Effects of applause magnitude and musical style on listeners’ evaluations of wind band performances

Abstract

Prior research indicates that listeners’ perceptions of music are influenced by the expressed approval of others. The focus of this investigation was the extent to which applause, an overt expression of approval from an audience of other listeners, influenced musicians’ perceptions of ensemble performances, specifically the effects of applause magnitude (high magnitude applause, low magnitude applause, or no applause) and musical style (ballad or march). Undergraduate instrumentalists (N = 98) from five institutions listened to recorded excerpts of wind band music—three identical recordings of a ballad and three identical recordings of a march. A distinct applause magnitude condition was electronically attached to each recording, resulting in six unique stimuli. For each excerpt, participants rated eight performance dimensions, which were summed to create a composite rating. Results indicated that listeners’ composite ratings were influenced by an interaction between applause magnitude and musical style. Furthermore, a significant three-way interaction among applause, style, and performance dimension was observed, but the effect size was small. Another significant main effect was found, which could be evidence of an order effect. Results of this study suggest that listeners perceive different audience responses to be approving of musical performances, based on the musical style of works being performed.

Keywords

applause concert band musical style perception wind music

In previous literature, researchers have demonstrated the perceptual and highly impressionistic nature of the music listening experience. Even when listening to the same stimulus, listeners can have unique experiences based on which features they attend to in the aural stream (Aiello, 1994; Cusack, Deeks, Aikman, & Carlyon, 2004; Kratus, 2004; Lipscomb, 1996). Prior research has demonstrated that listeners’ perceptions of musical performances are influenced not only by factors related to the actual performance of the music, but also by non-musical factors. Some of these factors include performer characteristics, including race (Elliott, 1995/1996; McCrary, 1993), attractiveness (Ryan & Costa-Giomi, 2004; Wapnick, Darrow, Kovacs, & Dalrymple, 1997; Wapnick, Mazza, & Darrow, 1998, 2000), stage deportment (Howard, 2012), expected performance level (Duerksen, 1972), and movement while performing (Davidson, 1993, 2007; Juchniewicz, 2008; Silveira, 2014).

Factors related to listening conditions have been found to influence listeners’ perceptions of musical performances as well, including the listener’s presentation medium (i.e., audio only versus audiovisual; Pope, 2012; Ryan, Wapnick, Lacaille, & Darrow, 2006; Siddell-Strebel, 2007; Zembower, 2000), presence of subtitles (Silveira & Diaz, 2014), and availability of a conductor score (Droe, 2012; Napoles, 2009). These visual factors were found to affect performance evaluations in those studies, though neither the extent nor reason for this influence is clear in the literature. Researchers have also demonstrated the effects of performance order, or serial position effects (Bruine de Bruin, 2005, 2006), on listeners’ performance evaluations (Bergee, 2006; Bergee & McWhirter, 2005; Bergee & Platt, 2003; Bergee & Westfall, 2005; Elliott, Schneider, & Zembower, 2000).

Listeners’ impressions of musical performances are influenced by a variety of social influences as well, such as the perceptions of other listeners (Crozier, 1997). For example, approval from music teachers has been shown to affect listeners’ preferences (Alpert, 1982; Droe, 2008), music selection behavior (Alpert, 1982; Dorow, 1977), and concert attentiveness (Dorow, 1977). Other research findings have documented the influential role of disc-jockey approval on listeners’ musical preferences (Alpert, 1982) and the role of adults’ approval on younger listeners’ music selection behavior (Greer, Dorow, Wachhaus, & White, 1973). Results of these studies provide evidence that the perceived impressions of others can influence listeners’ own perceptions of music.

Studies of the effects of group pressure on individuals’ judgments have indicated that individuals often modify their own judgments based on the statements of a majority (Asch, 1951), and Crozier (1997) explained that these conformity effects are also present in music listening contexts. Based on this framework outlined by Asch (1951), Furman and Duke (1988) reported that publicly expressed opinions made by a unanimous majority influenced both music majors’ and non-music majors’ music preferences. In the present study, we focused on the potential influence of another non-musical factor by investigating the extent to which applause, an overt expression of approval from an audience to performers, influences listeners’ ratings of ensemble performances.

As one author explained, ‘The custom of showing one’s pleasure at beautiful music by immediately following it with an ugly noise is perhaps as old as the art of music itself’ (‘Applause,’ 1970, p. 43). The practice of audience applause was dramatically different in the 18th century than that of the present day in that applause occurred often, even within the performance of a movement (‘Applause,’ 1970; Ross, 2010). Although earlier concert audiences were allowed to express their approval of a performance or work in a variety of ways (e.g., calling performers by name, stamping feet, hissing, coughing, and calling for encores), clapping emerged as the preferred mode of audience participation in the 19th century (Brandl-Risi, 2011).

During the early 19th century, applause was sometimes used to help ensure the economic success of a work, particularly in French operas and theatre companies (Lupyan & Rifkin, 2003). These companies sometimes hired a group of claques, individuals who were paid to elicit and prolong applause for certain factions (and sometimes to boo or hiss at rivals). Companies used this convention of ‘subsidized applause’ (‘Applause,’ 1970, p. 45) to express approval in this striking way in an effort to sway the lay public’s impression of the performance (Rosselli, 1992).

