation in dosage, the results of the
busiprone treatment group were generally disregarded by the researchers.

The effect of beta blocking drugs on the performance anxiety of university voice
students was measured by Gates and Montalbo (1987). The researchers implemented a
double-blind, randomized, cross-over format. Subjects (N=13) received a placebo or 20
mg of nadolol prior to end-of-semester jury performances, which were repeated forty-
eight hours later with the cross-over drug format. A panel of judges rated overall
performance, while self-report measures were used to measure nervousness. Performance
ratings, displaying high interjudge reliability, and self-reported anxiety scores were both
found to have statistically insignificant differences between performance with nadolol
and performance with placebo.

Investigation of the effect of nadolol on collegiate string musicians from London

and Kingston (N=33), however, has demonstrated that the beta blocking drug may be of

27

some benefit (James & Savage, 1984). While self-assessments of performance quality
and mood showed statistically insignificant changes under treatment, measurements of
pulse rate significantly decreased, and objective assessment of bow control, including
bow wobble, direction, change, and string crossing, showed significant improvement.
For those instruments in which tremor is deleterious to musical performance, such a
treatment approach may be of great assistance.

Conclusions about coping strategies. While the aforementioned treatment
strategies have largely been proven effective in lowering musical performance anxiety
when used by professional and university-level musicians, within the context of the
secondary choral classroom, cognitive-behavioral treatment, cue-controlled relaxation,
systematic desensitization, and pharmacological treatment are impractical. First,
cognitive-behavioral treatment is intended to be administered on an individual basis.
Further, it is probable that in the secondary classroom, students may lack the maturity
necessary to engage in the substitution of negative thoughts with positive thoughts,
minimizing the effects of treatment. While elements of cue-controlled relaxation and
systematic desensitization may be applicable, they each require significant time for
progressive and deep muscle relaxation training, time unavailable within the context of a
secondary music curriculum. Finally, educators are unable to prescribe pharmacological
treatments and, for obvious reasons, should avoid suggesting student use of drugs or
alcohol to combat musical performance anxiety. If such treatments are impractical within
the secondary classroom, how can educators decrease the performance anxiety of their
students? What strategies are suitable to the secondary choral classroom context?

One viable option may be the inclusion of sensory awareness and body alignment
exercises derived from the Alexander Technique. The Alexander Technique focuses
primarily on reeducating one's kinesthetic sense, such that incorrect habitual reactions
will be observed, inhibited, and replaced with consciously directed procedures. Such

reeducation provides the opportunity for the natural performance of a given activity,

28

uninhibited by misuse of musculature that can significantly contribute to unnecessary,
heightened levels of performance anxiety and stress. Perhaps if Alexander-derived
exercises are incorporated into daily warm up exercises, music educators can reduce the
debilitating musical performance anxiety of their students. To understand the potential
impact of such exercises within the secondary choral classroom, music educators must
first gain an understanding of the guiding principles of the Alexander Technique,
applications to singing, and research and scholarly writing that has evaluated its
effectiveness in similar contexts.

Guiding principles of the Alexander Technique. Working as an orator on the
Australian stages, F. Matthais Alexander (1869-1955) was nineteen years old when he
began to have difficulty using his speaking voice for sustained periods of time.
Consultation with doctors and teachers of singing failed to provide adequate or permanent
solutions for his ailment. Frustrated by inadequate diagnoses and treatment strategies,
Alexander elected to investigate his condition himself. Through lengthy periods of
observations, using a series of mirrors, Alexander (1985) noticed that whenever he began
to recite, three things happened:

“1. He pulled back his head and lifled his chin.

2. As the axis of his head changed, his larynx depressed.

3. He sucked in air through his mouth, producing a gasping sound.” (p. 26)
Because these three actions resulted in a loss of his speaking voice, Alexander assumed
that they signaled unnatural functioning, or incorrect use of his body’. Attempting to
combat such misuse, he focused his efforts upon the one component he could consciously
control: movement of the head. Alexander discovered that when he prevented the pulling
back of his head, he indirectly prevented both depression of the larynx and gasping. In
addition, Alexander (1985) observed that when his head pulled back, his chest tended to

 

2Alexander did not refer to use as the use of specific parts, but the use of all parts of the organism acting in
concert. Therefore, the term misuse refers to use of all parts of the organism not acting in concert. Such
misuse is determined to be a result of modern living conditions, contributing to the development of
incorrect learned responses.

29

lift, which in turn narrowed his back and shortened his stature. He concluded that the
"primary control of the working of all the mechanisms of the human organism" (p. 28)
was the dynamic relationship between the head and neck, which in turn affects the
position and behavior of the torso. The organs of speech were not only influenced by use
of the head and neck, but also of the torso; misuse of any mechanism of the primary
control is inextricably linked to the misuse of all other mechanisms in the body.

Though it is generally assumed that physical sensations provide accurate
information about posture, Alexander discovered that this assumption was incorrect.
Instead, positions that he determined functional and comfortable were observed to be
habitual patterns of misuse. Alexander described the inability to determine one's own
physical state, leading to inefficient functioning of postural, respiratory, and vocal
mechanisms as unreliable sensory appreciation (MacDonald, 1997). Because his sensory
awareness was fallible and unreliable, Alexander was unconsciously interfering with the
natural, free functioning of his body, and overexerting his voice in an unhealthy manner.

To combat these ingrained habits and reeducate the primary control, Alexander
created a series of directions that combined preventative measures and actions. Despite
teaching himself these directions cognitively, while speaking and reciting he was
physically unable to maintain proper use of the primary control. When he attempted to
recite the directions while acting, Alexander's body subconsciously resorted to familiar
sensory experiences of misuse. Even when kinesthetic observations suggested correct use
of the primary control, visual observations indicated reliance on habitual patterns of
misuse. The influential power of instinctive direction on misuse of the physical
mechanisms proved so great that they overcame any of Alexander's initial attempts to
reeducate his primary control.

As a result, Alexander (1985) concluded that old, instinctive directions of the self
had to be replaced by new, conscious directions, guided by the following cognitive

reasoning process:

30

“1. To analyze the conditions of present use.

2. To select the means whereby3 a more satisfactory use could be brought
about.
3. To project consciously the directions required for putting these means into

effect.” (p. 39)

To be effective in reducing misuse of the primary control, Alexander argued that
cognitive and physical familiarity with the inhibitive actions must be developed through
patterned repetition prior to application of the cognitive reasoning process as outlined
above. Thus when the above process is applied, mental and muscular memories
developed as a result of patterned repetition will obstruct previous patterns of misuse.
Without adequate cognitive and physical familiarity with the inhibitive process, the body
will instinctively resort to previous behaviors, regardless of their observable misuse or
simultaneous verbal directives otherwise.

The redirection of behavioral patterns of misuse towards free, natural functioning
can thus only be achieved through the combination of awareness, inhibition, and
application and conscious projection of new directives. Applying such redirection
towards misuse of the primary control, Alexander developed the following cognitive
directions specific to his loss of the speaking voice, but which researchers have
extrapolated to a variety of physical maladies. Duarte (1981) presents them as follows:

1. Let the neck be free. Allow the tension in the muscles of the neck not to

increase.

2. Let the head go forward and up. Allow the head to not be pulled back or

down.

3. Let the torso widen out and lengthen up. Allow the torso to not be

shortened and narrowed by arching the spine. (p. 4)4

 

3Alexander used the term means whereby to indicate the reasoned means applied to the gaining of a
specific end. Specifically, means included the inhibition of the habitual patterns of behavior and the
conscious projection of new directives.

‘Alexander's choice of vocabulary, presented here with Duarte‘s (1981) editorial adjustments, are indicative

31

While Alexander's ideas were not developed specifically with musicians in mind,
his attention to fine motor control and bodily coordination is applicable and may be
beneficial to musicians of any level (Rosenthal, 1987). The manner in which use affects
function is of heightened importance to choral music educators in attempts to promote
students’ free and efficient vocal production.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this research is to gain information about the relationship between
musical performance anxiety and exposure to sensory awareness and body alignment
exercises drawn from the Alexander Technique, so that it can be used to improve
instruction, treatment of musical performance anxiety, and performance levels.

Research Problems

This study includes both primary and secondary problems. The primary problems
of this study are:

1. To determine the overall musical performance anxiety of high school

female singers.

2. To determine the self-reported symptoms of musical performance anxiety
of high school female singers.

3. To determine the effect of sensory awareness and body alignment
exercises derived from the Alexander Technique's primary control model
on the musical performance anxiety of high school female singers.
Specifically, do self-identified levels of musical performance anxiety
differ between high school students with extensive and no exposure to said
exercises through vocal warm-up exercises.

The secondary problems of this study are:

 

of the guiding principles of the Technique. Using terms such as "direct," "let," and "allow" infer an
emphasis on the process rather than the product of achieving proper functioning of the primary control.
Objectives do not focus on achieving a specific postural position, but rather on directing the components of
the primary control towards a freer and more efficient position of movement.

32

To determine to what extent brief exposure to exercises based on the
Alexander Technique in the high school choral ensemble setting is able to
foster a conceptual understanding of the Technique.

To determine the perceived effects of Alexander Technique on

performance by high school female singers.

33

Chapter Two
Related Research
In order to play a musical instrument to a high level, (i) the instrument must be in
good order, (ii) the player’s mind, emotions, and body must be harmoniously
balanced, and (iii) s/he must have the necessary knowledge, motor skills, and
specific techniques for playing that instrument. Only when all these factors and
many others combine efficiently can artistic results occur. In the case of singing,
the links are even more subtle, for the musician’s body is the musical instrument.
(Bosanquet, 1987, p. 229)
Application of the Alexander Technique to Singing

Prior to inspiration and the onset of tone, the vocalist subconsciously makes
several physical and mental adjustments to account for anticipated register, vocal tone,
and timbre. Patterned repetition causes these physical and mental adjustments to become
habitual, within which excessive tension in the vocal mechanism can occur, adversely
affecting vocal production. Frank Pierce Jones (1976) referred to these changes as "reflex
patterns of response," which serve as a preliminary set of actions prior to engagement in
any type of movement. An American professor, Jones was the first to conduct
experimental research on the work of Alexander. He discovered, similarly to Alexander,
that the physical changes during the preliminary set included shortening of the head and
neck musculature, lifiing of the shoulders, and depression of the extrinsic musculature of
the larynx.

Efficient and natural vocal production requires that posture, both sitting and
standing, allow the rib cage to expand such that inspiration and expiration can be free.
Using a single case study design (N=1), Jones (1972) observed changes in posture When
Alexander's methods were applied to singing. Jones photographed the subjects’ profile
and then measured neck length under two conditions. First, the subject was photographed

while singing in her habitual posture. Second, the experimental posture was applied, in

34

which pressure was exerted upon the occipult joint so as to not allow muscles of the head
and neck to shorten. Results indicated lengthening of the neck in the experimental
posture.

Based on the primary control model, if the neck becomes lengthened and free, the
head and shoulders will experience similar expansion and freedom. Through this type of
Alexander-derived exploration, students may in turn experience lengthening of the spine,
expansion of the rib cage, and improved respiratory functioning, all principles central to
the appoggio technique of vocal pedagogy (Miller, 1996). The heightened freedom may
allow for more efficient functioning of the respiratory and vocal reflex, generally
improving vocal performance.

