Music performance anxiety in ensemble rehearsals and concerts: A comparison of music and non-music major undergraduate musicians

Abstract

This study assessed music performance anxiety (MPA) in ensemble rehearsals and concerts in 278 undergraduate non-music and music majors drawn from 10 Mid-Atlantic institutions in the US to examine the prevalence and experience of MPA in non-music major undergraduates and to determine whether MPA severity differed between non-music majors and music majors. Results for undergraduate non-music majors using the Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory Revised (K-MPAI-r, Kenny, 2009) revealed cognitive, somatic, affective, and behavioral symptoms. Depression, being an instrumentalist, female, and having had a music performance breakdown made significant contributions to K-MPAI-r scores; depression made the strongest unique contribution to prediction of severity of MPA. Greater self-efficacy was correlated with lower MPA for both rehearsals and concert performances. Overall, MPA and depression indicator scores for the sample were higher than other groups that have been previously evaluated with the K-MPAI-r and the same depression screen. Although ensemble rehearsals were confirmed to be less anxiety provoking than performing solo and in ensemble concerts, students reported considerable MPA during both ensemble rehearsing and ensemble performing. The relatively high rates of MPA and indications of depression in the whole sample should merit concern for music educators.

Keywords

concerts depression ensemble performance music performance anxiety non-music major undergraduates rehearsals self-efficacy

Most of the research interest in music performance anxiety (MPA) has, to date, been focused on aspiring music students (e.g., Kenny, Fortune & Ackermann, 2013) or professional musicians (Kenny & Ackermann, 2013; Kenny, Driscoll, & Ackermann, 2014). These studies report high levels of MPA in music student populations ranging from 50% (Steptoe & Fidler, 1987) and 65% (Kokotsaki & Davidson, 2003) to 84% (Cox & Kenardy, 1993). The current study explored MPA in a group of relatively neglected musicians in the MPA literature – non-music major undergraduates – students who, although not vocational or aspirational in terms of a career in music, participate in music making while preparing for other, non-music-based careers. While music majors have a series of required courses in such areas as music history, theory, and music performance; non-music majors may choose to participate solely in, for example, orchestra or the chorus. Only one study (Alderman, Baker, Bohnenblust, Hunget, & Villines, 1989) has specifically focused on MPA in non-music majors, but serious methodological flaws such as the lack of information on inter-judge reliability; and the absence of clarity regarding for whom the students played, how students were selected, and whether all students performed in the same manner render it difficult to draw any valid conclusions.

Many early studies did not clearly define MPA and used different, non-standardized measures, most of which were focused only on the somatic dimension of MPA (Kenny, 2009, 2011). The Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (K-MPAI) was used as the measure of MPA in this study, thereby making it possible to compare results with recent research on other musical populations that have used the same validated instrument (Alzugaray, Hernández, López, & Gil, 2015; Barbar, Crippa, & Osório, 2013; Chang Arana, 2015; Kenny & Ackermann, 2013; Kenny, Davis, & Oates, 2004; Kenny et al., 2014; Kenny et al., 2013). The conceptual framework for the present study rests upon a combination of elements from Kenny’s (2011) emotion-based model, an adaptation of Barlow’s (2000) triple vulnerability model, that incorporates biological, environmental, emotional, and cognitive factors that contribute to MPA. In Kenny’s emotion-based model high trait anxiety and early experiences leading to general psychological vulnerability are followed by intensely critical evaluative performances that result in classical or operant conditioning of negative affect (e.g., hopelessness, depression, feelings of unpredictability and uncontrollability leading to panic) associated with musical performances in vulnerable individuals.

Depression was investigated in this study because of previous research that established a link between depression and MPA (Barbar et al., 2013; Kenny et al., 2014; Kenny et al., 2013). A number of other factors that have been shown to affect the severity of MPA in professional and aspirational student musicians have also been assessed in this study to ascertain whether these relationships are also apparent in non-music major students. These include female gender (Biasutti & Concina, 2014; Iusca & Dafinoiu, 2012; Kenny et al., 2014; Osborne & Kenny, 2008; Osborne, Kenny, & Holsomback, 2005; Rae & McCambridge, 2004; Wesner, Noyes, & Davis, 1990); lower self-efficacy (Liston, Frost, & Mohr, 2003; McPherson & McCormick, 2006; Papageorgi et al., 2010); performance setting (Chesky, Kondraske, Henoch, Hipple, & Rubin, 2002; Cox & Kenardy, 1993; Kenny et al., 2014; Langendörfer, Hodapp, Kreutz, & Bongard, 2006; Miller & Chesky, 2004; Papageorgi et al., 2010; Wesner et al., 1990); evaluative threat and fear of negative evaluation (Brotons, 1994; Fehm & Schmidt, 2006; LeBlanc, Jin, Obert, & Siivola, 1997; Nideffer & Hessler, 1978; Zakaria, Musib, & Shariff, 2013); and previous performance breakdowns (Osborne & Kenny, 2008).

We are not aware of any studies that have reported on different groups of tertiary music students, in particular, those studying music as a non-major, non-aspirational, non-vocational subject in their degrees. This study directly compared MPA experiences of tertiary music students studying in different streams (music major and non-music major). For all undergraduate musicians, we hypothesized that females would report higher MPA than males (H₁). We also hypothesized that students with one or more performance breakdowns (PBs) would report higher levels of MPA than those reporting no PBs (H₂). Additionally, we hypothesized that students would report higher levels of MPA when a) performing in concerts compared with rehearsals (H₃), b) performing alongside music majors compared with not performing with majors (H₄), and c) performing in graded performances compared with non-graded performances (H₅). Further, we hypothesized that students with a) depression indicators (H₆), and b) lower self-efficacy (H₇) would report higher levels of MPA. In view of the lack of previous research available to guide our hypotheses, we posed the following research questions:

What is the prevalence of MPA in non-music major undergraduates?

Is there a quantitative difference in the severity of MPA between non-music major (non-major) and music major (major) undergraduates?