Since the 19th century, certain implicit or explicit rules governing audience participation have been constructed. For example, in symphonic performances of Western classical music, applause is generally understood to be appropriate only at the end of a complete work and not between movements of a multi-movement work (‘Applause,’ 1970; Ross, 2010). Current applause practices tend to differ in other settings, however. For example, in jazz performances, it is widely acknowledged to be appropriate to applaud at climactic points in the music and after soloists perform (Ross, 2010).

Applause is an omnipresent, stable feature of the human experience (Lupyan & Rifkin, 2003, p. 1378), and its effects extend beyond musical settings. For politicians, applause has been referred to as a ‘barometer of approval’ (Atkinson, 1984, p. 13), which is often used as a measure of their public reception. In the political arena, researchers have examined audience applause as a function of a political speaker’s usage of rhetorical devices (Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986), jokes (Bull & Wells, 2002), and actual speech content (Bull & Noordhuizen, 2000). Atkinson (1984) explains that ‘[d]epending on whether [speakers] are greeted by frequent bursts of applause, heckling or complete silence, they will be deemed to have had a rapturous, hostile or indifferent reception’ (p. 13).

As noted above, politicians are intimately aware of the role of audience applause in the public’s impression of political speeches (Atkinson, 1984; Bull & Noordhuizen, 2000; Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986). Are listeners’ impressions of musical performances influenced by audience applause in similar ways? Early opera/theatre company managers were aware of the potential influence of applause on listeners’ perceptions, and their custom of hiring claques implies that they believed applause to be influential enough to be worthy of subsidy (Rosselli, 1992). Although bibliographic and historical evidence (‘Applause,’ 1970; Brandl-Risi, 2011; Rosselli, 1992) suggest that applause may affect listeners’ perceptions of musical performances, after completing a review of literature, we determined that this issue has not been examined empirically. An expression of approval as manifested by audience applause could be one factor related to variability in ensemble performance evaluations, and different magnitudes of applause (e.g., polite/subtle applause versus rowdy/enthusiastic applause) might result in different evaluations from listeners since they could be perceived as different levels of approval. Understanding the role of audience applause, a feature of nearly all ensemble performances, on listeners’ performance evaluations could provide musicians with a greater understanding of non-musical factors that influence the perceptions and impressions of their listeners.

In addition, we hypothesized that the effects of audience applause might be influenced by the musical style of the stimulus, based on prior research. Several authors have reported that musical expressiveness (Burnsed & King, 1987) and dynamic variation (Burnsed & Sochinski, 1995; Geringer, 1995) are influential in the perception of musical performances, and ensembles approach these elements in different ways based on the musical style of the work being performed (Grashel, 1981/1993). Grashel explained that nearly all performance dimensions are based on the musical style of the work being performed, so it seemed prudent to include works of contrasting style in the performance-evaluation context used in the present study. In addition, prior research (Geringer & Johnson, 2007; Johnson & Geringer, 2007; VanWeelden & McGee, 2007) indicates that listeners’ perceptions vary based on the musical style of the stimulus being heard. Thus, we included musical style as a secondary independent variable to determine whether or not the effects of audience applause were consistent across contrasting musical styles.

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of applause magnitude (high magnitude applause, low magnitude applause, or no applause) and musical style (ballad or march) on listeners’ ratings of ensemble performances. Specifically, the study was designed to examine the effects of applause magnitude and musical style on (1) listeners’ composite ratings and (2) listeners’ ratings of eight performance dimensions (note accuracy, rhythmic accuracy, style of articulation, balance/blend, dynamics, intonation, phrasing/expression, and tone quality).

Method

Musical stimuli creation

We selected recordings of two contrasting works (a ballad and a march) performed by the same ensemble for musical stimuli. These styles were chosen because they demonstrate notable differences in tempo, style of articulation, and expressive qualities, and these styles are commonly associated with concert band performance (as reflected in prior studies, e.g., Geringer & Johnson, 2007; Johnson & Geringer, 2007). Several recordings were considered with three issues guiding selection: (1) that the performance had no obvious performance errors beyond those minor inaccuracies associated with true live performance, (2) that the recording was of high quality and did not contain extraneous ‘noise,’ and (3) that the wind band community respects the works. After considering multiple pieces and recordings, two works of contrasting style were selected—Hymn for Band by Hugh Stuart (henceforth ‘ballad’) and Amparito Roca by Jaime Texidor (arr. Ridewood; henceforth ‘march’)—from a professionally-recorded live performance of a university concert band comprised of music majors and non-music majors. Both of these selections are described as significant works for concert band by several sources (Chesnutt, 2003; National Band Association, n.d.; Norton, 2000).

We investigated the effects of three levels of applause magnitude. Low magnitude applause was characterized by continuous audience clapping, which could be perceived as polite and subtle applause. High magnitude applause was characterized by continuous audience clapping accompanied by extraneous vocal sounds such as cheering and whistling (but with no discernible words uttered from the audience). We also included a ‘no applause’ condition as a meaningful control. To increase the ecological validity of the stimuli, the musical works and applause conditions were drawn from the same concert performance, resulting in the same audience profile organically responding to varying musical experiences in the same performance space on the same date.