The ability to effectively adjust one's posture requires the development of accurate
and reliable sensory appreciation. Merely directing voice students towards vague notions
of freedom and expansion is meaningless and confusing if they have not individually
developed the means to change. Without reliable muscle sense, such ideas will remain
theoretical constructs, limiting students' ability to interpret and translate them into reality.
Further, the relationship between posture and tension in performance cannot be
completely grasped unless students have improved their sensory awareness.

The relationship between Jones' findings (1972, 1978) and the effects of the
Alexander Technique on singing were investigated by Duarte (1981). Duarte asserts that,
through reeducation of the head balance, one's kinesthetic awareness is heightened,
improving the necessary adjustments within the extrinsic musculature of the larynx. In
addition, improvement in head balance has allowed for better coordination of the muscles
of inspiration and expiration, improving both the intake of air and the onset of tone.

Duarte (1981) also examined the effect of the Alexander Technique from the
vocalists' psychological perspective. Duarte identified three major areas in which the
Alexander Technique can improve the psychological state of the vocalist: kinesthetic

awareness, self-monitoring and self-assessment, and general attitude towards the

35

developing voice. First, because the preparatory set requires the vocalist to anticipate any
necessary physical adjustments, the vocalist must be acutely aware of his/her kinesthetic
sense, which involuntarily controls such modifications. Second, the self-monitoring and
assessment of said modifications relies upon mental and sensory feedback developed
through somatic experiences and imagery. The kinesthetic and mental awareness
developed through the Alexander Technique allows the vocalist to more accurately
ascertain his/her sensations and mental images, improving self-monitoring and
assessment of misuse.

Vocal resonance has also been observed to change when Alexander's principles of
head balance are applied to the practice of singing (Jones, 1972). In a single case study
format, Jones used three approaches to measure changes in vocal resonance: sound
spectrograrns that display vocal resonance versus time; self-reports of vocal production;
and informal ratings of performance quality by other musicians. Results indicated
improvement of resonance in all criterion measures. In addition, the subject reported
greater ease in singing and improved breath control under the experimental condition,
although Jones did not account for the possibility of the placebo effect.

The effect of Alexander's principles on the singers' preliminary set was
investigated through a case study format by Duarte (1981). Treatment was administered
within the context of four weekly singing lessons given to voice students of the New
England Conservatory (N=6). The treatment consisted of three major components:

1. Physical exercises: combination of relaxation exercises, exposure to
Alexander's “basic directions,” and identification of individual postural
problems.

2. Vocal exercises: combination of breath exercises, including the
“whispered ah” exercise (Alcantara, 1996, 144-151), development of

sensory awareness, and the inhibition of maladaptive behaviors.

36

3. Repertoire rehearsal: emphasized the release of tension, mental imagery

during the preliminary set, and musical interpretation.
Subjects completed three questionnaires, filled out at the first, second, and final lessons.
The first questionnaire consisted of nominal data and self-reports of technical difficulties.
The second questionnaire asked subjects to identify any general sensations or effects on
singing observed since the first lesson. The final questionnaire required subjects to
consider their own experience with the following concepts related to the Alexander

Technique: Alexander's basic "directions, awareness," a new “means whereby”, and
"inhibition" of bad habits and reflexes.

While Duarte (1981) synthesized subjects' responses and included substantial
salient data, he failed to discuss the results or draw any conclusions. Nonetheless, much
important information can be observed from the included data. Regarding general
sensations as a result of treatment, subjects indicated ease and efficiency of breath and
movement, and awareness of and ability to release tension. Impact of treatment upon
singing was observed to have varied results, as several subjects reported a decrease in
anxiety over passages of high tessitura or general tension levels, while others noted
increased breath control and consistency of vocal tone. Results of the final questionnaire
indicated that subjects had gained an understanding of Alexander's basic "directions" and
fluency with the working vocabulary. Though equal emphasis of vocabulary may not
have existed in each treatment setting, a conceptual understanding and application to
practice was attained by nearly all participants.

The Alexander Technique and its Effects on Musical Performance Anxiety

As shown, a significant body of research has been conducted to measure the
effects of cognitive-behavioral therapy, cue-controlled relaxation, systematic
desensitization, and pharmacological treatment on musical performance anxiety. In

contrast, however, there is minimal research that examines the effects of the Alexander

Technique on tension related to musical performance. The lack of experimental research

37

exists despite frequent discussion of the Alexander Technique as a treatement strategy in
non-refereed publications (Babits & Mayers, 1987; Babits & Mayers, 1988; Calder, 1991;
Ely, 1991). Watson and Valentine (1987) discovered that of those who indicated
experimenting with a complementary medical technique to confront musical performance
anxiety (N =16), 43 percent had relied on instruction in the Alexander Technique.

Valentine, Fitzgerald, Gorton, Hudson, and Symonds (1995) are the only
researchers to have conducted experimental research measuring the physiological,
behavioral, and cognitive effects of the Alexander Technique on the musical performance
anxiety of vocalists. Using undergraduate students from a university in the United
Kingdom (N=25, 21 female, 4 male), subjects were divided into treatment and wait-list
groups, in which the treatment group received fifteen free private lessons in the
Alexander Technique from one of two teachers of the technique. The teachers
represented two different Alexander Technique training schools, and no attempt was
made by the researchers to analyze differences between them. All subjects were
measured on four occasions: at the initial audition, pre-class, post-class, and at the final
recital. Peak breath flow and heart rate were objectively measured, while musical quality,
height, and proper implementation of the Alexander Technique were subjectively
measured during each performance.’ To objectively measure musical performance
anxiety, the Full Nowlis mood adjective checklist was administered pre- and post-
performance, while the Music Performance Anxiety Self-Statement was administered
only post-performance. The researchers also interviewed subjects in the treatment group
to obtain subjective reactions to the treatment and collected reports from the Alexander
teachers to ascertain individual subjects' receptivity and progress.

Physiologically, Valentine et al. (1995) observed no significant developments for

the treatment group. Mean heart rate variance between the audition and recital was

 

’Peak breath flow was measured with a peak flow meter. Subjects were instructed to blow as hard and fast
as possible with a short, sharp blow. The best of three attempts was recorded.

38

observed to differ significantly for the entire sample, although there were no significant
interactions between groups. Changes in height and peak breath flow were minimal.

Behaviorally, the researchers observed significant improvement in musical and
technical quality (inter-judge reliability of r = .59 and r = .57, respectively) for the
treatment group. Between the pre- and post-class measurements, the treatment group
showed significant improvement in both categories, while the control group declined.

Measuring the degree of misuse of the Alexander Technique proved difficult,
reflected by an extremely low inter-judge reliability (r = .05). The criterion measure, a
seven-point rating scale, was developed and agreed upon by the two teachers of the
Alexander Technique. Because the teachers were from different training schools, perhaps
their differences in pedagogy were great enough to alter their interpretation of misuse.
Additionally, pedagogical differences may have adversely affected their ability to develop
a reliable criterion measure. While Valentine et al. (1995) speculated that an adequate
understanding and implementation of the Alexander Technique may require more than
the designated fifteen lessons, this conclusion remains hypothetical, because of the
dubious nature of the criterion measure.

Cognitively, several improvements were observed in the treatment group, though
none were statistically significant. The anxiety factor of the Full Nowlis mood adjective
checklist revealed decreased scores from pre- to post-class measurements, decreases that
were more marked for the treatment group. Scores on the Music Performance Anxiety
Self-Statement, which indicates a positive outlook and task-focused attention, increased
markedly for the treatment group from pre- to post-class sessions, while the control group
showed a decline. Though the scores generally indicated an increase in desired behavior
for the treatment group and a decrease for the control group, the differences between
groups at pre-class measurements were statistically significant while the post-class

measurements were not statistically significant. As such, the differences between groups

39

when the pre-class score was used as a covariate resulted in no statistically significant
differences between groups.
Summary

Incorporation of the Alexander Technique into the vocal music environment has
been shown to yield numerous benefits, physiologically, behaviorally, and cognitively.
Yet instruction in the Alexander Technique is not designed for use in a group setting,
such as a secondary choral classroom. Is it possible, then, for secondary choral music
educators to adapt Alexander’s approach to this specific setting and observe positive
outcomes? If so, where in the rehearsal setting would such exercises be appropriate?

Instructional time in the choral classroom focuses on three primary components:
physical and vocal warm-up exercises, sight-reading, and rehearsal of choral repertoire.
Because it already includes exercises intended to engage the body physically, the time
dedicated to physical and vocal warm-up exercises appears to be the most conducive to

incorporating a modified form of the Alexander Technique.

40

Chapter Three
Methodology
Participants

The subjects were members of one of two beginning secondary choral ensembles
fi'om a Detroit, Michigan academic magnet high school. During the second semester,
both ensembles were taught by the same primary instructor, the author, who completed
the internship semester as a student teacher in that setting during the course of study.
Thus, both ensembles were taught by a different primary instructor, the cooperating
teacher, during the previous semester. Prior to the administration of treatment, all
subjects had received considerable instruction from the author.

One ensemble was a women's choir (N=12), the other a mixed gender choir
(females N=15, males N=6). For the purpose of this research, only the female subjects'
data was evaluated, though data was collected fiom all subjects. From the initial pool of
female subjects (total N=27), one subject from the women's choir and four subjects from
the mixed gender choir could not complete all aspects of the research. As such, their data
has been excluded from future discussion, reducing the sample size (women's choir,
N=11, mixed choir, N=11).

Nominal data collected prior to treatment revealed that the subjects represented
various levels of prior musical experience, though all subjects indicated this was the first
year in a high school choral ensemble. As students at an academic magnet high school,
subjects were required to pass entrance exams and meet minimum grade point average
requirements throughout their tenure. Subjects resided throughout the city of Detroit and
represented a wide variety of socio-economic backgrounds. All subjects were African-
American, ranging in age from 13 to 16 years. Both ensembles met daily for one 51-
minute period, on a rotating schedule. Thus, the time of day in which treatment was

administered was evenly distributed throughout the 8:00 am. to 3:30 pm. school day.

41

Design and Procedures

Application forms for the University Committee on Research Involving Human
Subjects (U CRIHS) were submitted and approval was received (see Appendix G).
Consent forms (see Appendix F) were distributed to and collected from all subjects. To
address primary problems one and two, a one-dimensional between treatments design
with experimental and control groups was employed. Primary problem three was
addressed through the use of a pre- and post-test design with two groups. The women's
choir was randomly selected as the treatment group, receiving sensory awareness and
body alignment exercises derived from the Alexander Technique. These exercises,
approximately one to four minutes in length, occurred three to four times weekly as a part
of vocal, warm-up exercises. Treatment was administered over a 13-week period. The
mixed gender choir served as the control group and received no sensory awareness or
body alignment exercises over the treatment period.

Treatment was administered by the researcher, who has had considerable exposure
to the Alexander Technique in over 130 private voice lessons and 100 group voice classes
and has read extensively on the subject. Nonetheless, he acknowledges a lack of
professional certification in the Alexander Technique, which may have affected the
results of this research. Additionally, though the author served as primary instructor for
both treatment groups, the simultaneous completion of the internship semester may also
have impacted the results of this research.

Three to four times per week, as a component of daily warm-up exercises, the
treatment group was led through sensory awareness and body alignment exercises based
on the Alexander Techniques' premise of the primary control. All exercises were guided,

and many include verbal directives based on Alexander's basic directions, described by

Duarte (1981) as:
1. Let the neck be free. Allow the tension in the muscles of the neck not to
increase.