Method

Participants

Two large state universities and four colleges from each state in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, and Virginia) that offer music for both non-major and major participation in performing ensembles were identified. In all, 10 colleges and universities agreed to participate. These included: a small, private university with a professional focus (33 participants); a small, private liberal arts college (49 participants); a small Jesuit university (5); a small, private university (10); two state universities (that are also historically black universities) (67); a medium-sized state-assisted university (36); a large public university (34); and two Ivy League universities (44).

Procedure

Data were collected via questionnaires immediately before, during, or after rehearsals in the rehearsal room of the respective ensembles. Where possible, data collection was scheduled for a rehearsal held during the final three to four weeks of the semester in close proximity to a concert. It was expected that increased pressure to sufficiently master the repertoire for concert evaluation would make the last part of the semester more likely for students to experience MPA.

Measures

Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory – revised

(K-MPAI-r; Kenny, 2009), a 40-item self-report instrument, was used to assess music performance anxiety. The questionnaire uses a 7-point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicative of greater anxiety and emotional distress. Several items (K-1, 2, 9, 17, 23, 33, 35, and 37) are worded positively and reverse scored to avoid response-set. The Kenny (2009) K-MPAI is one of the few MPA-measuring instruments with well-established validity and reliability. The K-MPAI demonstrated excellent internal reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94 (Kenny, 2009). Robust factors were derived from analyses conducted by Kenny (2009, 2011) and Kenny, Driscoll, and Ackermann (2014).

K-MPAI_Modified (62-items)

The K-MPAI was slightly modified to allow students to respond to symptom-focused statements experienced in rehearsal and concert settings (see Appendix 1). The scales for agreement were presented in separate columns, with one column for rehearsal-settings and an adjacent column for concert settings. The K-MPAI_Rehearsal score is the sum of the pre-disposer statements and the rehearsal-setting symptom statements. Like previous applications of the K-MPAI, reliability of the scale with its modifications for setting was excellent in this study. Assessing reliability for the concert setting alone (K-MPAI) resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of .918. The reliability for the rehearsal setting (K-MPAI_Rehearsal) was .910, and Cronbach’s alpha for the scale including both performance and rehearsal setting statements (K-MPAI_Modified) was .943.

Two-question PRIME-MD

The PRIME-MD Patient Health Questionnaire (PRIME-MD PHQ; Kenny & Ackermann, 2013) is a two-item questionnaire screen for depression. The PRIME-MD PHQ comes originally from the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Patient Health Questionnaire (Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2003). Whooley, Avins, Miranda, and Browner (1997) reported sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 57% for these two questions.

Additional items

Data collected included the date of questionnaire administration and date of the next important/graded concert with the ensemble, as well as gender, age, whether the participant played an instrument or sang in the ensemble, primary and (possibly) secondary instrument played in the ensemble, length of time spent playing the instrument(s) or singing, if music was the student’s declared major area of study, if the student performed with music majors in the ensemble, and if participation was graded.

Respondents were additionally asked to describe any music performance breakdowns they had experienced and were presented with an open-ended request to “describe your worst performance experience in as much detail as you can remember (type of event, size and type of audience, solo or ensemble performance, preparation for performance, what happened just before and during the performance, what happened afterward, etc.).”

Data analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0.

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was performed to investigate whether timing of the administration of the survey (before, midway, or after the rehearsal) impacted survey results. The impact of depression on MPA was evaluated by a Welch test of equality of means. Undergraduate majors’ and non-majors’ levels of MPA during ensemble concert conditions and ensemble rehearsal conditions were compared using paired-samples t-tests. Independent-samples t-tests were conducted to determine if grading, having had a PB, choice of major, performing with majors, and sex (gender) affected MPA scores. Pearson product-moment correlations described relationships between MPA and proximity to the concert, self-efficacy, and between the three modes of scoring the questionnaire (scores for K-MPAI, K-MPAI_Rehearsal, and K-MPAI_Modified). A multiple regression was conducted to identify predictors of MPA.

Preliminary results

Possible confounding factors that occurred during data collection were assessed prior to hypothesis testing. One of these factors was the timing the administration of the questionnaire had on respondents’ answers. Levene’s statistic (1.89) testing the homogeneity of variances was not significant, and no significant difference in K-MPAI scores according to administration times (whether at the beginning, middle, or end of the rehearsal) was found: F(2, 274) = 1.33, p = .266, indicating that the variation in timing of the survey administration was unlikely to have affected overall results. Another potentially confounding factor was testing proximity to the respondents’ next concert. A scatterplot of K-MPAI scores for all students showed reasonable homoscedasticity and a slight linear increase in anxiety as the number of days before the concert diminished. Further investigation found this relationship to be non-significant: r = -.07, n = 275, p = .261. Correlational analyses for majors, r = .17, n = 96, p = .084, and non-majors, r = -.06, n = 154, p = .461 separately, were also non-significant.

Intercorrelations of the different scales used to measure different setting manifestations of MPA (K-MPAI, K-MPAI_Rehearsal, and K-MPAI_Modified) were examined. There was no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity or homoscedasticity. As expected, due to the common items comprising the three scales, all were highly intercorrelated. There was a strong positive relationship between scores on the K-MPAI and K-MPAI_Rehearsal, indicating that respondents who were most anxious in performance also tended to be most anxious in rehearsal. A correlation coefficient of 1.0 between the K-MPAI and the K-MPAI_Modified signaled that the K-MPAI scores were appropriate for representing MPA across combined concert and rehearsal settings.

Results

Sample characteristics

In all, 343 musicians were invited to participate and 320 responded, yielding a response rate of 93.3% (females = 168, 52.5 %; males = 152, 47.5 %). Because of the relatively few numbers of nonstudents and graduate students (students who had completed a four year undergraduate college degree and were in the next phase of advanced study) and the focus of this study on undergraduate student experiences of MPA, especially in non-major undergraduates, nonstudents (n = 19) and graduate students (n = 23) were excluded from analyses. All distributions were evaluated for skewness and kurtosis prior to analysis and were found to be normal. Table 1 illustrates undergraduate student participants categorized by major/non-major, and sex, age, and instrument. Students performed in a range of ensembles that included orchestra, choir, jazz ensemble, chamber string ensemble, and concert band.