In accord with common performance practice employed in Western symphonic music (‘Applause,’ 1970; Ross, 2010), we created stimuli with applause recordings included at the end of the performance of each work. Using Audacity®, we extracted the last 40 seconds from the recording of each work and appended a 20-second applause recording to the end of each excerpt in the high and low magnitude applause conditions. No applause was added to the excerpts in the control condition. Thus, the six stimuli included three identical performances of each work with a distinct applause condition attached. To avoid an abrupt onset, a fade-in effect was inserted at the beginning of each stimulus and at the point of applause condition elision. At the point of applause elision, the fade-in effect was inserted before the beginning of the applause sounds to make the connection between sources sound natural and to eliminate any disconnect in the ‘empty space’ sound before applause started.

To evaluate the validity of the high and low magnitude applause recordings, we recruited a sample of five expert wind band conductors, who were collegiate band directors at two institutions. All had completed advanced degrees in wind band conducting. These conductors listened to the applause recordings and classified each recording by type of applause magnitude. Operational definitions were provided. Each of these conductors identified the applause recordings consistently with our operational definitions, suggesting that they perceived the applause excerpts to be authentic examples of high and low magnitude applause.

To reduce fatigue effects associated with listening to repetitions of the same performance, a rendition of both pieces performed by a different university ensemble was also included and presented in the control (no applause) condition. Rather than including ‘palate cleansing’ music as a distraction to be heard between excerpts (cf. Hedden & Johnson, 2008), we included these additional performances to give participants an authentic evaluation task, which was intended to reduce fatigue effects in a more ecologically valid way. Thus, eight stimuli were created, and each was no longer than 60 seconds in length. Only the six stimuli performed by the same ensemble were included in data analyses, however. Results of a pilot test indicated no perceived artificiality resulting from the inserted fade effects and the two performances by the additional ensemble. All stimuli were exported as .wav files, which were used for subsequent presentation to participants.

Participants and procedure

Undergraduate instrumentalists (N = 98), who were music majors from five NASM-accredited institutions in the United States (three in the northwest and two in the southeast), consented to participate in this study. Mean age of the sample was 21.88 years (SD = 4.99), and there were slightly more men (n = 51) than women (n = 47). The distribution among student classification was as follows: freshmen (n = 19), sophomores (n = 13), juniors (n = 18), and seniors (n = 48).

Participants rated each excerpt using an evaluation form we developed for the present study based on a review of literature (e.g., Saunders & Holahan, 1997; Springer, 2013; Zembower, 2000). The form included eight performance dimensions, which were operationally defined for this study based on those used in prior research (e.g., Droe, 2012; Zembower, 2000). Operational definitions are provided in Table 1, and these definitions were provided to all participants to encourage a consistent interpretation of the meanings of these terms. Participants rated each dimension on a scale anchored by 1 (poor) and 6 (excellent), which eliminated the possibility of a neutral midpoint response.

Table 1.

Operational definitions of performance dimensions evaluated by participants.

Dimension	Definition
Note accuracy	The degree to which the ensemble performs correct pitches
Rhythmic accuracy	The degree to which the ensemble performs correct rhythms
Style of articulation	The degree to which notes are attacked, sustained, and released in a stylistically appropriate manner
Balance/blend	The degree to which the ensemble members perform with appropriate volume relative to other performers and sections.
Dynamics	The degree to which the ensemble performs with contrasting levels of loudness
Intonation	The degree to which the ensemble members perform ‘in tune’ with each other
Phrasing/expression	The degree to which the ensemble performs expressively in a musically satisfying manner
Tone quality	The degree to which the ensemble performs with pleasing and characteristic musical sounds

Following the completion of a short demographic questionnaire, participants heard the following recorded instructions for the primary procedural task, which were also printed on the first response page:

You have been asked to judge some concert band performances at an official concert band festival. In just a moment, you will hear 8 brief recordings of live concert band performances. Each recording will be approximately 1 minute in length. The recordings will be of two contrasting selections performed by different ensembles. Listen carefully to each excerpt. After you listen to each brief excerpt, you will be given a few moments (45 seconds) to rate the ensemble’s performance by circling your ratings on several rating scales. There are no right or wrong answers, so be honest in your ratings. Throughout this packet, we ask that you only rate each excerpt after you hear the instructions to do so. Please do not turn the page until you hear the instructions to turn the page. Please remain quiet throughout the remainder of the procedures so there will be no distractions to other listeners.

To make certain that they evaluated the performance after hearing the applause, participants were instructed not to turn to the response page until they heard the recorded instructions to do so, and a reminder statement was included at the bottom of each page. Because we administered the procedures at each site, the use of pre-recorded instructions was intended to control for unwanted experimenter effects. The recorded instructions and musical stimuli were played on available audio equipment at each site at an optimal loudness level. A random order of the musical stimuli was presented at each institution.

Results

We examined listeners’ ratings of the specific performance dimensions and their composite ratings for each of the excerpts. Composite ratings were calculated as the sum of their ratings of the eight performance dimensions, which could range from 8 to 48 with higher scores corresponding to a more favorable performance evaluation. The use of summed scores as an overall evaluation metric has been used in prior research as a supplement to ratings of individual performance dimensions (Morrison, Price, Geiger, & Cornacchio, 2009; Saunders & Holahan, 1997; Silveira, 2014; Springer, 2013), and this practice is commonly used in music performance evaluations (Boyle & Radocy, 1987). Excerpts were labeled by style and applause condition as follows: BH (ballad, high magnitude applause), BL (ballad, low magnitude applause), BN (ballad, no applause), MH (march, high magnitude applause), ML (march, low magnitude applause), and MN (march, no applause).