42

2. Let the head go forward and up. Allow the head to not be pulled back or
down.

3. Let the torso widen out and lengthen up. Allow the torso to not be
shortened and narrowed by arching the spine. (p. 4)

Examples of exercises used includes the following:

1. Exploring the range of motion of the head, through silent observation.

2. Exploring the range of motion of the neck, through silent observation.

3. Observing the interaction of the primary control when sitting and standing.

4. Observing the lengthening of the spine through the “stacking” of
vertebrae.

5. Shoulder-freeing movements, such as windmills.

6. Stretching of arms out to the sides and up, freeing the rib cage and breath
mechanism.

7. Imagining that the top of the skull is suspended from a puppet string.

8. "Whispered ah" exercise (Alcantara, 1996, 144-151).
Occasionally, individuals were used as visual models for the rest of the treatment group,
for the purpose of improving observational skills and awareness.
Criterion Measures

Prior to the first and second school performances of the spring 2002 semester,
between which treatment occurred, subjects completed several researcher-designed
criterion measures. The Frequency of Musical Performance Anxiety (see Appendix A),
modelled after the Performance Anxiety Questionnaire of Wesner et al. (1990), addresses
the first primary problem, the overall effects of musical performance anxiety, and was
administered only prior to treatment. To address primary problem number two, the self-
reported physiological manifestations of musical performance anxiety, the Self-Reported
Symptoms of Musical Performance Anxiety (see Appendix B) was administered both pre-

and post-treatment. Symptoms listed were drawn from a variety of sources reviewed,

43

selected to represent a wide range of cognitive and somatic manifestations of anxiety.
Finally, the Eflect of the Alexander Technique on Self-Reported Symptoms of Musical
Performance Anxiety (see Appendix C), which addresses primary problem number three,
the effects of the Alexander Technique on specific symptoms of musical performance
anxiety, was administered only to the treatment group following treatment and prior to
their second performance. ,

Three days after the second performance, the treatment group completed another
researcher-designed criterion measure, The Alexander Technique and Vocal Performance
(see Appendix D). Development of this criterion measure used Duarte’s (1981)
questionnaires as models. Section 1 addresses secondary problem number one, measuring
conceptual understanding of the Alexander Technique. Section 11 addresses secondary
problem number two, perceived effects of the Alexander Technique on performance.
Analysis

Each question on the Frequency of Musical Performance Anxiety was analyzed
through single t-tests to determine differences between treatment and control groups’
previous experiences with anxiety. Results of the Self-Reported Symptoms of Musical
Performance Anxiety were analyzed in terms of the percentages of subjects experiencing
each symptom. Percentages were assessed for all subjects, the control group alone,
treatment group alone, and the increase or decrease in percentage from pre- to post-test.
The comparison of means and observation of trends was used to analyze the Eflect of the
Alexander Technique on Self-Reported Symptoms of Musical Performance Anxiety.

Results of The Alexander Technique and Vocal Performance questionnaire were

analyzed using qualitative content analysis and in terms of emerging themes in the data.

44

Chapter Four
Results

Experience with Musical Performance Anxiety

To determine if there were preexisting statistically significant differences between
treatment and control groups’ previous experiences with musical performance anxiety,
each question on the Frequency of Musical Performance Anxiety (see Appendix A) was
analyzed using a one-tailed t-test. Subjects were asked to indicate on a five-point rating
scale from zero (never) to four (always) how frequently they had encountered anxiety
during solo performances, auditions, and ensemble performances. In addition, subjects’
indicated on the same scale how often they had experienced anxiety that interfered with
performance, was a distraction immediately prior to performance, or caused them to
avoid performance opportunities entirely. As shown in Table 1, all t-tests revealed no
statistically significant differences between treatment and control groups.
Table 1

T -tests Between Treatment and Control Groups

 

Experience with musical

 

performance anxiety M (Treatment) SD M (Control) SD t

1. Solo performance 1.818 1.192 1.818 1.471 0.000

2 Auditions 1.727 1.355 2.364 0.979 1.189

3. Ensemble performance 1.364 0.979 1.273 1.213 0.182

4 Anxiety interfering 1.091 0.900 0.818 0.716 1 0.743
with performance

5. Avoiding performance 0.455 0.782 0.273 0.445 0.067
because of anxiety

6. Distracted by anxiety 1.091 0.996 0.818 1.029 0.596

prior to performance

 

Note: M = mean; SD = Standard deviation; p < .05; Treatment N=1 1; Control N=11.
Rating scale included zero (never), one (occasionally), two (frequently), three (almost

always), and four (always).

45

Mean scores of all subjects’ (N=22) pre-test responses on the Frequency of
Musical Performance Anxiety were assessed to determine the frequency of beginning
female high school singers’ experiences with musical performance anxiety in various
settings (see Table 2). Mean scores indicated that experiences with anxiety were most
frequent during auditions (M=2.045) and solo performances (M=1.818), supporting
previous research that has distinguished high and low stress performance opportunities.
Anxiety previously experienced during ensemble performance (M=l .318) was also
reported by some.

Table 2

Mean Experience with Musical Performance Anxiety Scores

 

 

Experience with musical performance anxiety M SD

1. Solo performance 1.818 1.302
2. Auditions 2.045 1 .224
3. Ensemble Performance 1 .3 18 1 .103
4. Anxiety interfering with performance 0.955 0.824
5. Avoiding performance because of anxiety 0.364 0.643
6. Distracted by anxiety prior to performance 0.955 1.021

 

Note: M = mean; SD = Standard deviation; p < .05; N=22. Rating scale included zero
(never), one (occasionally), two (frequently), three (almost always), and four (always).
Subjects reported only occasional experience with anxiety that either interfered with
performance (M=0.955) or distracted them immediately prior to performance (M=0.955).
In addition, subjects reported very infrequent avoidance of performance opportunities
because of anxiety (M=0.364). Other situations in which performance anxiety was
reported included the following: oral presentations/projects (1 response, M=1.000), play
performances (1, M=2.000), cheerleading competitions (1, M=2.000), dance
concerts/competitions (2, M=2.500), and championship games (1, M=3.000).

46

Self-Reported Symptoms of Musical Performance Anxiety

Results from the Self-Reported Symptoms of Musical Performance Anxiety (see
Appendix B) administered both pre- and post-treatment, revealed information about the
physiological manifestations of anxiety in female high school choral members. Subjects
were given a list of 20 symptoms associated with performance anxiety and were asked to
indicate those that they were currently experiencing prior to performance. Pre- and post-
test responses were analyzed in terms of frequency and percentages of the treatment
group alone (N=11), the control group alone (N=11), and all subjects (N=22). To
examine the prevalence of self-reported symptoms in a random sample of the subject
population, the frequency and percentages of pre-test responses for all subjects were

tabulated (see Table 3).

47

Table 3

Subjects ’ Pre-Test Self-Reported Experiencing of
Musical Performance Anxiety Symptoms

 

 

Symptom Frequency (f) Percentage (%)
General Nervousness 12 54.5
Perspiration / Sweating 6 27.3
Panicky Feeling 5 22.7
Worry 5 22.7
Dry Mouth 4 18.2
Shortness of Breath 4 18.2
Dizziness 3 13.6
Increased Heart Rate 3 13.6
Irritability 3 13.6
Lack of Voice Control 3 13.6
Trembling 3 1 3 .6
Coordination Problems 2 9.1
Lack of Confidence 2 9.1
Muscle Aches and Spasms 2 9.1
Poor Concentration 2 9.1
Chills l 4.5
Cold Hands 1 4.5
F eeling Flushed 1 4.5
Nausea 1 4.5
Other: Anemia 1 4.5
Other: Hungry 1 4.5
Other: Temperature Increase 1 4.5
Diarrhea 0 0.0

 

Note: f = Frequency; % = Percentage; p < .05; N=22.

48

Nineteen of the 20 listed symptoms, with the exception of diarrhea, were reported
by at least one subject during pre-test administration. Four symptoms were reported by at
least 20 percent of subjects, including general nervousness (54.5%), perspiration/sweating
(27.3%), worry (22.7%), and panicky feeling (22.7%). Seven additional symptoms were
reported by at least 10 percent of subjects: dry mouth (18.2%), shortness of breath
(18.2%), irritability (13.6%), lack of voice control (13.6%), dizziness (13.6%), trembling
(13.6%), and increased heart rate (13.6%).

To ascertain what effect, if any, the treatment had on self-reported symptoms of
performance anxiety, the percentage of self-reports of both treatment and control groups
were analyzed and compared. Individual one-tailed t-tests were not applied to each
symptom because of the small population (N =22) and the number of tests required, which
could result in a Type One error. Table 4 shows the percentages of self-reports for both
groups during pre- and post-treatment measurements, as well as the percentage change

between pre- and post-test measurements.

49

Table 4

Control & Treatment Groups’ Self-Reported Experiencing of
Symptoms of Musical Performance Anxiety

 

Control Group Percentage (%) Treatment Group Percentage (%)

 

Symptom Pre-Test Post-Test Change Pre-Test Post-Test Change
Chills 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 - 9.1
Cold Hands 9.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Coordination Problems 9.1 0.0 - 9.1 9.1 0.0 - 9.1
Diarrhea 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dizziness 18.2 0.0 - 18.2 9.1 0.0 - 9.1
Dry Mouth 18.2 0.0 - 18.2 18.2 27.3 + 9.1
Feeling Flushed 9.1 0.0 - 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
General Nervousness 45.5 36.4 - 9.1 63.6 54.5 - 9.1
Increased Heart Rate 9.1 0.0 - 9.1 18.2 9.1 - 9.1
Irritability 27.3 0.0 - 27.3 0.0 9.1 + 9.1
Lack of Voice Control 9.1 9.1 0.0 18.2 0.0 - 18.2
Lack of Confidence 9.1 18.2 + 9.1 9.1 9.1 0.0
Muscle Aches and Spasms 9.1 0.0 - 9.1 9.1 0.0 - 9.1
Nausea 9.1 0.0 - 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Panicky Feeling 18.2 9.1 - 9.1 27.3 9.1 - 18.2
Perspiration/ Sweating 18.2 9.1 - 9.1 36.4 18.2 - 18.2
Poor Concentration 0.0 18.2 + 18.2 18.2 9.1 - 9.1
Shortness of Breath 9.1 18.2 + 9.1 27.3 9.1 - 18.2
Trembling 9.1 18.2 + 9.1 18.2 18.2 0.0
Worry 9.1 27.3 + 18.2 36.4 54.5 + 18.1

 

Note: p < .05; Treatment N=1 1; Control N=11.

50

Direction of change in the percentage of self-reports were similar between groups.
Eleven symptoms decreased for the treatment group, while six experienced no change and
three worsened and increased. The control group exhibited like trends: ten symptoms
decreased, four had no change, and five became worse and increased.

The percentage of rate reduction also indicates similarity between groups. Five
symptoms were observed to have greater decreases for the treatment group than the
control: lack of voice control, poor concentration, panicky feeling, perspiration/sweating,
and shortness of breath. Meanwhile, five other symptoms experienced greater decrease
for the control group: irritability, nausea, feeling flushed, dizziness, and dry mouth.

