A Youth Performing Arts Experience

Abstract

Stage Challenge is a performing arts competition for New Zealand secondary schools. This longitudinal study used observations, repeated questionnaires, informal conversations, and a graffiti board to follow the 5-month experience of a student-led girls’ team aged 10 to 17 years (n = 103). The focus was on the quality of their experience and what contributed to and detracted from their desire to repeat it in future. Stage Challenge was affectively positive, provided flow experiences and a sense of integrity for participants. Integrity played a particularly strong role in students’ desire to repeat the experience. The experience was socially intense and produced both a sense of togetherness and frustration as a result. Implications for youth performing arts activities are discussed.

Keywords

adolescence youth activities performing arts emotions flow togetherness integrity

Introduction

Several studies have shown that structured youth activities provide a powerful context in which young people can develop the competencies needed for adulthood (Darling, Caldwell, & Smith, 2005; Dworkin, Larson, & Hansen, 2003; Eccles, Barber, Stone, & Hunt, 2003; Hektner, 2001; Larson, 2000; Raymore, Barber, Eccles, & Godbey, 1999). Structured performing arts activities in particular can offer young people an emotionally diverse (Larson & Brown, 2007; Sinclair, 1997) and socially intensive experience (Daykin et al., 2008) as well as provide the physical and artistic challenges that promote positive development.

In this article, we examine a structured performing arts activity from the perspective of the youth participants and provide recommendations for those working with young people on these activities. Our aim was not to add to the literature showing that performing arts or structured youth activities are associated with desirable external outcomes. Instead, our objective was to explore the emotional and motivational package that underlies young people’s experience, an aspect which has been given relatively little attention by researchers. We examined what was going on for the participants during the long rehearsal period and when they performed on stage as well as how they recalled the experience and what motivated them to come back for more (measured by their ratings of desire to repeat the experience). We also looked at what detracted from their experience. We used both quantitative measures (a repeated measures questionnaire delivered on 10 occasions throughout the experience and retrospectively) and a variety of qualitative measures, including observations, a student graffiti board, and open-ended responses recorded by participants 2 weeks after the event.

In this introduction, we first provide a brief outline of the context of our study which was conducted with girls from a team entered into Stage Challenge, an annual performing arts competition for New Zealand (NZ) secondary school students. Next, we establish the rationale for the dimensions measured in our questionnaire. Then, we discuss the research on emotional recollection, which underpins our exploration of the girls’ retrospective reports of the experience. Finally, we outline the rationale for our qualitative measures.

Stage Challenge originated in Sydney, Australia in 1980 and grew rapidly until 2005 when, under the umbrella of Global Rock Challenge, events were held in 50 locations throughout the world involving more than 1 million young people aged 11 to 19 years. In 2009, Stage Challenge NZ attracted more than 17,000 competitors from 200 schools (Stage Challenge Foundation New Zealand, 2008). One of the event’s key goals is to promote healthy lifestyles and the only major study of it to date has suggested it may be successful in doing this (Grunstein, Bauman, & Nutbeam, 2001). Stage Challenge is designed to be produced by young people for young people, with teachers, friends, and parents in supporting roles. The students’ mission is to produce a 5-to-8-minute dramatic dance routine involving between 20 to 140 performers. To ensure a (reasonably) level-playing field for all schools, the competition has clearly stated rules, especially with regard to the resources participants are able to draw on. In this respect, Stage Challenge meets Larson’s (2000) definition of a structured youth activity with participation occurring inside a framework of constraints, rules, and goals. After months of practice, the students gather on competition day for a 16-hour session of socializing, rehearsing, and performing. The school in our study had competed in seven previous competitions, consistently finishing in the top three for the region. In this school, the activity is strongly youth driven with teachers acting as supporters and mentors. Student leaders from the senior school choose the theme, choreograph the routine, conduct auditions, and manage practices. They also supervise set and costume design and manage budgets and fund-raising.

To get regular snapshots of the entire group’s experience at different stages of Stage Challenge, we measured four dimensions that previous research has established as important human motivators and likely to be of particular relevance to both the performing arts context and to young people.

The first was emotions. Positive and negative emotions are, respectively, perhaps the simplest human signal as to whether to continue in or withdraw from an activity (Damasio, 1994). More than that, the intense emotional highs or “hot spots” which are so characteristic of a performing arts environment (Hansen, Larson, & Dworkin, 2003; Larson & Brown, 2007; Sinclair, 1997) tend to be highly appealing to young people. However, as with any goal-oriented and group activity, and especially in the performing arts, demotivating and demoralizing emotions such as boredom and nervousness can creep in. We used a checklist to measure our participants’ emotions throughout the experience.

The second dimension we explored was “flow.” Flow experiences occur when people are performing at their peak, and have been shown to be highly motivating, prompting participants to continue with and repeat the activity involved (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, 1997). According to Csikszentmihalyi, a flow experience has common dimensions: a congruence between perceived challenge and skill level; clearly defined tasks and goals; explicit and unambiguous feedback; the participant becomes totally absorbed in the task and loses awareness of self and time; actions become automatic; on completion, there is a sensation of optimal experience and because of flow’s addictive quality, a desire to repeat the experience or seek out new challenges.

Most flow research in leisure activities has been in the sports domain (e.g., Jackson, 1992). However, flow is also likely to be a critical part of the appeal of performing arts activities and has been reported in both music and dance performances (e.g., Byrne, MacDonald, & Carlton, 2003; Custodero, 1998, 2002; Delle Fave & Massimini, 1988; Martin & Cutler, 2002; O’Neill, 1999; Sheridan & Byrne, 2002). For example, in Martin and Cutler’s (2002) study of American drama students, those who described having a fulfilling on-stage experience in the previous year all reported some degree of flow regardless of age, gender, and performance experience.