Preliminary analyses

Preliminary analyses were conducted to examine the psychometric properties of the rating scale used on the evaluation form. Because participants completed the rating scale for multiple excerpts, we examined all six iterations of the rating scale used in data analyses for internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from .87 to .92, with a median coefficient of .90, which provides evidence of internal consistency.

Because unidimensionality is another fundamental psychometric property of effective rating scales (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998), we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on a randomly-chosen iteration of the rating scale (BH excerpt) to evaluate the dimensionality of the instrument. Before conducting the analysis, we screened the data to evaluate whether the assumptions of EFA were met. All Pearson correlations among the eight performance dimensions were statistically significant (p < .001), and correlations ranged in magnitude from .38 to .76. Bartlett’s test of sphericity indicated sufficient correlation among the performance dimensions for an EFA, χ²(28) = 552.66, p < .001, and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value of .88 indicated a high degree of sampling adequacy for an EFA (Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2006).

Having met these conditions of suitability (Meyers et al., 2006), we conducted an unrotated EFA using a maximum likelihood extraction method. Results of the EFA suggested one underlying factor based on a visual inspection of the scree plot and an examination of the eigenvalues (5.15, .98, .49, .35, and .33 for the first five factors). Only the first factor demonstrated an eigenvalue greater than one, and all performance dimensions effectively loaded on the first factor (i.e., loadings ranged from .60 to .86 for the first factor), which suggest one underlying construct (Meyers et al., 2006). Based on these analyses, we deemed the rating scale to be internally consistent and unidimensional before proceeding with primary data analyses.

Composite ratings

To examine the effects of applause magnitude and musical style on listeners’ composite ratings (while also investigating whether the results were influenced by an order effect), we conducted a mixed-design analysis of variance (ANOVA) using two within-subjects factors (applause magnitude and musical style) and one between-subjects factor (presentation order). Since Mauchly’s test suggested that the assumption of sphericity was met (p > .05), no adjustments were made to the degrees of freedom for the within-subjects effects. Results indicated a significant applause × style interaction effect, F(2, 186) = 11.44, p < .001, partial η² = .11. As shown in Figure 1, listeners provided lowest composite ratings for the ballad in the high magnitude condition and highest ratings in the no applause condition (M_high = 32.22; M_low = 32.95; M_no = 34.34). The opposite trend occurred among listeners’ composite ratings of the march, as lowest ratings were provided for the no applause condition, and highest ratings were provided for the high magnitude applause condition (M_no = 31.39; M_low = 32.00; M_high = 33.93). Means and standard deviations of participants’ composite ratings are provided in Table 2.

Figure 1.

Two-way interaction between applause magnitude and musical style on listeners’ composite ratings.

Table 2.

Means and standard deviations of listeners’ performance ratings.

Dimension	No Applause		Low Applause		High Applause
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Ballad
Note accuracy	5.01	.81	4.89	.88	4.90	.90
Rhythmic accuracy	4.88	.92	4.82	.93	4.77	.99
Style of articulation	4.35	1.00	4.18	.97	4.20	1.04
Balance/blend	4.15	.96	3.96	.96	3.77	1.11
Dynamics	4.24	.97	4.06	.94	3.83	1.08
Intonation	3.54	1.10	3.28	1.15	3.21	1.13
Phrasing/expression	4.37	1.00	3.92	1.03	3.96	1.23
Tone quality	4.13	1.00	3.83	1.05	3.84	1.03
Composite	34.34	5.69	32.95	6.13	32.22	6.86
March
Note accuracy	4.85	.93	4.87	.81	5.05	.84
Rhythmic accuracy	4.68	.97	4.96	.80	4.97	.92
Style of articulation	3.90	.91	3.90	.94	4.19	1.01
Balance/blend	3.64	1.03	3.70	1.11	4.04	1.08
Dynamics	3.33	.81	3.28	.92	3.81	.92
Intonation	3.77	1.12	4.02	1.03	4.15	1.06
Phrasing/expression	3.56	.93	3.76	.96	4.19	1.04
Tone quality	3.90	1.05	3.99	1.01	4.28	1.08
Composite	31.39	5.99	32.00	5.43	33.93	6.39

Note. Listeners rated each performance dimension on a scale anchored by 1 (poor) and 6 (excellent). Composite ratings were calculated as the sum of listeners’ ratings of the eight performance dimensions.

A significant main effect was also found for presentation order, F(4, 93) = 5.46, p = .001, partial η² = .19, and no other significant main effects or interaction effects were observed. Results of Scheffé post hoc tests indicated significant differences between orders 2 and 3 (p = .002) and between orders 3 and 5 (p = .002) such that presentation order 3 was significantly lower than order 2 and order 5 (M₃ = 29.35; M₅ = 34.37; M₂ = 35.58). Presentation orders and composite ratings assigned for each order are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Listeners’ composite ratings by presentation order.