Table 1.

Sex, age, and instrument played for undergraduate students.

Characteristic	Undergraduate majors	Undergraduate non-majors
Sex
Male	54	73
Female	54	93
Average age	20.58 (SD = 1.85) years	19.92 (SD = 1.29)
Average length of main instrument study	8.88 (SD = 4.50) years	8.83 (SD = 4.81)
Main instrument
Voice	36	103
String	32	43
Woodwind	12	11
Brass	20	2
Piano	2	3
Harp/Guitar	0	2
Percussion	6	2

Research Question 1: What is the prevalence of MPA in non-music major undergraduates?

Of 166 non-majors, 52.5% agreed with the statement “From early in my music studies, I remember being anxious about performing;” 164 out of 166 students (98.8%) answered somewhat agree, agree, or strongly agree to at least one of the questions associated with symptoms of MPA in one or both settings. Only one male and one female student did not agree at all with any symptom statement.

In addition to the cognitive and somatic symptoms illustrated in the top five symptom-related statements with which students agreed (worry about having played well enough, self-judgment of the performance, the likelihood of making mistakes, receiving negative reactions from the listener, and experiencing increased heart rate), other somatic, affective and behavioral symptoms were also experienced. Non-music major undergraduates reported nausea (rehearsals = 10.9%, concerts = 27.1%), dry mouth (rehearsals = 8.4%, concerts = 24%), muscle tension (rehearsals = 11.4%, concerts = 31.9%), and shaking (rehearsals = 7.2%, concerts = 37.9%). Students also reported feeling affective symptoms, such as panic (rehearsals = 10.8%, concerts = 34.9%) and dread (before rehearsals = 8.4%, before concerts = 13.8%). Behavioral symptoms included not being able to sleep (before rehearsals = 2.4% before concerts = 10.2%).

Of all undergraduate students, 111 (39.9%) responded “yes,” to having had a PB. The performance-setting circumstances of the PBs are shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Performance-setting of undergraduate performance breakdowns.

Performance setting	Frequency
Solo	88 (31.7%)
Ensemble	11 (4.0%)
Both	12 (4.3%)
Not applicable (no PB)	167 (60.1%)
Total	278 (100%)

Of the most serious issues that resulted in undergraduate students’ PBs (memory lapse; loss of technique pre-performance anxiety that either resulted in non-starting, non-continuing, or canceling; and other), memory lapse was cited most frequently (16.3%), followed by technique loss (11.8%).

Univariate analyses

H₁: Females report higher MPA than males

The impact of sex on K-MPAI scores was investigated for all undergraduates. Although scores were higher for females than for males, no significant difference in K-MPAI scores was found (males: M = 99.96, n = 116; and females: M = 106.50, n = 141; t(255) = -1.47, p = .14, two-tailed). There was also a non-significant difference between males and females for K-MPAI_Rehearsal scores (males: M = 84.25, n = 118; females: M = 88.25, n = 142; t(258) = -0.97, p = .34, two-tailed).

H₂: Students with one or more performance breakdowns (PBs) report higher levels of MPA than those reporting no PB

A significant difference in K-MPAI scores was found between students who reported having had a PB (M = 115.94, SD = 34.52) and students who denied having had one (M = 95.09, SD = 33.83; t(275) = 4.98, p < .005, two tailed.

H₃: Students would report higher levels of MPA when performing in concerts compared with in rehearsals

A significant difference was found between concert setting (M = 98.24, SD = 32.67) and rehearsal setting anxiety (M = 82.62, SD = 30.88), t(155) = 10.03, p < .001 (two-tailed) for 156 of the non-majors. The mean difference in scores was 15.62 with a 95% CI [12.55, 18.70]. Also significant were the differences in MPA between settings for majors: concert setting (M = 112.67, SD = 38.85) and rehearsal setting (M = 92.08, SD = 35.45), t(95) = 10.10, p < .001 (two-tailed). The mean difference in scores for majors was 20.58 with a 95% CI [16.54, 24.63]. Table 3 shows ensemble concert-setting mean MPA (K-MPAI) and ensemble rehearsal-setting mean MPA (K-MPAI_Rehearsal) for majors and non-majors.

Table 3.

Mean, standard deviation, minimum, and maximum values for K-MPAI and K-MPAI_Rehearsal by music major and non-music major undergraduates.

Students	n	MeanK-MPAI	SD	Min.	Max.	n	MeanK-MPAI_Rehearsal	SD	Min.	Max.
UMM	98	112.53	38.47	30	212	98	92.51	35.21	23	198
UNM	158	98.04	32.72	24	178	160	82.40	30.93	12	167

Note. UMM = Undergraduate music majors; UNM = Undergraduate non-music majors; K-MPAI = Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (40-items); K-MPAI_Rehearsal = Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (40-items) applied to rehearsal settings only.

Research Question 2: Is there a quantitative difference in the severity of MPA between non-music major and music major undergraduates?

Majors had significantly higher K-MPAI scores than non-majors t(254) = 3.22, p < .001, two-tailed. According to Cohen (1988), the magnitude of the difference in the means (mean difference = 14.49, 95% CI [5.62, 23.36]) was minimal (eta squared = .04). These results indicate the presence of a significant but only slightly higher degree of MPA in majors than in non-majors.

H₄: Students report higher levels of MPA when performing alongside music majors compared with not performing with majors

Although the mean score for K-MPAI of non-majors who performed with majors (M = 102.17, SD = 32.47) was higher than the mean K-MPAI score of non-majors who did not perform with majors (M = 93.30, SD = 29.04), the difference was not significant: t(121) = 1.38, p = .17, two-tailed.