Comparison of rate reduction differential between groups indicated the different
effects of the treatment and control. Four symptoms exhibited 27.3 percent or greater
differential between groups, including the following: irritability, dry mouth, poor
concentration, and shortness of breath. Two of these symptoms decreased in the
percentage of self-reports for the control group while increasing for the treatment group:
irritability (-27.3% for control : +9.1% for treatment) and dry mouth (-18.2% : +9.1%).
The other two symptoms decreased for the treatment group while increasing for the
control: poor concentration (-9.1% for treatment : +18.2% for control) and shortness of
breath (-18.2% : +9.1%).

Eflects of Treatment on Self-Reported Symptoms

Means of the Eflect of the Alexander Technique on Symptoms of Musical
Performance Anxiety (see Appendix C) were compared to ascertain the perceived effect
of treatment by the treatment subjects (see Table 5). Provided with a five-point rating
scale, including zero (significantly worse), one (moderately worse), two (no change),
three (moderately improved), and four (significantly improved), subjects (N=11)
indicated the effect of treatment on the symptoms listed in the Self-Reported Symptoms of

Musical Performance Anxiety criterion measure.

51

Table 5

Mean Eflect of the Alexander Technique Scores

 

All Subjects (N=11)

 

Symptom M SD

Poor Concentration 2.182 1.266
Worry 2.182 1.029
General Nervousness 2.091 0.996
Panicky Feeling 1.909 0.996
Lack of Confidence 1.818 1.266
Lack of Voice Control 1.818 1.266
Increased Heart Rate 1.727 0.445
Irritability 1.636 1.150
Trembling 1 .636 0.771
Chills 1.545 ' 0.988
Coordination Problems 1.545 0.988
Shortness of Breath 1.545 1.305
Dry Mouth 1.500 1.025
Cold Hands 1.455 0.891
Dizziness 1.455 0.891
Feeling Flushed 1.455 0.891
Perspiration / Sweating 1.455 0.988
Muscle Aches and Spasms 1.364 0.881
Nausea 1 .273 0.962
Diarrhea 1.273 0.962

 

Note: M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; p < .05; All Subjects N=11; Rating scale
included: 0.00 = Significantly Worse, 1.00 = Moderately Worse, 2.00 = No Change, 3.00
= Moderately Improved, 4.00 = Significantly Improved.

52

Analysis of the Eflect of the Alexander Technique on Symptoms of Musical
Performance Anxiety suggested that the criterion measure, which was not pilot-tested
prior to administration, was misinterpreted by some. As indicated in Table 6, all subjects
exhibited similar trends. It appears, however, that three subjects interpreted the rating
scale incorrectly. Rating the effect of treatment on cognitive and somatic symptoms, the
employed rating scale ranged from zero (“significantly worse”) to four (“significantly
improved”), with two indicating “no change.” Comparison of means supports the
assumption that three subjects indicated “no change” with a rating of zero rather than
two, as those subjects’ mean was 0.251, while the remaining subjects’ (N=8) mean was
M=2.195. Because similar trends were exhibited between the two groups, and the lack of
pilot-testing, it is believed that the directions of the criterion measure were not followed
correctly. Given the numbering system used (zero to four), it is understandable that some
subjects may have inaccurately associated the treatment having no effect with a rating of
zero. An alternate numbering system, such as negative two to positive two, with zero
representing no change, may have allowed the directions of the criterion measure to be
followed more accurately. Table 6 presents the results of all subjects (N=11), the
assumed correct interpretation (N=8), and the assumed incorrect interpretation (N=3).
All future discussion on these results will be based on the responses of the majority of

subjects, those who apparently interpreted the criterion measure as intended.

53

Table 6

Interpretation of the Effect of the Alexander Technique Mean Scores
All Subjects Assumed Correctly Assumed Incorrectly

 

 

(N =1 1) Interpreted (N=8) Interpreted (N=3)
Symptom M SD M SD M SD
Chills 1.545 0.988 2.125 0.331 0.000 0.000
Cold Hands 1.455 0.891 2.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Coordination Problems 1.545 0.988 2.125 0.331 0.000 0.000

Diarrhea 1 .273 0.962 2.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Dizziness 1.455 0.891 2.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Dry Mouth 1.500 1.025 2.14 0.350 0.000 0.000
Feeling Flushed 1.455 0.891 2.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
General Nervousness 2.091 0.996 2.500 0.866 1.000 0.000
Increased Heart Rate 1.727 0.445 2.000 0.000 1.000 0.000
Irritability 1.636 1.150 2.250 0.661 0.000 0.000
Lack of Confidence 1.818 1.266 2.500 0.707 0.000 0.000

Lack of Voice Control 1.818 1.266 2.500 0.707 0.000 0.000
Muscle Aches and Spasms 1.364 0.881 1.875 0.331 0.000 0.000
Nausea 1 .273 0.962 2.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Panicky Feeling 1.909 0.996 2.375 0.696 0.667 0.471
Perspiration / Sweating 1.455 0.988 2.000 0.500 0.000 0.000

Poor Concentration 2.182 1.266 2.750 0.968 0.667 0.471
Shortness of Breath 1.545 1.305 2.125 1.053 0.000 0.000
Trembling 1.636 0.771 2.000 0.500 0.667 0.471
Worry 2.182 1.029 2.625 0.857 1.000 0.000

 

Note: M = Mean; SD = Standard deviation; p < .05; Rating scale included: 0.00 =
Significantly Worse, 1.00 = Moderately Worse, 2.00 = No Change, 3.00 = Moderately
Improved, 4.00 = Significantly Improved.

54

Fifteen of the twenty symptoms appeared to have been unaffected by the
treatment, as mean scores ranged from 1.875 to 2.375 and averaged 2.068. Some
symptoms reported mean scores of 2.500 or above, indicating moderate improvement as a
result of treatment. These were predominantly cognitive components of anxiety,
including: poor concentration (M=2.750), worry (M=2.625), general nervousness
(M=2.500), and lack of confidence (M=2.500). Lack of voice control (M=2.500) was the
only somatic component of anxiety with a mean score of 2.500 or above. Only one
symptoms’ mean score was below the “no change” rating of 2.000, muscle aches and
spasms (M=1.875).

The Alexander Technique and Vocal Performance

Results from the follow-up questionnaire, The Alexander Technique and Vocal
Performance, were analyzed through qualitative content analysis and in terms of
emerging themes in the data. Analysis provided insight into the conceptual
understanding gained and the perceived effects of treatment. Because of unforeseeable
schedule conflicts, only nine of the 11 treatment subjects completed this criterion
measure. Though data was collected anonymously, for the purpose of discussion and
comparison, respondents have been randomly assigned a subject number, one through
nine. See Appendix E: Treatment Subjects’ Qualitative Responses for complete
transcripts of subjects’ responses.

Section I focused on terminology, asking subjects to explain or define terms
related to the Alexander Technique, including: primary control, misuse, awareness,
inhibition of bad habits, and “means-whereby.” Of these, correct explanations of misuse
and awareness were most frequent. Primary control, inhibition of bad habits, and
“means-whereby” appeared to be the least understood by the subjects, demonstrated
through vague definitions that occasionally combined multiple concepts related to the

Alexander Technique.

55

Six respondents provided explanations of misuse, which refers to the use of all
parts of an organism not acting in concert, some indicating specific application to the
body. Four responses described the act of doing something incorrectly, such as “to use
something in the wrong way” (Subject Two). Two responses made connections to use of
'the physical being. Subject Five stated that “misuse is when you fail to use your body
properly and when you unvoluntaringly [sic] do something,” while Subject Seven defined
misuse as “not corectly used. In this case the misuse of breaths would be key.”

Awareness, the ability to perceive misuse of the physical being, was defined by
seven subjects, with two emerging themes. First, two descriptions focused on the ability
to perceive surrounding environmental factors:

Subject Two: “To be able to notice your surroundings, such as sounds, what you

see, and how you move.”

Subject Three: “To be alert and to have a sense of what is going on around you; to

be aware of what your body is doing.”

Second, some explanations referred to having a specific understanding of the physical
being while in action, including the act of singing. Examples included:

Subject Five: “This is when you intentional/voluntaringly [sic] make a change or

difference in your body.”

Subject Seven: “Sense of knowing. In this case the sense of knowing should be

applied to your performance.”

Subject Nine: “Means that you are aware of certain things when you are singing,

that include voice control and breath taking.”

Seven of nine respondents attempted to define primary control, although none
accurately explained the interaction between head, neck, and torso. Some responses
described maintaining control over one’s body during a specific action, including Subject
Five’s comment that “this means to have control of your body and be able to correctly use

the parts of your body the way you intended.” Other subjects maintained the notion of

56

controlling something, though they connected this idea to vocal performance. Examples
included:

Subject One: “To be able to control yourself and your movements and your

posture while in performance and/or singing.”

Subject Seven: “Having control of or over/under control. In this situation, having

control over your breaths, notes, body language, poise, emotional performance.

Three subjects described the inhibition of bad habits, or the application of new
directives towards the misuse of the primary control, although all responses mentioned
the reliance on poor behavior. Definitions included: “it’s when you continue to do
something, sometimes not knowing you are doing it incorrectly. Over time it may
become a bad habit that may not be so easy to break” (Subject Six); and “Use of bad
habits. Unawareness of bad habits. Ex. tensing, moving involuntarily” (Subject Seven).

Only two subjects attempted to define “means-whereby,” Alexander’s term
referring to the reasoned means to the gaining of a specific end. Both definitions were
ambiguous and did not resemble the formal defintion: “Use what you have around you”
(Subject Two); and “by any means/all means” (Subject Seven).

Section II of The Alexander Technique and Vocal Performance asked subjects to
describe the perceived effects of the treatment on their singing. Responses reflected a
variety of self-reported effects, and have been placed in three categories: positive
outcomes, negative outcomes, and neutral responses.

The following three themes emerged as having been positively influenced by
treatment: relaxation, posture, and stage presence. Relaxation and comfortability in
singing were noted by two subjects. Subject Eight suggested that “some of the exercises
helped loosen our muscles, so that we could relax and feel comfortable.” Subject One
mentioned that the treatment “helped me to be more comfortable and able [sic] when I

’9

sing extremely high or low pitches. Subject One was also the only subject to mention

57

the effect of treatment on stage presence, stating only that “this technique has directly
helped with stage presence.”

The positive influence of treatment on singing posture was noted by three
subjects. Subject Nine wrote of applying rudimentary elements of posture, such that
“another [positive effect] was to keep my shoulders straight and high and not slouching
when I am going to sing [sic].” Subject Two suggested an element of control related to
posture, saying that “the positive effect of this technique is I now know how to control

,9

movement when I sing. Succinctly stated, Subject Five wrote that “posture has really
improved my singing in some cases; however sometimes it didn’t make a difference.”
These responses indicated reliance on an assumed posture rather than Alexander’s notion
of proper alignment through redirection of the musculature.

Another emerging theme from Section II was the effect of treatment on either
vocal technique or breath control. Three subjects suggested that the treatment had had
specific positive effects on their vocal technique. Subjects Five and Eight echoed similar
sentiments that “sometimes I am able to hold longer and steadier notes than before” and
“the [treatment] helped me sing better and I didn’t ‘crack’ as much,” respectively.
Subject Four briefly noted that the treatment “help[ed] me sing better.” Three subjects
indicated improvement in their breath control, including Subject One’s reflection that
“the Alexander Technique has helped me pay attention to my breath,” Subject Two’s
comment that “I now know the proper breathing skills, as well as now when to breathe,”
and Subject Nine’s declaration that “it helps me control my breathing.”