Order	Mean composite rating
Order 1 (ML, BN, MH, B, BL, M, MN, BH)	31.56
Order 2 (BN, MH, M, BL, MN, B, ML, BH)	35.58
Order 3 (ML, BH, M, BN, B, MN, BL, MH)	29.35
Order 4 (ML, BN, B, MH, BH, M, BL, MN)	33.17
Order 5 (ML, BN, MH, M, MN, BH, B, BL)	34.37

Note. Excerpts are labeled by musical style (M = march; B = ballad) and applause magnitude condition (H = high magnitude applause, L = low magnitude applause, and N = no applause). Excerpts marked with an asterisk were performed by a different ensemble and were included to reduce fatigue effects. These excerpts were not included in data analyses.

Ratings of performance dimensions

To investigate the influence of applause and style on ratings of eight performance dimensions, we then conducted a mixed-design ANOVA using three within-subjects factors (applause magnitude, musical style, and performance dimension) and one between-subjects factor (presentation order). Results of Mauchly’s test indicated that the effect of performance dimension did not meet the assumption of sphericity (p < .001), so we applied a Huynh-Feldt correction to the degrees of freedom for the within-subjects effects associated with the variable of performance dimension. Results of the ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of performance dimension, F(4.69, 436.10) = 129.25, p < .001, partial η² = .58, in addition to several interaction effects—applause × style, F(2, 186) = 11.44, p < .001, partial η² = .11; style × dimension, F(5.94, 551.97) = 28.76, p < .001, partial η² = .24; and applause × style × dimension, F(12.67, 1,178.47) = 2.16, p = .01, partial η² = .02. Means and standard deviations for participants’ performance ratings are provided in Table 2.

Like the composite ratings results, the interaction between applause and style was statistically significant in the present analysis. Considering the variable of performance dimension, however, other effects were observed. The main effect of performance dimension indicated that participants’ ratings varied significantly among the performance dimensions, but this effect was influenced by musical style. Furthermore, the highest-order interaction among applause magnitude, musical style, and performance dimension indicated that applause magnitude also influenced ratings. It should be noted that, although this three-way interaction effect was statistically significant, its effect size was small (partial η² = .02). As illustrated by the significant three-way interaction among applause magnitude, musical style, and performance dimension in Figure 2, highest ratings for the march were observed for all dimensions in the high magnitude applause condition. For the ballad, however, highest ratings were observed for all dimensions in the no applause condition.

Figure 2.

Three-way interaction among applause magnitude, musical style, and performance dimension on listeners’ performance ratings.

Although we interpreted the significant three-way interaction (applause by style by dimension) as the focus of our analyses, we also further examined the significant main effect of performance dimension to evaluate differences among ratings of these dimensions. Highest-rated dimensions were note accuracy and rhythmic accuracy (M_note = 4.91; M_rhythm = 4.80), and lowest-rated dimensions were intonation and dynamics (M_intonation = 3.64; M_dynamics = 3.74). Post-hoc multiple comparisons (with a Šidák adjustment to control for familywise error) indicated that of the 28 unique pairwise comparisons, only seven were not significantly different—note and rhythmic accuracy (p = .28), style of articulation and phrasing/expression (p = .33), style of articulation and tone quality (p = .98), balance/blend and dynamics (p = .99), balance/blend and phrasing/expression (p = .89), dynamics and intonation (p = .94), and phrasing/expression and tone quality (p = .99).

As above, a significant between-subjects main effect of presentation order was also observed, F(4, 93) = 5.46, p = .001, partial η² = .19, but this effect did not interact with any other factors. Results of Scheffé post hoc tests indicated significant differences between orders 2 and 3 (p = .008) and between orders 3 and 5 (p = .008), which were the same orders found to be significantly different in the analysis of composite ratings. Duplicating previous findings, order 3 was rated significantly lower than orders 2 and 5 (M₃ = 3.67; M₅ = 4.30; M₂ = 4.45).

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of applause magnitude and musical style on listeners’ evaluations of ensemble performances, and results indicated some interesting trends describing perceptual factors that influence listeners’ ratings. Though neither applause magnitude nor musical style had significant main effects on participants’ composite ratings, results indicated that their interaction did influence participants’ perceptions of performance quality.

As anticipated, the variable of musical style interacted with applause magnitude, and this two-way interaction (see Figure 1) indicates that the effect of applause magnitude varied across two musical styles. The presence of observed differences in ratings based on musical style is consistent with prior research (Geringer & Johnson, 2007; VanWeelden & McGee, 2007). Listeners provided highest composite ratings for the march in the high magnitude applause condition and lowest ratings in the no applause condition. The opposite trend occurred among listeners’ ratings of the ballad. These findings are perhaps predictable, as the more boisterous nature of the high magnitude applause condition seems more ecologically valid as a reaction to the march than to the ballad. Regarding the ballad, it is somewhat surprising that the no applause condition elicited a higher composite rating than the low applause condition, though perhaps the participants perceived the subtle nature of the low magnitude applause to be an obligatory response rather than a sincere expression of approval. This may have also been the case with the march since the observed difference in composite ratings between the march and ballad was negligible in the low magnitude conditions. Furthermore, due to the more solemn, expressive style associated with the ballad, an audience’s response of no applause could be perceived as one of reverence or perhaps one suggesting that they were emotionally moved by the performance.