H₅: Students report higher levels of MPA when performing in graded performances compared with in non-graded performances

Because of the very low numbers in three of the grading systems (pass/fail, credit/non-credit, and not sure), K-MPAI scores were compared only between students who received letter grades and those who were not graded at all. A significant difference in scores was found for students who received letter grades (M = 107.46, SD = 34.86) and students who were not graded (M = 97.85, SD = 36.85); t(260) = 2.12, p < .05, two-tailed.

H₆: Students with depression indicators report higher levels of MPA

The influence of depression on K-MPAI scores (Table 4) was investigated via one-way analysis of variance with post-hoc contrasts for all undergraduate students. A score of “0” indicated that the respondent did not answer “yes” to either depression index question, a score of “1” indicated a positive answer to one of the questions, and a score of “2” indicated a positive answer to both questions.

Table 4.

PRIME-MD and Mean K-MPAI for all undergraduates.

PRIME-MD	N	MeanK-MPAI	SD	95% confidence interval for mean		Minimum	Maximum
PRIME-MD	N	MeanK-MPAI	SD	Lower bound	Upper bound	Minimum	Maximum
No Both Q	113	85.98	30.099	80.37	91.59	24	152
Yes 1 Q	64	98.30	28.988	91.06	105.54	31	168
Yes 2 Q	97	123.36	37.072	115.89	130.83	43	212
Total	274	102.09	36.337	97.77	106.41	24	212

Note. K-MPAI = Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (40-items).

A Welch test for equality of means was performed due to violation to the assumption of homogeneity of variance (Levene’s Sig. = .02). Results indicated that the differences between K-MPAI means for each of the PRIME-MD scores were robust, WT = 31.40, df = 2, 161.33, p < .001. Post-hoc tests revealed that the differences between 0 and 1 (p = .016), 1 and 2 (p < .001), and between 0 and 2 (p < .001) were significant. In addition, there was no overlap between the upper and lower bounds of the 95% confidence interval between the three levels of the PRIME-MD and their corresponding K-MPAI score.

Correlation analyses

H₇: Students with lower self-efficacy report higher levels of MPA

The statements, “Even in the most stressful performance situations, I am confident that I will perform well” and “Even in the most stressful rehearsal situations, I am confident that I will perform well,” were selected as an approximation of the degree of the respondent’s self-efficacy. Scatterplots of concert-setting MPA (K-MPAI scores) and rehearsal-setting MPA (K-MPAI_Rehearsal) and the scoring to the statements demonstrated reasonable homoscedasticity. Higher scores were indicative of disagreement with this statement, with a score of six indicating, “Strongly disagree.” Pearson product-moment correlation revealed a relatively strong relationship, r = .49, n = 158, p < .0005, between concert-setting MPA and self-efficacy statement scores, with high levels of concert-setting MPA associated with low levels of concert-setting-specific self-efficacy. A strong correlation was also found between rehearsal-setting MPA and self-efficacy statement scores, r = .52, n = 160, p < .0005, with high levels of rehearsal MPA associated with low levels of rehearsal-related self-efficacy.

Regression analysis

Standard multiple regression was used to determine the predictive capabilities of depression, instrument, sex, and PBs for students’ MPA. Depression was indicated by having answered “yes” to either or both depression screening questions, instrument signified if the respondent played an instrument or sang, and PBs were indicated if a respondent reported having had one or more in the past year. Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity, and homoscedasticity. Depression and K-MPAI scores were moderately correlated (.45), and there was a small correlation between PBs (.20) and K-MPAI scores. Correlation between independent variables was low, justifying their retention. Tolerance values for all independent variables were well over .10, ranging from .95 to .98, and variance inflation factor values were accordingly quite low. All VIF values ranged from 1.02 to 1.05, indicating that the multicollinearity assumption had not been violated (Pallant, 2010). Further, the scatterplot of the standardized residuals exhibited an acceptable centralized rectangular distribution within -3.3 and 3.3.

The total variance explained by the model was 23.8%, F(4, 262) = 20.43, p < .001. A summary of results is shown in Table 5. All variables contributed significantly to MPA, but depression made the strongest unique contribution (β = .42, p < .001).

Table 5.

Summary of standard multiple regression analysis for variables predicting MPA.

Variable	B	SE(B)	β	95% CI
(Constant)	75.625***	6.680		[62.47, 88.78]
Depression	17.342***	2.257	.424	[12.90, 21.79]
Instrument	8.146*	3.902	.114	[.46, 15.83]
Sex	−9.038*	3.912	−.126	[−16.74, −1.34]
Performance Breakdowns	10.624*	4.979	.118	[.82, 20.43]
R²	.238
F	20.425***

Note. N = 267. CI = confidence interval. MPA measured by the K-MPAI = Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory (40-items). *p < .05. ***p < .001.

Discussion

The results indicated a remarkably high incidence and degree of severity of MPA in both majors and non-majors, and many of our hypotheses were supported. Concert settings provoked higher levels of MPA than rehearsal settings, receiving a grade was associated with higher MPA than not receiving a grade, there was a negative relationship between self-efficacy and MPA, and a positive relationship between depression indicators and MPA, and having had one or more PBs was linked to higher levels of MPA than not having had a PB. However, there was no support for the hypothesis that females report higher levels of MPA than males. We found that majors demonstrated significantly more MPA than non-majors, and non-majors who performed alongside majors did not display significantly more MPA than non-majors who did not perform alongside majors. Lastly, predictors of MPA included depression, instrument, sex, and PBs.

Consistent with Cox and Kenardy (1993) who found that the entirety of their sample experienced performance anxiety, nearly all of the non-majors in the present study (98.8%) reported having at least one symptom associated with MPA in one or both performance settings, and most non-majors remembered feeling anxious about performing from early in their studies. Most symptoms were felt more strongly under one performance setting or the other, but some symptoms appeared in the top five symptom-related statements for both performance settings: worry about having played well enough; worry that even with lots of preparation, mistakes were likely; concern over personal judgment of the strength of the performance; and worry about a negative reaction from the instructor or audience – a concern that would seem to be reflected in this study’s findings about the impact of grading on MPA. Negative cognitions were also found to play a significant role in MPA in Osborne and Kenny’s (2008) study of 298 performing arts high school students. The only somatic symptom revealed in the top five symptom-related statements for the present study was increased heart rate under ensemble concert conditions, although there was evidence that students experience other somatic symptoms (as well as affective and behavioral ones).