Similar statements were made, however, suggesting that the treatment had
negatively impacted breath control. Three subjects indicated specific problems as a result
of treatment, all related to inspiration. Subject Seven noted that “when I tried to take a

quick deep breath, the breath didn’t come.” Subject Five described the effect such that

“sometimes I wouldn’t be able to breathe when I intended, and I would just stop in the

58

middle of a note.” Finally, Subject Nine stated “I have a negative effect, trying to control
my breath, when I try to sing a certain note it won’t come out.”

The final theme of subjects’ responses to Section II was that of neutrality,
statements that indicated the treatment had had little or no impact on either their singing
or approach to singing. Subject Three noted that “the Alexander Technique didn’t really
do anything to enhance or halter my singing.” Subject Six, meanwhile, explained that
“the Alexander Technique did not have an affect [sic] upon my singing and how I
approach it. I also thought and could not figure out how it could change your singing and
how you may approach it.”

Interpretations

The self-reported symptoms of musical performance anxiety in this research
require brief examination. Of the 20 listed symptoms in the Self-Reported Symptoms of
Musical Performance Anxiety, 19 were reported by at least one individual, the exception
being diarrhea. While the students were very forthcoming in regards to the other 19
symptoms, their age and maturity may have caused heightened reluctance to indicate
diarrhea, even if present. Because of space limitations, all criterion measures were
administered to all subjects in one room. Increased privacy may have encouraged
additional self-reports of diarrhea and other symptoms that caused similar hesitancy.

The most widely reported symptom during pre-test measurements was general
nervousness, reported by 54.5 percent of all respondents. Because of the ambiguous
nature of the terminology, it is possible that the response rate does not exclusively
indicate nervousness that negatively affects performance quality, but high amounts of
cognitive arousal instead.

Results from the Eflect of the Alexander Technique on Symptoms of Musical
Performance Anxiety reflected students’ perceptions of the effect of treatment. Though
nearly all symptoms were observed to improve, as indicated by mean scores, one

symptom, muscle aches and spasms (M=1.875), reported a mean score below 2.000 that

59

indicates “no change.” As much of the treatment was geared towards sensory awareness,
it is possible that subjects’ heightened attention to the physical musculature may have
caused this rating. Transitioning from comfortable but restrictive postures to free and
natural functioning could have caused the perception of muscle aches, as the physical
musculature resisted the change and attempted to resume the habitual posture.

Responses from Section I of The Alexander Technique and Vocal Performance
indicate that students did not develop a conceptual understanding of the treatment
approach. Conceptual ideas such as natural functioning, redirection of behavioral
patterns, and inhibition of habitual actions were completely absent from subjects’
responses. Subjects were unable to identify the components of the primary control, nor
the meaning of Alexander’s term, “means-whereby.” Was this a result of the treatment
approach or the criterion measures employed?

While the treatment presented general terminology associated with the Alexander
Technique, it is understandable that subjects had difficulty explaining specific vocabulary
on the given criterion measure. The treatment approach was not designed nor intended to
teach students terminology but to provide the opportunity for experiential learning.
Vocabulary was used strictly to augment and heighten their experience and
understanding. Nonetheless, this specific treatment approach appears to have had little
impact in developing a conceptual understanding of the Alexander Technique as
measured in this manner. Perhaps the greater question is not whether subjects gained a
conceptual understanding, but did this criterion measure provide an accurate reflection of
their knowledge? In retrospect, measuring conceptual understanding through the
definition of terms seems highly questionable. Allowing only one opportunity to express
a level of comprehension, after the conclusion of treatment, may have failed to promote
the most accurate reflection of students’ understanding. If qualitative measures had been
administered throughout the period of treatment, perhaps a clearer picture of students’

conceptual understanding would have emerged.

60

Subjects’ vague qualitative responses, however, accentuate their lack of
experience and highlight the difficulty of this approach to treatment and measurement at
the beginning level. All concepts of posture, breath control, vocal technique, and vocal
tone are completely or relatively new to beginning vocalists. Their attitude towards them
may be quite malleable, based primarily on their teachers’ instructions, not previous
experience. As a result, they may not be able to discern between free and natural
functioning and inhibitive and restrictive habitual patterns. Typical postural instructions,

such as "place both feet flat on the floor, sit on the front edge of your chair," and "keep
your back straight" are just as new to the subjects as the principles underlying the
treatment approach. Through observation, it appears that a general understanding of
rudimentary postural elements, regardless of their freedom in functioning, may be
required so as to provide a physical reference point for comparison. Lacking previous
singing experience, the subjects appeared to apply the Alexander-derived exercises
without what may be classified as necessary readiness. Perhaps, however, if Alexander’s
concepts are introduced during initial instruction and applied over a greater period of
time, students will maintain free and natural functioning. Thus, student vocalists may be
able to entirely avoid the adoption of poor postural habits that then can be reversed and
undone through instruction in the Alexander Technique.

At the beginning stages of instruction, students have also had minimal, if any,
experience articulating their personal thoughts about singing. The treatment group’s
qualitative responses reflect this limited background, through inappropriate use of
vocabulary and confusion regarding the process of singing. If students had been given
the chance to journal on a regular basis throughout the treatment period, perhaps they
would have developed a working vocabulary with which to express themselves and
achieved a higher level of comfortability in writing about their voices and the act of
singing. Additionally, this approach would have yielded substantially more qualitative

data and possibly provided greater insight into students’ experiences with and perceptions

61

of the Alexander Technique over the course of treatment, rather than simply following its
administration.

While the male data collected was not evaluated in this document, the role gender
plays in the application of this treatment must be briefly discussed. Members of the
women’s choir, which received treatment, were generally open-minded towards the new
concepts and approaches to singing as a part of the treatment. Hesitance towards and
resistance to the treatment exercises were minimal and mild. Additionally, they were
accepting of the general teaching methods of the author, who served as a student teacher.
Though also comprised of beginning singers, the mixed voice choir, which served as the
control, responded less willingly to the teaching methods of the author. The classroom
environment of the mixed voice choir was far less conducive to learning than the
women’s choir, as students exhibited heightened distraction and limited ability to focus
during rehearsal. Had the control and treatment groups been reversed, it is possible the
administration of treatment would not have gone as smoothly, nor been received as well.
The focus required by several of the exercises, and the variance from normal activities
may have proved to be too extreme for the mixed voice ensemble. Perhaps the role of
adolescent maturity must be considered when choosing to apply the Alexander Technique
in a mixed gender setting. Ideal research conditions would have provided comparison of

like rather than similar ensembles.

62

Chapter Five
Summary

The purpose of this research was to increase understanding about the relationship
between musical performance anxiety and Alexander Technique-derived exercises within
the secondary choral classroom. Specifically, this research attempted to answer several
questions related to musical performance anxiety and instruction in the Alexander
Technique. First, how often has musical performance anxiety been experienced by high
school beginning female singers in various settings? Second, what were the self-reported
symptoms of these singers prior to ensemble performance? Third, what effects, if any,
would instruction in sensory awareness and body alignment exercises in the context of
warm up exercises have on the musical performance anxiety of these students? Did their
musical performance anxiety differ fi'om similar students with no exposure to said
exercises?

Additional concerns focused on students’ understanding of the treatment approach
and their perception of ways in which the treatment had affected their singing, following
administration. Specifically, would such exposure allow students to develop a conceptual
understanding of the Alexander Technique? What concepts would they glean from the
process? How did they perceive the treatment to have impacted their singing and
approach to singing?

Subjects were enrolled in one of two beginning choral ensembles at a Detroit,
Michigan high school. One ensemble, a women’s choir (N=11), was randomly selected
as the treatment group, and received instruction in sensory awareness and body alignment
exercises based on the Alexander Technique from the author over a thirteen week
treatment period. The other ensemble, a mixed voice choir (N=ll females), was
randomly selected as the control group, and received no such instruction. For the purpose

of comparison, only the female’s data was considered in this research. Criterion

63

measures were administered pre- and post-treatment, prior to two similar school
performances.

Results suggested that this subject population has had substantial experience with
performance anxiety. More than three-fourths of subjects indicated having experienced
musical performance anxiety prior to or during solo, audition, and ensemble
performances. Additionally, most subjects indicated having at least occasionally
experienced anxiety that was either distracting to or interfered with performance.
Subjects expressed minimal experience with anxiety that caused them to avoid
performing entirely.

Self-reported symptoms of musical performance anxiety prior to ensemble
performances indicated substantial experience with both cognitive and somatic
components of anxiety. General nervousness, perspiration/sweating, worry, panicky
feeling, dry mouth, and shortness of breath were the most widely reported symptoms
during pre-test measurements. Nineteen of the 20 listed symptoms were reported by at
least one individual during pre-treatment measurement.

The effect of the treatment on musical performance anxiety is largely
inconclusive. Comparison of the self-reported symptoms of treatment and control groups
indicated no distinct differences, though single t-tests were not administered because of
sample size and the number of tests required, which could have resulted in a Type One
error. Subjects did self-report, however, that the treatment approach moderately
improved such symptoms as general nervousness, lack of confidence, lack of voice
control, worry, and poor concentration. Qualitative data did not suggest that the
treatment had had any affect on subjects’ musical performance anxiety, though it may
have had positively influenced their understanding of vocal functioning.

Several subjects reported that elements of posture, relaxation, stage presence,
breath control, and/or vocal technique had improved as a result of treatment. Other

subjects indicated that the treatment had negatively affected breath control, while some

64

stated that the treatment had had little or no impact on their singing or approach to
singing.

Subjects’ conceptual understanding of the technique, as measured by this
research, did not appear to be substantial. The criterion measure, however, was only
administered following treatment, and was questionable for the intended purposes.

Conclusions

Despite the relative absence of scholarly literature investigating musical
performance anxiety in secondary ensemble students (Shoup, 1995; LeBlanc et al., 1997),
the results of this study show that it is prevalent among high school female singers. In all
performance settings measured by the Frequency of Musical Performance Anxiety,
including auditions, solo performances, and ensemble performances, more than 70
percent of respondents indicated at least occasional or more frequent experience with
anxiety. Previous distinctions between high and low stress performance settings (Abel &
Larkin, 1990; Hamann, 1982; LeBlanc et al., 1997; Tartalone, 1992; Tobacyk & Downs,
1986; Wesner et al., 1990; Widmer et al.) were maintained, as auditions (86.4% of
respondents, M=2.045) and solo performances (81.8%, M=1.820) were more frequently
accompanied by anxiety than ensemble performances (72.7%, M=1.315). Nonetheless,
the high occurrence of anxiety prior to ensemble performance was intriguing.
Unfortunately, the administered criterion measures did not assess the severity of
performance anxiety experienced or the specificity of self-reported effects, only it's
presence in various situations.

Though the degree of anxiety was not measured by the Frequency of Musical
Performance Anxiety, the impact of anxiety on performance was noted by the subjects.
Over half of all respondents (N=22) indicated having been at least occasionally distracted
prior to performance as a result of anxiety (54.5%, M=0.955). Occasional or more
frequent experience with anxiety that interfered with performance was also reported by

more than two-thirds of subjects (68.2%, M=0.955). Identifying previous experiences

65

with anxiety as distracting or interfering does not indicate the specific level of arousal
encountered but does suggest a certain negativity or bothersome quality of anxiety
associated with performance.