The three-way interaction among applause magnitude, style, and dimension (see Figure 2) provides the most compelling insight regarding the influence of applause magnitude. Participants’ evaluations of performance quality varied across musical styles. For the march, ratings per dimension were always highest in the high applause condition, while for the ballad, ratings per dimension were always highest in the no applause condition. This uniformity in response to applause conditions illustrates a consistent influence on participants’ evaluation of performance quality across two contrasting musical styles.

An inspection of the variation in ratings across dimensions depicts the unique influence of each applause magnitude condition on participants’ evaluations of the excerpts. The unique variation suggests a difference between dimensions that could be considered ‘technical’ and ‘expressive/interpretive,’ which is consonant with results of a previous study (Johnson & Geringer, 2007) in which listeners’ ensemble performance ratings were successfully predicted by their ratings of certain performance dimensions. Figure 2 illustrates that, for both the ballad and march, note and rhythmic accuracy were the highest-rated dimensions with very little variation across applause magnitude conditions. As described above, Šidák-adjusted pairwise comparisons indicated that these dimensions were significantly different from all other dimensions. In addition, style of articulation was significantly different from all other dimensions except tone quality and phrasing/expression. Thus, when these pairwise comparisons are corroborated by a visual inspection of Figure 2, it appears that these ‘technical’ dimensions (note accuracy, rhythmic accuracy, and style of articulation) contained less variation across applause magnitude conditions when compared to the more ‘expressive/interpretive’ dimensions, such as dynamics, phrasing, and balance. In essence, it seems as if participants’ ratings for expressive/interpretive dimensions were affected by applause magnitude more so than their ratings of technical dimensions. Although this trend in participant ratings across applause conditions was consistent for both pieces, the explanation for this trend is beyond the scope of this investigation and provides a worthy area for future research.

These results suggest that applause magnitude does affect, to some limited degree, the evaluation of musical performance—particularly expressive/interpretive dimensions. It seems that listeners’ evaluations of ensemble performances were influenced by the expressed public approval (i.e., applause) of others in the present study, which is in agreement with earlier reports (Asch, 1951; Furman & Duke, 1988). Although prior research indicates that listeners’ perceptions of musical performances are affected by such non-musical factors as performer attractiveness (Ryan & Costa-Giomi, 2004; Wapnick et al., 1997, 1998, 2000) and performer movement (Davidson, 1993, 2007; Juchniewicz, 2008; Silveira, 2014), our results extend earlier findings with practical implications that listeners’ impressions of ensemble performances may be influenced by another non-musical factor: audience applause. Certainly, as this investigation is the first to investigate the effects of applause magnitude, these findings are tentative until supported by future studies.

One interpretive issue should elicit caution, however. The order of presentation, unique to each institution, did result in significant differences in participants’ composite ratings and performance dimension ratings, but this effect did not interact with other factors. This finding supports earlier claims that order effects in performance evaluations are often independent of specific performance criteria (Bruine de Bruin, 2005, 2006). Previous research has demonstrated that order effects are prevalent in music performance evaluations (Bergee, 2006; Bergee & McWhirter, 2005; Bergee & Platt, 2003; Bergee & Westfall, 2005; Elliott et al., 2000), so the presence of an order effect in the present study could perhaps be expected as a ‘real world’ issue related to music performance evaluations in general.

Significant differences were found between orders 2 and 3 and between orders 3 and 5. It is not known what characteristics of these presentation orders could have accounted for the differences in performance ratings, but an examination of each of the orders in Table 3 could provide a provisional explanation. The effect could be attributed to the placement of the high applause magnitude excerpts, as these are conceivably the most likely to be remembered and could have resulted in carryover effects. In order 3, the ballad excerpt (BH) preceded the march excerpt (MH) in the high magnitude applause condition, but in orders 2 and 5, the march excerpt (MH) preceded the ballad excerpt (BH) in the high magnitude applause condition.

Another explanation could be to ascribe the differences to other factors exclusive to individual institutions rather than presentation order. Although a unique random order was presented at each institution, other factors could have influenced the results, as each institution profile differed on the basis of other characteristics related to curriculum, faculty, and students. Thus, it is not known whether the results were influenced by presentation order per se or by other characteristics unique to individual institutions, and these findings should be interpreted with this limitation in mind.

Other limitations should be considered when interpreting the results of this study. First, these results were based on listeners’ perceptions of two selections of music, and as such, the results could be expected to differ if other stimuli were used. Second, the applause recordings that were affixed to the performance recordings were not the actual audience responses to the performances of those works. This practice was necessary to select wholly representative examples of low magnitude applause and high magnitude applause from the same performance recording based on the operational definitions used in the present study (i.e., absolutely no cheering on the low magnitude recording). On the other hand, we made efforts to increase the authenticity of the stimuli by drawing the applause and performance excerpts from the same live recording, which resulted in the same ensemble performing both works on the same evening in the same auditorium. This scheme resulted in the same audience profile across performances in all applause magnitude conditions, thus controlling for audience size and demographic composition. Finally, in the present study, listeners responded to musical excerpts in an audio-only condition in an effort to isolate the independent variable of applause magnitude. Doing so allowed us to control for certain confounding variables unrelated to applause magnitude but limited the external validity of the findings since live musical performances almost always include both audio and visual components.