Significantly, students displayed higher levels of MPA compared with other populations that have been assessed with the K-MPAI. K-MPAI scores were 98.04 for non-majors, and 112.53 for majors. By comparison, the 377 professional Australian orchestral musicians in Kenny and Ackermann’s (2013) study had a mean score of 83.5, and 20 undergraduate and master’s level, and recently graduated flute students from the Sydney Conservatorium of Music had a mean score of 68 (Kenny, Fortune, & Ackermann, 2013).

The higher mean score for the present study’s sample compared with the other samples is surprising, given that most of the students in this sample were non-majors and the students responded to the questionnaire statements based on current ensemble participation (not on solo performing). Non-majors (undergraduate) in this sample scored lower (M = 97.92, n = 166) than music majors (M = 111.87, n = 110), but the score for non-majors was higher than has been seen in other populations. Previous research has demonstrated that ensemble performing tends to be less anxiety provoking than solo performing (e.g., Cox & Kenardy, 1993; Langendörfer et al., 2006), making these results even more compelling. Putting aside the professional Australian orchestral musicians in Kenny and Ackermann’s (2013) study for comparison purposes because of the discrepancy in age and comparing this study’s student respondents with the Sydney Conservatorium students, perhaps the difference in concert MPA scores is due to pedagogical differences between this Australian conservatory and the American schools represented in this sample. The teachers and directors of the Australian students may be more successful in reducing MPA, or perhaps not contributing to the MPA of their students. The difference in MPA scores between the Australian students and this group may also have resulted from this study’s circumstances of questionnaire completion: immediately before, during, or after a rehearsal; in the rehearsal hall; with the director present. These questionnaire administration circumstances may have intensified the recall and reporting of symptoms.

A key component of the study was the influence of setting on MPA. Previous researchers (Chesky, et al., 2002; Cox & Kenardy, 1993; Kenny et al., 2014; Langendörfer et al., 2006; Miller & Chesky, 2004; Nicholson, Cody, & Beck, 2014; Papageorgi et al., 2010; Wesner et al., 1990) have found that MPA tends to increase from less public practice and group activities, to more public, solo performances. Supporting our hypothesis regarding performance settings, both majors and non-majors in the present study felt significantly stronger symptoms of MPA related to ensemble concert settings than they did to ensemble rehearsal settings. It is worth noting, however, that 25 non-majors reported experiencing more MPA in rehearsals than in concert settings.

Supporting our hypothesis that grading would have consequences relative to MPA, students who received a letter grade demonstrated significantly greater MPA than students who were not graded, although the effect size was small. A poor grade is a consequence that might reasonably follow a poor performance; thus students may feel more pressure to perform well, with this stress translating to higher MPA scores. These results are consistent with research that revealed fear of negative evaluation is a significant predictor in MPA (Kenny et al., 2013; Nicholson et al., 2014).

The hypothesized negative relationship between self-efficacy and higher MPA scores was supported for both performance settings. This finding was consistent with Ackermann, Kenny, O’Brien, and Driscoll (2014), and with Liston et al. (2003) and McQuade (2009) who established low self-efficacy as a predictor of MPA.

A significant, robust positive relationship was found between depression indicators and MPA for undergraduates in this sample; of 278 undergraduates who responded, 64 (23%) answered in the affirmative to one of the screening questions, and 97 (34.9%) answered in the affirmative to both questions. By comparison, of 376 Australian professional orchestral musicians in Kenny et al.’s (2014) study, 12.8% answered positively to the first screening question, 1.9% answered positively to the second, and 17.4% answered positively to both questions. If the positive predictive value of the screen (33%: Whooley et al., 1997) is applied to the undergraduate students in the present study, 11.7% of these undergraduate participants may be at risk for depression. According to the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, about 6.7% of the US population aged 18 and over is affected by major depressive disorder and 1.5% of the US population aged 18 and over is affected by persistent depressive disorder, suggesting that the potential rate of depression in these student musicians may be comparatively high.

There are several reasons that might explain the difference in depression rates between Kenny et al.’s (2014) study and this one. Professional musicians have self-selected to a higher degree: individuals unable to thrive may choose other careers, and symptoms resulting in audition failures may preclude performance post-schooling. Those who go on to professional careers may have developed coping skills that aid in the management of MPA, and older musicians with depression may have received treatment or learned adaptive ways to cope with their depressive symptoms. Physiological changes and the transition to college life and greater independence can also present new and difficult challenges for students.

The present study also corroborated the importance of a sensitizing event in the predisposition of MPA. Osborne and Kenny (2008) analyzed written descriptions of the worst performances of 298 adolescent music students and found that students who reported a negative music performance experience reported higher MPA scores than students who did not report a negative music performance. Students in the present study who reported having had a PB were indeed more likely to have higher levels of MPA than students who had denied having had one. Osborne and Kenny suggested that exposure to early critical performance evaluations may lead to a specific psychological vulnerability for developing MPA; this contention appears to be supported by these students’ experiences.

Significant sex differences in MPA were not observed, contrary to our hypothesis and previous research (e.g. Iusca & Dafinoiu, 2012; Liston et al., 2003; Rae & McCambridge, 2004). The critical difference between other studies and this one may be that participants in the present study were asked to report on their anxiety relative to concerts and rehearsals with their current ensemble. It may be that the lower levels of MPA that tend to occur in ensemble performing (compared to solo performing) reduce the effect of sex on MPA.