The abundance of self-reported symptoms of musical performance anxiety as
reported by the Self-Reported Symptoms of Musical Performance Anxiety exceeded
expectations (Wesner et al., 1990; Shoup, 1995). Analysis of the pre-test responses of all
subjects (see Table 3) highlights the occurrence of these symptoms in a random sample of
beginning high school female choral singers. Of the 20 listed symptoms, 19 were
reported by at least one individual, the exception being diarrhea. Reports of
perspiration/sweating (27.3%), worry (22.7%) and panicky feeling (22.7%) were
substantial, highlighting both cognitive and somatic components of anxiety that may
negatively impact performance quality.

Comparison of treatment and control groups’ self-reported symptoms suggested
some differences between subject populations prior to treatment. The percentage of
subjects reporting physiological symptoms of musical performance anxiety was higher
for the treatment group at both pre- and post-test measurements. This difference between
groups occurred despite t-test results from the Frequency of Musical Performance
Anxiety that indicated no statistically significant differences in the regularity of
experiences with performance anxiety between groups. The differences between the two
measurements suggests the independent variance of individual cognitive and somatic
manifestations during anxiety experiences, regardless of frequency.

Comparison of groups’ responses to the Self-Reported Symptoms of Musical
Performance Anxiety provided no conclusive evidence that suggests decreased
performance anxiety as a result of treatment. Though five symptoms were found to
experience greater decreases under the treatment condition, the same number were found
to do so under the control condition. Certain symptoms, including lack of voice control,

poor concentration, and shortness of breath, decreased for the treatment condition while

66

increasing for the control group. While not conclusive, this data could suggest that the
applied treatment approach may heighten concentration, which may in turn improve
perceptions of breath and voice control.

Effects of treatment on self-reported symptoms are best observed through the
treatment groups’ responses to the Effect of the Alexander Technique on Symptoms of
Musical Performance Anxiety. The Alexander Technique appears to have had the most
positive impact on cognitive components of anxiety. Areas of cognitive anxiety,
including poor concentration, worry, lack of confidence, and general nervousness all
experienced moderate improvement as a result of treatment. Moderate improvement in
somatic anxiety as a result of the Alexander Technique was far more infrequent,
demonstrated only through an improvement in voice control. The application of
Alexandervderived exercises in the ensemble context may help to alleviate students’
cognitive anxiety, moreso than physiological anxiety. Maintaining low levels of
cognitive anxiety would facilitate improved performance quality and minimize the chance
of catastrophe, according to Hardy and Parfitt (1991), regardless of physiological arousal
or somatic anxiety.

While subjects’ responses from The Alexander Technique and Vocal Performance
suggest that the Alexander Technique may improve certain aspects of musical
performance anxiety, what have they learned about the treatment approach? What non-
anxiety related benefits have occured? Subjects’ identification of positive and negative
impacts of the treatment approach support further application of Alexander Technique-
derived exercises in the ensemble setting. Comments related to posture, relaxation, stage
presence, and vocal technique indicated self-reported improvement as a result of
treatment. Responses tended to suggest an understanding of the relationship between
posture and vocal production, as the treatment may have developed a new awareness of
the components involved in singing. Though no qualitative responses indicated a

relationship between treatment and anxiety, subjects appear to have gained insight into

67

the process of singing and the relationship between the singing voice and the rest of the
physical being.

The results of this research suggest that additional research and informal
investigation is necessary so as to better understand the role of musical performance
anxiety in the secondary ensemble setting. Students’ self-reported substantial
experiences with anxiety, including forms of tension that directly affected their
perception of performance or willingness to perform. In addition, cognitive and somatic
symptoms were widely reported prior to ensemble performance. Though the effect of
Alexander Technique-derived exercises on the anxiety of beginning high school female
singers was generally inconclusive, the treatment appears to have heightened students’
understanding of the vocal mechanism and vocal functioning. Because of these research
findings, several implications for music education and suggestions for future research
emerge.

Implications for Music Education

How can this research improve instruction, specifically in the area of secondary
vocal music education? This research has yielded four ways to improve instruction:
acknowledge anxiety in the performance ensemble; use the Alexander Technique to
alleviate tension; employ the Alexander Technique to teach about the vocal mechanism;
and provide opportunities for student writing.

First, the prevalence of musical performance anxiety in the ensemble setting, as
measured by this research, was extremely high. Further, students reported an extensive
number of symptoms, both cognitive and somatic. Where and when is this anxiety
related to performance initiated? Because the subjects were high school students, the
results suggest that such experiences could have been initiated earlier, during middle or
elementary level musical experiences. Perhaps, however, the prevalence of anxiety was
unaffected by previous musical experiences, and may have been largely an effect of

adolescence and students’ heightened awareness of the self. Altemately, actions on the

68

part of the choral conductor, be they verbal, gestural, or otherwise, may have contributed
to students’ anxiety levels. To determine if the origination of cognitive and somatic
components of musical performance anxiety is related to past musical experiences, music
educators must evaluate their pedagogical approaches towards performance and the
adjudicated and non-adjudicated performance opportunities presented during grades K-
12. Ensemble directors, in particular, must evaluate all aspects of their instruction, from
classroom instruction to conducting gesture, to determine if any elements may indirectly
cause an increase in students’ performance anxiety.

Music educators must also acknowledge the symptoms that may arise as a result
of anxiety, and take the necessary steps to diminish such detrimental manifestations of
musical performance anxiety. The occurrence of dry mouth and shortness of breath in
this study suggests that vocal music educators evaluate the pre-performance activities of
their vocal ensemble. Addressing such issues as dehydration and breath support in the
context of performance well in advance as well as immediately prior to performance may
serve to alleviate any cognitive concerns that may affect somatic anxiety responses.

Second, though the results from this research are largely inconclusive regarding
the effects of the Alexander Technique on anxiety levels, the potential for improvement
as a result of instruction exists. Because these subjects were all beginning singers, they
may have had minimal experience with tension as a result of posture. Thus, it was
difficult to contrast the freedom of natural functioning promoted by the Alexander
Technique with previous notions of physical tension. If experience with tension in
performance is necessary for instruction in the Alexander Technique to be most effective,
it could yield reduced anxiety in more experienced singers. The incorporation of
Alexander Technique-derived exercises into the vocal and physical warm-up process was
unproblematic.

Third, between qualitative data and observations, it appears that instruction in

Alexander Technique-derived exercises improved students’ understanding of the vocal

69

mechanism. Students developed an increased understanding of the relationship between
posture, breath support, and the singing voice, in a manner that may not have been
experienced previously. If such exercises are incorporated into daily or weekly warm-up
activities, over a significant period of time, students may develop a greater understanding
of vocal functioning. Development of such awareness may improve vocal technique and
tone, though further research is required in this regard.

Finally, the qualitative data from this study accentuates students’ lack of
experience discussing their experiences in vocal music and emphasizes the need for
increased writing and reflective opportunities in the performance ensemble classroom. If
opportunities are provided for students to write about their voice, the act of singing alone,
or singing with others, it will likely serve to fuel their growth as a vocalist. Through
experience, students may develop a working vocabulary with which to articulately and
descriptively reflect on their experiences. Opportunities to write and reflect will also
develop students’ abilities to think critically about vocal performance and functioning.

Suggestions for Future Research

The results of this research support the observations of Shoup (1995) and
highlight the need for additional research and informal inquiry into the prevalence of
musical performance anxiety in the secondary choral singers. By omission, researchers
have given little credence to the presence of anxiety in an ensemble setting, much less at
the secondary level. Such results from the sample population suggest that music
educators and researchers investigate further the prevalence and frequency of and
responses to musical performance anxiety in the secondary ensemble setting, both choral
and instrumental. Future research should also focus on the prevalence of musical
performance anxiety in younger subjects and attempt to further illuminate the perceived
types of interference and distraction, be they cognitive, physiological, or behavioral.

What were the motivations for such feelings of concern? Future application of

qualitative criterion measures in similar research settings may help to elucidate the

70

anxiety-provoking stimuli perceived by secondary ensemble musicians. Such additional
data would provide helpful insight into subjects’ perceptions of musical performance
anxiety related to performance setting.

What of those subjects who indicated no previous experience with musical
performance anxiety? How do their performance experiences relate to the Yerkes-
Dodson assumptions of arousal? Are these subjects devoid of such experiences, or have
they simply not recognized their presence? Perhaps students at this age, level of
development, and most importantly, experience, have yet to encounter performance
anxiety or cognitive and physiological arousal they considered negative or detrimental to
performance quality. Qualitative inquiry into students’ experiences with performance
anxiety would help clarify student definitions of anxiety experiences.

While significantly less frequent than distraction or interference, more than one-
quarter of respondents (27.3%, M=0.360) reported having avoided performing because of
anxiety. The percentage of subjects is three times that reported by Wesner et al. (1990),
and the presence of any such responses from musicians of this age should be cause for
concern for music educators. By the beginning of their high school career, more than
one-quarter of subjects had experienced performance anxiety in some setting to the point
that they deemed it more beneficial to avoid the activity in its entirety rather than
continue. It is critical that future research investigate other settings in which anxiety
manifests itself, to what degree, and to what end. Respondents' admissions that non-
musical activities, such as oral presentations, play performances, cheerleading and dance
competitions, and championship games, caused occasional to regularly occurring anxiety
should alert educators to its presence and potentially devastating repercussions in a
variety of mediums. What will happen to the rate of performance avoidance as students
increase in age, experience, and musical development? Will frequencies of avoidance
increase or abate? Longer-term research is necessary to answer such questions and is

prudent given the theory of musical performance anxiety proposed by LeBlanc (1994).

71

While this research has pointed to several areas of anxiety and vocal performance
that instruction in the Alexander Technique may improve, there is significant room for
improvement in future research applications of the treatment approach. Future research
on the application of the Alexander Technique to the secondary ensemble classroom can
be enhanced on three fionts: sample population, longevity, assessment. First, the sample
population in this study were beginning singers. What effects would the treatment have
had on more experienced secondary performers? What differences in effect of treatment
exist between students with great or minimal previous performing experience? Does an
understanding, or lack thereof, of rudimentary postural elements positively or negatively
influence the effectiveness of Alexander Technique-derived exercises? Hypotheses in
this regard have already been previously advanced, and suggest that additional research
be focus on the effects of treatment on a more experienced sample population. Second,
researchers need to ascertain the effects of this treatment approach over a longer-period of
application. How will students fare after instruction over four-year period? Were the
treatment approach and period of application substantial enough to develop the necessary
conceptual understanding so as to apply the technique in the future? The applied
treatment period may not have been substantial enough to provide enough exposure to
and instruction in the Alexander Technique such that noticeable differences occurred in
measurements of performance anxiety. Longer-term research may provide the exposure
necessary to better evaluate the effectiveness of this treatment approach. Third, the
methods of assessment must provide greater insight into musical performance anxiety at
the secondary level, and the prevalence of alternate treatment methods. Alternate
criterion measures must allow for greater understanding of the degree of and reaction to
anxiety experienced in various situations. Suggestions for future research include
measuring vital signs, including blood pressure and heart rate, and peak breath flow.
Such information would be beneficial in comparison with self-reported somatic

symptoms of anxiety. Additionally, use of reliable and valid criterion measures of state

72

anxiety and personal confidence should be administered so as to further validate the
results.