Results of this study suggest other productive avenues for future research. Could it be that the effects of applause magnitude also interact with experience, that is, are more trained or experienced listeners less influenced by this variable? In future studies, researchers could examine listeners’ perceptions as a function of applause magnitude and the academic level or experience level of the listener. In addition, future studies of listeners’ perceptions of music performances could include an audio-only and an audio-visual condition to determine whether the presence of a visual stimulus results in different ratings. Researchers might consider examining the effects of the timing of audience applause on performance evaluations, as the latency between the performed music and its corresponding applause could possibly influence listeners’ evaluations. Finally, the effects of applause magnitude could be examined on listeners’ evaluations of performance quality in live performance settings that commonly include audience applause (e.g., choral ensemble, jazz ensemble, and marching band performances). Since applause, a ubiquitous feature of many listening experiences (Lupyan & Rifkin, 2003), is commonly accepted as a means of audience response to live music, its potential presence as a perceptual factor provides a fruitful area for future research in music performance evaluations.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Alpert

(1982). The effect of disc jockey, peer, and music teacher approval of music on music selection and preference. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, 173–186.

Applause. (1970). In Scholes

P. A.

(Ed.), The Oxford companion to music (10th ed., pp. 43–46). London, UK: Oxford University Press.

Asch

S. E.

(1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In Guetzkow

(Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 177–190). New York, NY: Russell and Russell.

Atkinson

(1984). Our masters’ voices: The language and body language of politics. London, UK: Methuen & Co.

Aiello

(1994). Can listening to music be experimentally studied? In Aiello

(Ed.), Musical perceptions (pp. 273–282). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bergee

M. J.

(2006). Validation of a model of extramusical influences on solo and small ensemble festival ratings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 54, 244–256.

Bergee

M. J.

McWhirter

J. L.

(2005). Selected influences on solo and small ensemble festival ratings: Replication and extension. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 177–190.

Bergee

M. J.

Platt

M. C.

(2003). Influence of selected variables on solo and small ensemble festival ratings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 51, 342–353.

Bergee

M. J.

Westfall

C. R.

(2005). Stability of a model explaining selected extramusical influences on solo and small-ensemble festival ratings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 53, 358–374.

10.

Boyle

J. D.

Radocy

R. E.

(1987). Measurement and evaluation of musical experiences. New York, NY: Schirmer.

11.

Brandl-Risi

(2011). Getting together and falling apart: Applauding audiences. Performance Research, 16(3), 12–18.

12.

Bruine de Bruin

(2005). Save the last dance for me: Unwanted serial position effects in jury evaluations. Acta Psychologica, 118, 245–260.

13.

Bruine de Bruin

(2006). Save the last dance II: Unwanted serial position effects in figure skating judgments. Acta Psychologica, 123, 299–311.

14.

Bull

P. E.

Noordhuizen

(2000). The mistiming of applause in political speeches. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 19, 275–294.

15.

Bull

P. E.

Wells

(2002). By invitation only? An analysis of invited and uninvited applause. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 230–244.

16.

Burnsed

King

(1987). How reliable is your festival rating? Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 5(3), 12–13.

17.

Burnsed

Sochinski

(1995). The effects of expressive variation in dynamics on the musical preferences of middle school music students. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 124, 1–12. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40318701

18.

Chesnutt

R. M.

(2003). Teacher resource guide: Amparito Roca by Jaime Texidor. In Miles

(Ed.), Teaching music through performing marches (pp. 122–130). Chicago, IL: GIA.

19.

Crozier

W. R.

(1997). Music and social influence. In Hargreaves

D. J.

North

A. C.

(Eds.), The social psychology of music (pp. 67–83). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

20.

Cusack

Deeks

Aikman

Carlyon

R. P.

(2004). Effects of location, frequency region, and time course of selective attention on auditory scene analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 643–656.

21.

Davidson

J. W.

(1993). Visual perception of performance manner in the movements of solo musicians. Psychology of Music, 21, 103–113.

22.

Davidson

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative insights into the use of expressive body movement in solo piano performance: A case study approach. Psychology of Music, 35, 381–401.

23.

Dorow

L. G.

(1977). The effect of teacher approval/disapproval ratios on student music selection and concert attentiveness. Journal of Research in Music Education, 25, 32–40.

24.

Droe

K. L.

(2008). The effect of teacher approval and disapproval of music performed in a rehearsal setting on music preferences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 267–278.

25.

Droe

K. L.

(2012). The effect of a score on band directors’ written comments of a recorded performance. Journal of Band Research, 47(2), 1–10.

26.

Duerksen

G. L.

(1972). Some effects of expectation on evaluation of recorded musical performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 20, 268–272.

27.

Elliott

C. A.

(1995/1996). Race and gender as factors in judgments of musical performance. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 127, 50–56. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40318766

28.

Elliott

C. A.

Schneider

M. C.

Zembower

C. M.

(2000). Influence of the audition hour on selection to an all-state band. Journal of Band Research, 35(2), 20–31.

29.

Furman

C. E.

Duke

R. A.

(1988). Effect of majority consensus on preferences for recorded orchestral and popular music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36, 220–231.

30.

Geringer

J. M.

(1995). Continuous loudness judgments of dynamics in recorded music excerpts. Journal of Research in Music Education, 43, 22–35.

31.

Geringer

J. M.

Johnson

C. M.

(2007). Effects of excerpt duration, tempo, and performance level on musicians’ ratings of wind band performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 289–301.