In answer to our second research question, undergraduate majors showed significantly greater levels of total MPA than the non-majors. These results may be due to the importance of performing relative to career choice, and the consequences of performing poorly. Alternatively, non-majors may be less equipped to judge performance quality and hence are less critical of their own performance quality. Osborne and Franklin (2002), in a study of 84 musicians from widely varied backgrounds, found that the performer’s sense of the likelihood of a negative evaluation, the consequences of negative evaluation, the discrepancy between the performer’s perception of audience standards of performance and perceptions of performance competence in formal performance situations, fear of receiving a negative evaluation, age, and length of time having played solo all significantly predicted MPA scores.

Another possible factor in the MPA of majors is the different role the director plays in their development. Directors of majors, being aware of these students’ career aspirations, may hold more exacting standards for performance than directors of non-majors. Instructions on how to play or sing passages may be more peremptory (or not given at all) compared with how instructions are offered to non-majors. Feedback may be less positive and more critical, as the director may be more concerned with improvement than the students’ enjoyment of music making.

During administration of the questionnaire, it was observed that the directors of two of the groups with a majority of majors (and MPA scores at the higher end of the spectrum) were sometimes quite impatient, holding strict expectations for their students. By contrast, one of the directors who did not work with majors stressed how important it was to make rehearsing and performing comfortable and enjoyable. This director’s students’ scores were among the lowest of the schools. Especially in previous studies involving musicians for whom performance in an ensemble is their main focus (Kenny et al., 2014; van Kemenade, van Son, & van Heesch, 1995) the conductor was reported as a factor in MPA. Music majors may be more prone to labor under both self-imposed high expectations and the baton of a harsh and demanding conductor, thereby increasing MPA.

The greatest variance in MPA scores between majors and non-majors, however, could be attributed to the likelihood of receiving a negative evaluation and the importance of the consequence of that evaluation. Nideffer and Hessler (1978) identified a critical factor in predicting MPA, that is, the importance the performance has for the musician’s career. Many more majors received letter grades for their performances than non-majors. The higher incidence of grading among music majors and the importance that performing well has for career aspirations may contribute to the greater levels of MPA reported by majors.

Although non-majors who performed with majors did demonstrate higher levels of MPA than those who did not perform with majors, the difference was not significant.

Depression was the strongest predictor of MPA, uniquely explaining 17.1% of the total variance in MPA scores. Other variables predicting MPA for this sample were playing versus singing (1.3%, with being an instrumentalist linked to higher levels of MPA), sex (1.6%, with being female linked to higher levels of MPA), and having had PBs in the past year (1.3%, with having had PBs linked to higher levels of MPA than not having had PBs). (Experience had also been considered in a preliminary multiple regression analysis, but was not found to contribute unique variance for this sample.)

Comparing these results to those of other analyses, depression was revealed as a predictor of MPA in Kenny et al.’s (2014) study of professional orchestral musicians, although trait anxiety was the strongest predictor in that sample. Depression was also a predictor in the study of Barbar et al. (2013) of 230 Brazilian amateur and professional musicians (average age = 39). Barbar et al. found that musicians with depression were 3.87 times more likely to develop MPA than those musicians who were not depressed.

Prior musical experience, signified by the highest level achieved as a soloist (with the highest level assigned to those who had soloed with a professional symphony orchestra), predicted MPA in a study of undergraduate and graduate flute students (Kenny et al., 2013). Experience, defined as being an advanced student versus a professional musician, likewise predicted MPA in Biasutti and Concina’s (2014) study of 171 advanced conservatory and professional instrumentalists. Another measure of experience: years of main instrument study, was, however, not a predictor in Kobori, Yoshie, Kudo, and Ohtsuki’s (2011) study of 275 professional and amateur Japanese instrumentalists and vocalists. Being male or female, which accounted for a small amount of variance in MPA in the present sample, was also a predictor in Osborne and Kenny’s (2008) study of high school performance students, but was not a significant contributor to the model of Kobori et al. or to the analysis by Barbar, Crippa, and Osório (2014). Possible cross-cultural factors, pedagogical practices around the world, and personal characteristics of individual performers accounting for these differences need to be further explored.

Other predictors (relevant to this study) that have been identified in previous studies include the presence of negative cognitions (Osborne & Kenny, 2008), younger age (Kenny et al., 2014), performance setting (Kenny et al., 2004), fear of negative evaluation (Kenny, 2011; Nicholson et al., 2014), concern over mistakes, being a student versus being a professional musician (Kobori et al., 2011), hours of weekly practice (Biasutti & Concina, 2014), and personal/self-efficacy (Liston et al., 2003; McQuade, 2009).

A limitation of the present study is that sampling only occurred in the mid-Atlantic region of the US. There were differences in MPA scores between Australian musicians and this study’s participants, and testing in other regions of the US might indicate whether these differences are nationwide or restricted to the mid-Atlantic. Additionally, out of concern for student test-taking fatigue and the necessity of limiting questionnaire response time during rehearsals, a separate instrument to test self-efficacy was not used. Based on the analysis of answers to the self-confidence statement in the K-MPAI, further study of the interaction between self-efficacy and MPA is warranted.

Student responses to this study indicated that educators must be sensitive to their risk of exacerbating students’ MPA. Students related being filled with nervous apprehension before performing, shaking before it was time to perform, having memory lapses, feeling terrified, and being overwhelmed by the stresses of school and of performing. Some students described a poor playing experience, a harsh reaction from the director, and the negative effect it had on subsequent playing. These kinds of transactions have the potential to diminish self-efficacy and create specific psychological vulnerability, predisposing the musician to more MPA, and negatively affecting performance quality and enjoyment. Indeed, the results of this study are congruent with our theoretical framework, as PBs, grading, concert settings (when there is a greater likelihood of an evaluative audience), and depression were all associated with MPA. Performance breakdowns may provide the kind of early experience that creates psychological vulnerability to MPA. Grading and performing for an audience might then lead to the harsh or critical evaluation that produces an increase in MPA and depression. The MPA experienced under all performance settings, and risk of depression documented in both music majors and non-music majors in this study provides ample validation for a curriculum that includes discussions of MPA and health for all musicians.

Footnotes

Appendix

Below are some statements about how you feel before or during a rehearsal or a performance. Please circle one number in the REHEARSAL column and one number in the PERFORMANCE column to indicate how much you agree or disagree with each statement.