The results of this research are only the beginning of inquiry into treatment
approaches of musical performance anxiety in the secondary choral classroom. Music
educators should evaluate their pedagogical approaches to performance, acknowledging
the potential effects on performance anxiety. Additional research must be conducted to
evaluate students’ performance anxiety experiences in the ensemble context in greater
detail. While the effect of Alexander Technique-derived exercises on tension levels was
largely inconclusive, it was observed to have substantial non-anxiety related benefits.
Further research must investigate the effect of this treatment approach on more
experienced students and over a longer period of time, contributing to the illumination of

practical treatment approaches in the secondary ensemble setting.

73

Appendix A

Frequency of Musical Performance Anxiety

Please circle the response that best reflects your own experience.

 

 

 

never occasionally frequently almost always always

0 l 2 3 4
1. How often do you experience anxiety during solo performance?

0 l 2 3 4
2. How often do you experience anxiety during auditions?

0 l 2 3 4
3. How ofien do you experience anxiety during ensemble performance?

0 l 2 3 4
4. How often does anxiety interfere with your performance?

0 1 2 3 4
5. How often do you avoid performing because of anxiety?

0 l 2 3 4
6. How often are you distracted by anxiety immediately prior to performance?

0 l 2 3 4
Other situations in which you have experienced performance anxiety
(please describe and rate):

0 1 2 3 4

0 l 2 3 4

74

Appendix B
Self-Reported Symptoms of Musical Performance Anxiety

Please place an "X" next to any of the following items you are currently experiencing.

__ Increased Heart Rate __ Muscle Aches & Spasms __ Irritability

_ Cold Hands _ Shortness of Breath __ Chills

_ Dry Mouth _ Trembling __ Dizziness

__ Perspiration / Sweating __ Feeling Flushed __ Diarrhea

__ Nausea _ General Nervousness __ Panicky Feeling

__ Poor Concentration __ Worry __ Lack of Confidence
Lack of Voice Control Coordination Problems

Other:

 

 

 

75

Appendix C

Eflect of the Alexander Technique on Symptoms of Musical Performance Anxiety

Please circle the response which best reflects your own experience.

significantly moderately worse no change moderately improved significantly
worse improved
0 1 2 3 4

 

1. In your estimation, how has experience with the Alexander Technique affected the
following prior to performance?

a. Increased Heart Rate

0 1 2 3 4

b. Muscle Aches & Spasms
0 l 2 3 4

c. Coordination Problems

0 l 2 3 4
(1. Cold Hands
0 l 2 3 4

e. Shortness of Breath

0 l 2 3 4
f. Chills

0 l 2 3 4
g. Dry Mouth

0 l 2 3 4
h. Trembling

0 1 2 3 4
j. Dizziness

0 1 2 3 4

k. Perspiration / Sweating

0 l 2 3 4

76

significantly moderately worse no change moderately improved significantly
worse improved
0 1 2 3 4

 

1. Feeling Flushed

0 l 2 3 4
m. Diarrhea

0 1 2 3 4
n. Nausea

0 l 2 3 4

0. General Nervousness

0 l 2 3 4
p. Panicky Feeling

0 1 2 3 4

q. Poor Concentration

0 1 2 3 4
r. Worry
0 1 2 3 4

5. Lack of Confidence
0 l 2 3 4

t. Lack of Voice Control

0 1 2 3 4
u. Irritability
0 l 2 3 4

77

Appendix D
The Alexander Technique and Vocal Performance
Section 1
Please define / explain these terms to the best of your ability:

1. Primary Control

 

 

 

2. Misuse

 

 

 

3. Awareness

 

 

 

4. Inhibition of bad habits

 

 

 

5. "Means-whereby"

 

 

 

78

The Alexander Technique and Vocal Performance
Section 11
Please describe and explain in detail what positive or negative effects, if any, experience

with the Alexander Technique has had upon your singing or approach to singing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

79

Appendix E

Treatment Subjects ’ Qualitative Responses

.omaoqmom 02 n m Z 832

 

 

 

 

 

 

.88 a as
.89» H83 .8988
.8 083m B 0288 89¢
9 5?» H8308 88.8838
so w80w 8923
.m8w8m >8 8:8 8 :83 .Ho 580888 98888 8>o
.8 88:8 9 median ow ~38." 088 m 28H 8 83888 3.88 888::
8.8% 088809 89882 2:. MHZ m2 HUSN to? on 0H. 8:88 0H. 028 PH. 88:.
8c 28
8 88m 09 8:86 8.H .HH 305— .968
98 H 8 .8888 .8080 3830 so» 26:
can 8%: 8 39H :68— H 858.5 Home .08 so»
3 82H? 32.3 8 :03 8 .mHHHuHm :83 .888 .83
98585 88.8 05 .393 Boa do» 8 :25 98.5»
H .86 H :33 808968 38:8 8898 .888883 08 8
8 39H 39.2 26: H 8 0:38:08 028 so» 89H 88: wade—088
$8 Ho auto gamed 2E. H83 83 MHZ 9 85m 3 0H. 08 3. m2 95H.
.8885 8:88
.8888 owfim 5:» H830: 358888
588% cm? 8: 2.9888 8C. 8 223
.8838 Be— 8 AME b08088 .83 288m .39»
wch H 8:? 03m 88 038888 .88: E»: 05 88 388088
208 on 8 H8“ 585 :8 3 wfiov 8 Ho: Ho 89H a.
>8 8 8388.... DE 8 08 H838: 8.3% :83 bwaobs .2880» 38:8
8: 26888. 88882 2:. MHZ M2 Ho 8.826 on 0H. 8: PH. 9 03m 3 o.Hr .80
.3225? 33:: can .95an hog-8:2
0:38—93. 81:892.? .88an— L88H>H .8 85335 808834.. 92.52 ran—H...— 835m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80

.082H8MH 02 .0 m2 ”082

 

00:80.85 a 00—08
#885 8 885088 8830: 8080

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

088 8 w8w88 >8 508.88 885088
2H8“ 8: 088m .0853 85 80 $8
888 8588 83 .882 20: 8 888028 505808
030 80 H 885088 58¢. .08: 0 H0 .888 5.80 so» so» 83
2028 2: a new 5.. 283 8 Ba am a e cones seen an? e ea 33 so»
50888 H 883 058.5 8 038 0a 5 =8 30% 88>» 89H 8 00:08wa 38088 H0 888 05 8:
“.8030? H 885088 058803. 88:80 0883 8 0880 m 0038 52H 80% 8500800 8 03a
8880? 05 8 5080.. 880080 «008008 8 £8.88ng 8: 8 :8 0p H08 53 89H
0888a 58 038808 50088098 0888 8 53 288808 :0» 8083 .8 3.800 028
H w8858q 8 888808 88>» M2 89H 8:3 8 8.3. so,» 883 8 85. 8 8:82 9 888 8:. 0>HnH
.088 we 83.9802
23% 82 e; ”033 man an
80: “89-8.33 poem 8M0>88m MHZ MHZ MHZ MHZ MHZ 80m
.308; 85:.— HehueU 8:852
0:88.03. 8888? 8 800.5— -882 can H0 8538:— 80883< 8:82 fan—Hum 803.6

 

 

81

.880Q8MH 02 n MHZ ”080.2.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

608880808
.>0vH 5805080 .083
.3888 0a 8303 .083ng >53
m8m 50880 H 8380p >888 .0088..th 858.5 .8 .888 .8588
088 8 88808 8 8H m< .0800 .>H8883H0>8 80> 8 8388 05 80> 80>0 H8800
5.885 58.5 05 58.5 8005 x080 w8>08 .88:05 8:89.... 09 8308 080 85 888 88838
m 053 3 H008 H 8083 5 .30: .8008 .8 .888 83 88.388 m0 888 :H .583 85 8 80.800
80505 80 80 088 00_0> >8 8 H3888 .8 88808383 05 080 85 8 >500800 88880.6 80 m0
w8m 0“ H008 H 8083 888 088 :0 >5 >mH .858 83 .50 8 D $8308 .«0 880m 82 H8800 88>me 80>0m
.0805
05 >80 8 0n
“0: >m8 85 858
88 a 08003
8 >08 8 085
808083 >88 30> 30: 88 8888 80>O 8808008
80> 0880 8300 8 308 530 8 w80H0
088$ «03 8300 88 88305 88 0.8 30> 88308 8 80 083m m85088
H 80.3085 88 83H 83 038808 ~08 885088 080009 30> 88 >5008008 8808 80:3
05 8w305 H 8 880.8% H 30: .885088 80.5» 0805 028 885088 w80H0 08 30>
88 w8w8m >8 80% 80.8w 8 028 05 05 038800 >88 30> 83H? 83 30> 8:? H8800 05
~08 8H0 038803. 853882 05. M2 30> 80:3 8.: 08808 30> 8055 80:3 8 “H 308 8 88 85. 8m
>88; 8%: H3800 8:832
0388—00H. .8888? H0 300.5? -882 85 H0 80:528— 803083< 838—2 >88H._AH 80.3.5

 

 

82

6.838% oz n MHZ $82

 

.80 088 “.803
“H 80: 88.80 a 9% 8 ab H 853
88.5 %8 38:8 9 warns $ 85

88 Soto gamma: a 96: H 82:.

.53
533 88 H888
38> 08:08

 

 

 

.wch 9 wcHow 8.» H can? 830:on 85 $88ch .bHHEm .80»
88 88 :wE HEM Ewfibm 80an9? 0.3 :9» 5:3 He amen 05 8
>8 33 9 33 mag 80523. $85 88.60 823 v5 33
$8585 >8 H888 08 86: .Ho 28% 0.8 .8?» 38:8
35 Soho 03:89 a 88 3 .888m M2 MHZ .89» 35 882 M2 no» so; 082
HR 8 08 Soto
Ho: EH. 26858. 528on 05
£85 3368 805 .Ho 023. it
a 5.83 :5 H863 mm? :ocHnHm 80
.Ho 828?... 05. $8508 3838
Ev 80:8 02:3 633.888 HooH
83 8:8 2:8 03 35 cm .8338
.80 582 8&0: momHono
05 .Ho 08om 80:8 3 .3080:
8.8% H 88 autos 8% 08 3&0:
S388 .3585? 08 SHoZHHmonH .033
.33 gamma: 5 8 =8“ 8 o8 80mm 8?» H888
8: Bu 8ch9; $552 2:. 82 82 m2 «2 3 EB“ 2: 33m
.3225? 33a: .9550 858:2
2.35.39 .388qu .8 33.5— -2892 can .8 8533.: mmouoha3< 83H: EaEHhAH «3.3.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

83

Appendix F

Consent F orm

CONSENT FORM

 

Steven Lorenz

MM Candidate
Michigan State University

(810) 632-5375

Dear Parent / Guardian,

My name is Steven Lorenz. I am a student teacher from Michigan State
University, currently working with your child in the Renaissance High School Vocal
Music Program under Ms. Nina Scott. As a part of my graduate work at Michigan State
University, I am interested in studying the effects of performance anxiety on high school
choral singers. As such, I would like to conduct my thesis research with the Renaissance
Beginning Choir and Ladies' Vocal ensembles, of which your child is a member.

Students will be asked to anonymously complete a single questionnaire,
identifying certain characteristics of performance anxiety that they may experience. The
questionnaire will be administered prior to two scheduled performances during the Spring
2002 semester. Results will be gathered anonymously, and all personal information will
be excluded from the research. During the Spring 2002 semester, the ensembles will
explore relaxation and postural exercises during their daily warm-up exercises, to
investigate possible effects on performance anxiety. Following the second performance,
an additional questionnaire regarding the effectiveness of the exercises will be
administered.