32.

Grashel

J. W.

(1981/1993). Style—The most abused musical element. In Conductors Anthology, Vol. 2 (pp. 464–467). Northfield, IL: The Instrumentalist Company.

33.

Greer

R. D.

Dorow

L. G.

Wachhaus

White

E. R.

(1973). Adult approval and students’ music selection behavior. Journal of Research in Music Education, 21, 345–354.

34.

Hair

J. F.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

Black

W. C.

(1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

35.

Hedden

D. G.

Johnson

(2008). The effect of teaching experience on time and accuracy of assessing young singers’ pitch accuracy. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 178, 63–72. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40319339

36.

Heritage

Greatbatch

(1986). Generating applause: A study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 110–157. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2779719

37.

Howard

S. A.

(2012). The effect of selected nonmusical factors on adjudicators’ ratings of high school vocal performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 60, 166–185.

38.

Johnson

C. M.

Geringer

J. M.

(2007). Predicting music majors’ overall ratings of wind band performances: Elements of music. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 173, 25–38. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40319468

39.

Juchniewicz

J. A.

(2008). The influence of physical movement on the perception of musical performance. Psychology of Music, 36, 417–427.

40.

Kratus

(2004). Development of a measure of creative music listening. In Lipscomb

S. D.

Ashley

Gjerdingen

R. O.

Webster

P. R.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (pp. 270–271). Retrieved from http://www.icmpc8.umn.edu/proceedings/

41.

Lipscomb

(1996). Cognitive organization of musical sound. In Hodges

D. A.

(Ed.), Handbook of music psychology (2nd ed., pp. 133–175). San Antonio, TX: IMR Press.

42.

Lupyan

Rifkin

(2003, July–August). Dynamics of applause: Modeling group phenomena through agent interaction. In Alterman

Kirsh

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (p. 1378). Retrieved from http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/proceedings/2003/mac/prof310.html

43.

McCrary

(1993). Effects of listeners’ and performers’ race on music preferences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 200–211.

44.

Meyers

L. S.

Gamst

Guarino

A. J.

(2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

45.

Morrison

S. J.

Price

H. E.

Geiger

C. G.

Cornacchio

R. A.

(2009). The effect of conductor expressivity on ensemble performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 37–49.

46.

Napoles

(2009). The effects of score use on musicians’ ratings of choral performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57, 267–279.

47.

National Band Association. (n.d.). Selective music lists. Retrieved from http://www.nationalbandassociation.org/selections.html

48.

Norton

(2000). Teacher resource guide: A Hymn for Band by Hugh M. Stuart. In Miles

(Ed.), Teaching music through performance in band (Vol. 3, pp. 168–171). Chicago, IL: GIA.

49.

Pope

D. A.

(2012). The effect of performance quality, audio and video performances, tempo, and adjudicator experience on music majors’ evaluations of string orchestra performances (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (3539605)

50.

Ross

(2010, March). Hold your applause: Inventing and reinventing the classical concert. Paper presented at the Royal Philharmonic Society, London, UK. Retrieved from http://royalphilharmonicsociety.org.uk/index.php/audiences_and_debate/lectures/

51.

Rosselli

(1992). Claque. In Sadie

(Ed.), New Grove dictionary of opera (Vol. 1, pp. 875–876). London, UK: Macmillan Press.

52.

Ryan

Costa-Giomi

(2004). Attractiveness bias in the evaluation of young pianists’ performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 52, 141–154.

53.

Ryan

Wapnick

Lacaille

Darrow

A. A.

(2006). The effects of various physical characteristics of high-level performers on adjudicators’ performance ratings. Psychology of Music, 34, 559–572.

54.

Saunders

T. C.

Holahan

J. M.

(1997). Criteria-specific rating scales in the evaluation of high school instrumental performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 259–272.

55.

Siddell-Strebel

(2007). The effects of non-musical components on the ratings of performance quality (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (NR32324)

56.

Silveira

J. M.

(2014). The effect of body movement on listeners’ perceptions of musicality in trombone quartet performance. International Journal of Music Education, 32(3), 311–323.

57.

Silveira

J. M.

Diaz

F. M.

(2014). The effect of subtitles on listeners’ perceptions of expressivity. Psychology of Music, 42, 233–250.

58.

Springer

D. G.

(2013). The effects of conductor score type and ensemble performance level on college musicians’ perceptions of a wind band performance (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (3579766)

59.

VanWeelden

McGee

I. R.

(2007). The influence of music style and conductor race on perceptions of ensemble and conductor performance. International Journal of Music Education, 25, 7–17.

60.

Wapnick

Darrow

A. A.

Kovacs

Dalrymple

(1997). Effects of physical attractiveness on evaluation of vocal performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45, 470–479.

61.

Wapnick

Mazza

J. K.

Darrow

A. A.

(1998). Effects of performer attractiveness, stage behavior, and dress on violin performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 510–531.

62.

Wapnick

Mazza

J. K.

Darrow

A. A.

(2000). Effects of performer attractiveness, stage behavior, and dress on evaluation of children’s piano performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 48, 323–336.

63.

Zembower

C. M.

(2000). The effect of video and audio recordings of concert band performances on adjudicator evaluations (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (3000266)