		Responses for REHEARSAL							Responses for PERFORMANCE
		Strongly disagree				Strongly agree			Strongly disagree				Strongly agree
K_7	Even if I work hard in preparation for a rehearsal/performance, I am likely to make mistakes….	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_10	Prior to, or during a rehearsal/performance, I get feelings akin to panic…	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_11	I never know before a rehearsal/concert whether I will perform well……….…	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_12	Prior to, or during a rehearsal/performance, I experience dry mouth………	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_14	During a rehearsal/performance I find myself thinking about whether I’ll even get through it…………………	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_15	Thinking about the evaluation I may get interferes with my performance………………	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_16	Prior to, or during a rehearsal/performance, I feel sick or faint or have a churning in my stomach…	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_17	Even in the most stressful rehearsal/performance situations, I am confident that I will perform well…	6	5	4	3	2	1	0	6	5	4	3	2	1	0
K_18	I am often concerned about a negative reaction from the instructor or listener/ audience.………………….	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_21	I worry that one bad rehearsal/performance may ruin my career ……………	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_22	Prior to, or during a rehearsal/performance, I experience increased heart rate like pounding in my chest…………….………	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_25	After the rehearsal/ performance, I worry about whether I played well enough.…………….…….	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_26	My worry and nervousness about rehearsal/my performance interferes with my focus and concentration.	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_28	I often prepare for a rehearsal/concert with a sense of dread and impending disaster.…………………….	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_30	Prior to, or during a rehearsal/performance, I have increased muscle tension …	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_32	After the rehearsal/ performance, I replay it in my mind over and over …	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_34	I worry so much before a rehearsal/performance, I cannot sleep ………………	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_35	When performing without music, my memory is reliable. …………………	6	5	4	3	2	1	0	6	5	4	3	2	1	0
K_36	Prior to, or during a rehearsal/performance, I experience shaking or trembling or tremor .…….	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_37	I am confident playing from memory……………………	6	5	4	3	2	1	0	6	5	4	3	2	1	0
K_39	I am concerned about my own judgment of how I will perform…………………….	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6
K_40	I remain committed to performing even though it causes me great anxiety……	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	0	1	2	3	4	5	6

©Kenny, D. T. (2009). Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory-Revised (K-MPAI-R).

Ethical approval

The Boston University Institutional Review Board reviewed and granted exemption for the study in accordance with CFR 46.101(b)(2) [Protocol #: 3445X].

Funding

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

References

Ackermann

B. J.

Kenny

D. T.

O’Brien

Driscoll

T. R.

(2014). Sound practice—improving occupational health and safety for professional orchestral musicians in Australia. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 973. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00973

Alderman

Baker

Bohnenblust

Hunget

Villines

(1989). Performance anxiety and nonmusic majors. Dialogue in Instrumental Music Education, 13(1), 40–48.

Alzugaray

F. J. Z

Hernández

S. O.

López

O. C.

Gil

B. M.

(2015). Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis of the Spanish version. Psychology of Music, 44(3), 1–13. doi: 10.1177/0305735614567932

Barbar

A. E.

Crippa

J. A.

Osório

F. L.

(2013). Performance anxiety in Brazilian musicians: Prevalence and association with psychopathology indicators. Journal of Affective Disorders, 152–154, 381–386. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.09.041

Barbar

A. E.

Crippa

J. A.

Osório

F. L.

(2014). Parameters for screening music performance anxiety. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 36, 245–247. doi: 10.1590/1516–4446–2013–1335

Barlow

David H.

(2000). Unraveling the mysteries of anxiety and its disorders from the perspective of emotion theory. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1247–1263.

Biasutti

Concina

(2014). The role of coping strategy and experience in predicting music performance anxiety. Musicae Scientiae, 18, 189–201. doi: 10.1177/1029864914523282

Brotons

(1994). Effects of performing conditions on music performance anxiety and performance quality. Journal of Music Therapy, 31(1), 63–81.

Chang Arana

Á. M

. (2015). Adaptación y propiedades psicométricas del inventario de ansiedad ante el desempeño musical de Kenny (IADM-K). Tesis para optar el título profesional de Licenciado en Psicología, Universidad de Lima, Facultad de Comunicación, Carrera de Psicología.

10.

Chesky

Kondraske

Henoch

Hipple

Rubin

(2002). “Musicians’ Health”, In Colwell

Richardson

(Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 1023–1039). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

11.

Cohen

J. W.

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

12.

Cox

Kenardy

(1993). Performance anxiety, social phobia, and setting effects in instrumental music students. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 7, 49–60.

13.

Fehm

Schmidt

(2006). Performance anxiety in gifted adolescent musicians. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20, 98–109. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.11.011

14.

Iusca

Dafinoiu

(2012). Performance anxiety and musical level of undergraduate students in exam situations: The role of gender and musical instrument. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 33, 448–452. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.161

15.

Kenny

D. T.

(2009). The factor structure of the revised Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory. Paper presented at the International Symposium on Performance Science, Auckland, New Zealand.

16.

Kenny

D. T.

(2011). The psychology of music performance anxiety. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

17.

Kenny

D. T.

Ackermann

(2013). Performance-related musculoskeletal pain, depression and music performance anxiety in professional orchestral musicians: A population study. Psychology of Music, 43(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1177/0305735613493953

18.

Kenny

D. T.

Davis

Oates

(2004). Music performance anxiety and occupational stress amongst opera chorus artists and their relationship with state and trait anxiety and perfectionism. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 18, 757–777.doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2003.09.004

19.

Kenny

D. T.

Driscoll

Ackermann

(2014). Psychological well-being in professional orchestral musicians in Australia: A descriptive population study. Psychology of Music, 42(2), 210–232. doi: 10.1177/0305735612463950

20.

Kenny

D. T.

Fortune

J. M.

Ackermann

(2013). Predictors of music performance anxiety during skilled performance in tertiary flute players. Psychology of Music, 41(3), 306–328. doi: 10.1177/0305735611425904

21.