Please feel free to contact me at the above number with any questions or concerns
you may have.

Sincerely,

Steven Lorenz
------------------ PleaseSignandRetum- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I give permission for my child, , to participate fully
(please print)

 

in this research as outlined above.

Parent / Guardian signature:

 

(please print)

 

(please sign)

84

Appendix G

UCRIHS Approval Letter

 

”IMM'CMII
mutuality
“annulus
MicnIomsueuMsIry
morale“
autumn

48824

517/355-le

MICHIGAN STATE
u N I v E R s l T Y

March 15. 2002

TO: Cynthia TAGGART
209 Music Practice Bldg.

RE: IRB# 02-135 CATEGORY: EXPEDITED 2-4

APPROVAL DATE: March 15, 2002

TITLE: PERFORMANCE ANXIETY WITHIN THE SECONDARY CHORAL
CLASSROOM: EFFECTS OF THE ALEXANDER TECHNIQUE UPON
TENSION IN PERFORMANCE

The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects' (UCRIHS) review of this

project is complete and I am pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human

subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are
appropriate. Therefore. the UCRIHS approved this project.

RENEWALS: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. beginning with the approval date
shown above. Projects continuing beyond one year must be renewed with the green renewal
form. A maximum of four such expedited renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a
project beyond that time need to submit it again for a complete review.

REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. prior
to initiation of the change. If this is done at the time of renewal. please use the green renewal
form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year. send your written
request to the UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referencing the project's IRBII
and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments.
consent forms or advertisements that are applicable.

PROBLEMSICHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work.
notify UCRIHS promptly: 1) problems (unexpected side effects. complaints. etc.) involving
human subjects or 2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating
greater risk to the human subjects than existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and

approved.

If we can be of further assistance. please contact us at (517) 355-2180 or via email:
UCRIHSGmsuedu. Please note that all UCRIHS forms are located on the web:
http:/Iwwwmsueduluserlucrihs

 

UCRIHS Chair

AK'
cc: Dr

Steven Lorenz
1920 East Rockhill Court
Howell. MI 48843

85

References

Abel, J., & Larkin, K. (1990). Anticipation of performance among musicians:
Physiological arousal, confidence, and state-anxiety. Psychology of Music, 18(2),
171-182.

Alcantara, P. de (1997). Indirect procedures: a musician's guide to the Alexander
Technique. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

Alexander, F. (1932/1980). The use of the self: its conscious direction in relation to
diagnosis, functioning and the control of reaction. Long Beach, CA: Centerline Press.

Babits, L., & Mayers, H. (1987). A balanced approach: the Alexander Technique. Music
Educators Journal, 74(3), 51-54.

Babits, L., & Mayers, H. (1988). The path to productive practicing: An introduction to
the Alexander Technique. The American Music Teacher, 38(2), 24-26, 60.

Bartel, L. R., & Thompson, E. (1994). Coping with performance stress: a study of
professional orchestral musicians in Canada. The Quarterly Journal of Music
Teaching and Learning, 5(4), 70-78.

Bosanquet, C. (1987). The Alexander principle and its importance to music education.
British Journal of Music Education, 4(3), 229-242.

Brantigan, C., Brantigan, T., & Joseph, N. (1982). Effect of beta blockade and beta
stimulation on stage fright. The American Journal of Medicine, 72, 88-94.

Burton, D. (1988). Do anxious swimmers swim slower? Reexamining the elusive
anxiety-performance relationship. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 45-
61.

Calder, L. (1986). The Alexander work. National Association of Teachers of Singing
Bulletin, 42(3), 19-21.

Clark, D., & Agras, W. (1991). The assessment and treatment of performance anxiety in

musicians. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1 48, 598-605.

86

Cooper, G., & Wills, G. (1989). Popular musicians under pressure. Psychology of Music,
1 7(1), 22-36. .

Dews, B., & Williams, M. (1989). Student musicians' personality styles, stresses, and
coping patterns. Psychology of Music, 1 7(1), 37-47.

Duarte, F. (December 1981). The principles of the Alexander technique applied to
singing: The significance of the "preparatory set." Journal of Research in Singing,
5(1), 3-21.

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

F ishbein, M., Middlestadt, S., Orsatti, V., Struas, S., & Ellis, A. (1988). Medical
problems among ICSOM musicians: Overview of a national survey. Medical
Problems of Performing Artists, 3(1), 1-8.

Fogle, D. (1982). Toward effective treatment for music performance anxiety.
Psychotherapy, Theory, Research and Practice, 19(3), 368-3 75.

Gates, G., & Montalbo, P. (1987). The effect of low-dose beta-blockade on performance
anxiety in singers. Journal of Voice, 1(1), 105-108.

Grimm, L. (1980). The evidence for cue-controlled relaxation. Behavior Therapy, 11,
283-293.

Hamann, D. (1982). An assessment of anxiety in instrumental and vocal performances.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 30(2), 77-90.

Hardy, L., & Parfitt, G. (1991). A catastrophe model of anxiety and performance. British
Journal of Psychology, 82(2), 163-178.

James, 1., Griffith, D., Pearson, R., & Newbury, P. (1977). Effect of oxprenolol on stage-
fright in musicians. The Lancet, 2(8045), 952-954.

James, I., & Savage, 1. ( 1984). Beneficial effect of nadolol on anxiety-induced
disturbances of performance in musicians: A comparison with diazeparn and placebo.

American Heart Journal, 1 08(4.2), 1 150-1 155.

87

Jones, F. (1972). Voice production as a function of head balance in singers. The Journal
of Psychology, 82, 209-215.

Jones, F. (1976, 1979). Body awareness in action: a study of the Alexander Technique.
New York: Schocken Books.

Kendrick, M., Craig, K., Lawson, D., & Davidson, P. (1982). Cognitive and behavioural
therapy for musical-performance anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 50(3), 353-362.

Kessler, M. (1985). Second Conference on tension in performance. Great Britain. The
American Music Teacher, 34(1), 48-49.

LeBlanc, A. (1994). A theory of music performance anxiety. The Quarterly Journal of
Music Teaching and Learning, 5(4), 70-78.

LeBlanc, A., Jin, Y., Obert, M., Siivola, C. (1997). Effect of audience on music
performance anxiety. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(3), 480-496.

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

Lewis, P. (1980). The Alexander Technique: Its relevance for singers and teachers of
singing. Doctoral Dissertation, Camegie-Mellon University.

Lidén, S., & Gottfries, C. (1974). Beta-blocking agents in the treatment of catecholamine-
induced symptoms in musicians. The Lancet, 2(7879), 529.

Liebert, R., & Morris, L. (1967). Cognitive and emotional components of test anxiety: a
distinction and some initial data. Psychological Reports, 20(3), 975-978.

MacDonald, R. (1997). The use of the voice: sensory appreciation, posture, vocal
functioning and Shakespearean text performance. London: Macdonald Media.

Mahoney, M., & Amkoff, D. (1978). Cognitive and self-control therapies, in Garfield, S.
Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Changes, 689-722.

Martens, R. (1974). Arousal and motor performance. In J. Wilmore (Ed.), Exercise and

sport sciences reviews, 2, 155-188.

88

Miller, R. (1996). The structure of singing: system and art in vocal technique. New York:
Schirmer Books.

Morris, L., Davis, M., & Hutchings, C. (1981). Cognitive and emotional components of
anxiety: literature review and a revised worry-emotionality scale. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 73(4), 541-555.

Nagel, J., Himle, D., & Papsdorf, J. (1989). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of musical
performance anxiety. Psychology of Music, 1 7(1), 12-21.

Neftel, K., Adler, R., Kappeli, L., Rossi, M., Dolder, M., Kaser, H., et al. (1982). Stage
fright in musicians: a model illustrating the effect of beta blockers. Psychosomatic
Medicine, 44(5), 461-469.

Nies, A. ( 1986). Clinical pharmacology of beta-adrenergic blockers. Musical Problems of
Performing Artists, 1(1), 25-29.

Norris, R. (1993). The musician's survival manual: a guide to preventing and treating
injuries in instrumentalists (D. Torch, Ed.). St. Louis, MO: International Conference
of Symphony and Opera Musicians, MMB Music, Inc.

Noyes, R. (1982). Beta-blocking drugs and anxiety. Psychosomatics, 23(2), 155-169.

Paul, G. L., & Shannon, D. T. (1966). Treatment of anxiety through systematic
desensitization in therapy groups. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 71(2), 124-135.

Rosenthal, E. (1987). The Alexander Technique -- what it is and how it works. Medical
Problems of Performing Artists, 2(2), 53-57.

Russell, R. K., & Sipich, J. F. (1974). Treatment of test anxiety by cue-controlled
relaxation. Behavior Therapy, 5, 673-676.

Salmon, P. (1990). A psychological perspective on musical performance anxiety: a
review of the literature. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 5(1), 5-11.

Sataloff, R. T., Rosen, D. C., & Levy, S. (1999). Medical treatment of performance
anxiety: a comprehensive approach. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 14(3),

122-126.

89

Shoup, D. (September 1995). Survey of performance-related problems among high
school and junior high school musicians. Medical Problems of Performing Artists,
10(3), 100-105.

Spielberger, C. (1966). Theory and research on anxiety. In C. Spielberger (Ed), Anxiety
and behavior (pp. 3-22). New York: Academic Press.

Steptoe, A. (1983). The relationship between tension and the quality of musical
performance. Journal of the International Society for the Study of Tension in
Performance, 1, 12-22.

Steptoe, A. (1989). Stress, coping and stage fright in professional musicians. Psychology
of Music, 17(1), 3-12.

Steptoe, A., & F idler, H. (1987). Stage fright in orchestral musicians: a study of cognitive
and behavioural strategies in performance anxiety. British Journal of Psychology, 78,
241-249.

Sweeney, G., & Horan, 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.

Tartalone, P. (1992). Patterns of performance anxiety among university musicians
preparing for brass area jury recitals: physiological arousal and perceived state
anxiety. Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

Tobacyk, J ., & Downs, A. (1986). Personal construct threat and irrational beliefs as a
cognitive predictors of increases in musical performance anxiety. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 779-782.

Valentine, E., Fitzgerald, D., Gorton, T., Hudson, J ., & Symonds, E. (1995). The effect of
lessons in the Alexander technique on music performance in high and low stress

situations. Psychology of Music, 23(2), 129-141.

90

Wardle, A. (1969). Behavioral modification by reciprocal inhibition of instrumental
music performance anxiety. Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University School of
Music.

Watson, P., & Valentine, E. (1987). The practice of complementary medicine and anxiety
levels in a population of musicians. Journal of the International Society for the Study
of Tension in Performance, 4, 26-30.

Wesner, R., Noyes, R., & Davis, T. (1990). The occurrence of performance anxiety
among musicians. Journal of Affect Discord, 18, 177-185.

Widmer, S., Conway, A., Choen, S., & Davies, P. (1997). Hyperventilation: A correlate
and predictor of debilitating performance anxiety in musicians. Medical Problems of
Performing Artists, 12(4), 97-106.

Wilson, F. (1986). Inderal or stage fi‘ight? Piano Quarterly, 134, 30-35.

Wilson, G. (1997). Performance anxiety. In D. Hargreaves & A. North (Eds), The social
psychology of music (pp. 229-248). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Yerkes, R., & Dodson, J. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-
formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 1 8, 459-482.

91

   

urTTTTTTTTTT