Kobori

Yoshie

Kudo

Ohtsuki

(2011). Traits and cognitions of perfectionism and their relation with coping style, effort, achievement, and performance anxiety in Japanese musicians. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 25, 674–679. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2011.03.001

22.

Kokotsaki

Davidson

J. W.

(2003). Investigating musical performance anxiety among music college singing students: A quantitative analysis. Music Education Research, 5(1), 45–59. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/14613800307103

23.

Kroenke

Spitzer

R. L.

Williams

J. B.

(2003). The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener. Medical Care, 41(11), 1284–1292.

24.

Langendörfer

Hodapp

Kreutz

Bongard

(2006). Personality and performance anxiety among professional orchestra musicians. Journal of Individual Differences, 27(3), 162–171. doi: 10.1027/1614–0001.27.3.162

25.

LeBlanc

Jin

Y. C.

Obert

Siivola

(1997). Effect of audience on music performance anxiety. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(3), 480–496. doi: 10.2307/3345541

26.

Liston

Frost

A. A. M.

Mohr

(2003). The prediction of musical performance anxiety. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 18, 120–125.

27.

McPherson

G. E.

McCormick

(2006). Self-efficacy and music performance. Psychology of Music, 34(3), 322–336. doi: 10.1177/0305735606064841

28.

McQuade

C. M.

(2009). An investigation of the relationships among performance anxiety, perfectionism, optimism, and self-efficacy in student performers (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://fordham.bepress.com/dissertations/AAI3361368

29.

Miller

S. R.

Chesky

(2004). The multidimensional anxiety theory: An assessment of and relationships between intensity and direction of cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, and self-confidence over multiple performance requirements among college music majors. Medical Problems of Performing Artists, 19, 12–20.

30.

Nicholson

D. R.

Cody

M. W.

Beck

J. G.

(2014). Anxiety in musicians: On and off stage. Psychology of Music, 43(3), 1–12. doi: 10.1177/0305735614540018

31.

Nideffer

R. M.

Hessler

N. D.

(1978). Controlling performance anxiety. College Music Symposium, 18(1), 146–153.

32.

Osborne

M. S.

Franklin

(2002). Cognitive processes in music performance anxiety. Australian Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 86–93.

33.

Osborne

M. S.

Kenny

D. T.

(2008). The role of sensitizing experiences in music performance anxiety in adolescent musicians. Psychology of Music, 36(4), 447–462. doi: 10.1177/0305735607086051

34.

Osborne

M. S.

Kenny

D. T.

Holsomback

(2005). Assessment of music performance anxiety in late childhood: A validation study of the Music Performance Anxiety Inventory for Adolescents (MPAI-A). International Journal of Stress Management, 12(4), 312–330. doi: 10.1037/1072–5245.12.4.312

35.

Pallant

, (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

36.

Papageorgi

Haddon

Creech

Morton

De Bezenac

Himonides

… Welch

(2010). Institutional culture and learning II: Inter-relationships between perceptions of learning environment and undergraduate musicians’ attitudes to performance. Music Education Research 12(4), 427–446. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1080/14613808.2010.520432

37.

Rae

McCambridge

(2004). Correlates of performance anxiety in practical music exams. Psychology of Music, 32, 432–439. doi: 10.1177/0305735604046100

38.

Steptoe

Fidler

(1987). Stage fright in orchestral musicians: A study of cognitive and behavioural strategies in performance anxiety. British Journal of Psychology, 78, 241–249. doi: 10.1111/j.2044–8295.1987.tb02243.x

39.

van Kemenade

J. F.

van Son

M. J.

van Heesch

N. C

. (1995). Performance anxiety among professional musicians in symphonic orchestras: A self-report study. Psychological Reports, 77, 555–562.

40.

Wesner

R. B.

Noyes

Jr. Davis

T. L.

(1990). The occurrence of performance anxiety among musicians. Journal of Affective Disorders, 18, 177–185.

41.

Whooley

M. A.

Avins

A. L.

Miranda

Browner

W. S.

(1997). Case finding instruments for depression: Two questions are as good as many. General Internal Medicine, 12, 439–445.

42.

Zakaria

J. B.

Musib

H. B.

Shariff

S. M.

(2013). Overcoming performance anxiety among music undergraduates. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 226–234. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.086

Music performance anxiety in ensemble rehearsals and concerts: A comparison of music and non-music major undergraduate musicians

Abstract

Keywords

Method

Participants

Procedure

Measures

Kenny Music Performance Anxiety Inventory – revised

K-MPAI_Modified (62-items)

Two-question PRIME-MD

Additional items

Data analysis

Preliminary results

Results

Sample characteristics

Research Question 1: What is the prevalence of MPA in non-music major undergraduates?

Univariate analyses

H1: Females report higher MPA than males

H2: Students with one or more performance breakdowns (PBs) report higher levels of MPA than those reporting no PB

H3: Students would report higher levels of MPA when performing in concerts compared with in rehearsals

Research Question 2: Is there a quantitative difference in the severity of MPA between non-music major and music major undergraduates?

H4: Students report higher levels of MPA when performing alongside music majors compared with not performing with majors

H5: Students report higher levels of MPA when performing in graded performances compared with in non-graded performances

H6: Students with depression indicators report higher levels of MPA

Correlation analyses

H7: Students with lower self-efficacy report higher levels of MPA

Regression analysis

Discussion

Footnotes

Appendix

Ethical approval

Funding

References

H₁: Females report higher MPA than males

H₂: Students with one or more performance breakdowns (PBs) report higher levels of MPA than those reporting no PB

H₃: Students would report higher levels of MPA when performing in concerts compared with in rehearsals

H₄: Students report higher levels of MPA when performing alongside music majors compared with not performing with majors

H₅: Students report higher levels of MPA when performing in graded performances compared with in non-graded performances

H₆: Students with depression indicators report higher levels of MPA

H₇: Students with lower self-efficacy report higher levels of MPA