Nevertheless, to our knowledge, there has been no research which has examined the flow experiences of young people in a performing arts context over an extended time period, with most studies using retrospective reports to investigate single experiences (e.g., Martin & Cutler, 2002). In our study, we were able to do this and to examine the extent to which participants’ flow ratings predicted their desire to repeat Stage Challenge in the future.

The third concept we examined was students’ sense of belonging to the Stage Challenge team. Belonging is widely considered a fundamental human motivation and psychological “need” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2002; Ryff & Singer, 1998). Several researchers have argued that belonging is important to school engagement (e.g., Edwards & Mullis, 2001; Newman & Newman, 2001; Royal & Rossi, 1996) and structured youth activities are especially effective in promoting the sense of being committed to a group or school community (Darling et al., 2005; Eccles et al., 2003). Thus, as with the previous dimensions, we observed and assessed students’ sense of “togetherness” with the Stage Challenge team during rehearsals and onstage as well as how it was recalled and if it was related to participants’ desire to repeat the experience.

The final dimension we measured was integrity, the sense of being true to oneself (Harré & Bullen, 2010). It relates closely to autonomy “regulating one’s own behaviour and experience and governing the initiation and direction of action” (Ryan, 1989, p. 209) and has strong similarities to Eccles’ concept of “attainment value,” a construct that measures the extent to which a task is in alignment with an individual’s current or desired self-schema (Eccles, 1987; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Many studies have shown the importance of integrity-related concepts to persistence (see Ryan & Deci, 2002 for a review of autonomy). Of particular interest here, Harré and Bullen (2010) found integrity predicted commitment to a wide variety of activities in a study of New Zealand youth. Music and dance may be a particularly powerful route of self-expression for young people (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984), so we were keen to measure the role of integrity in our participants’ engagement with Stage Challenge.

As noted earlier, we were also interested in measuring participants’ retrospective recall of the experience, how this related to their real time reports, and how these measures affected their motivation to do it again. A purely “rational” approach to assessing one’s overall experience of an event would be to mentally assess an average of each moment, and there is evidence that in some circumstances, people appear to do this (Miron-Shatz, 2009). However, several studies have suggested that people’s retrospective reports of their emotions during a particular experience are different from the emotions they report at the time (e.g., Kahneman, 1999; Kemp, Burt, & Furneaux, 2008; Miron-Shatz, Stone, & Kahneman, 2009). For example, research by Kahneman (1999) showed that people’s memory of an emotionally intense experience was the product of the peak moment (the worst moment of a generally bad event or the best moment of a good event) and the end moment of the experience. Furthermore, at least in some circumstances, people will choose to repeat experiences that end well over those that offer less overall discomfort but end badly (Kahneman, Fredrickson, Schreiber, & Redelmeier, 1993). This suggests that how people recall their experiences is important in motivating future engagement and possibly more important than their real-time experiences.

This was a fascinating question for us in regard to Stage Challenge. Did the likely performance peak carry more weight in participants’ recollections of the experience, as Kahneman’s theory would suggest, and did it also have more predictive power in relation to their desire to repeat the experience? Where did the negative emotions we measured peak, and what implications did that have for recall and the desire to do Stage Challenge again?

As noted, we used a variety of qualitative measures. These further explored how the dimensions measured in the questionnaire operated and allowed us to go beyond the established psychological motivators we measured in the questionnaires. Importantly, they also captured the action in “real time” and added a student “voice” to the quantitative measures. As will be explained in more detail in the Method section, these measures included observations of practices and performances, a graffiti board during the 16-hour performance day, and open-ended items in the final questionnaire.

To summarize, our core research questions were as follows:

Research Question 1: To what degree were positive emotions, negative emotions, flow, togetherness, and integrity observed and reported during the regular Stage Challenge practices, at the first public performance (the dress rehearsal [DR]) and when remembering and rating the event overall (in a follow-up questionnaire [FQ])? How do ratings on these time periods compare?

Research Question 2: Did the participants’ ratings of the above variables at the practices and DR predict their follow-up ratings?

Research Question 3: Did the participants’ ratings of the above variables at each time point correlate with and predict participants’ desire to repeat the experience?

Research Question 4: How did participants describe their experiences and motivations?

Method

Participants

Participants were 103 female members of a Stage Challenge team representing a girls’ secondary school in Auckland, New Zealand. The team comprised 84 dancers and 19 backstage crew from Year Levels 7 to 13, with an age range of 10 to 17 years (M = 14.33). For 40.7% of participants, this was their first Stage Challenge, with the others previously competing up to four times (M = 1.21). The majority were New Zealand European (70.4%), with the remainder of Polynesian, Asian, or Middle Eastern descent.

The statistical analyses came from a subsample of 59 girls who completed a sufficient number of the questionnaires to be included in the quantitative analyses, as is explained in the Results section. This group was demographically similar to the whole team, with participants coming from Year Levels 7 to 13, aged 10 to 17 years (M = 14.10), with 50.8% of girls competing for the first time (mean times of previous involvement = 1.07). The majority were New Zealand European (76.3%).

The team attended after-school practices twice a week for 5 months, with extra weekend practices when the competition was imminent (32 practices in total). Prior to the first practice, we issued students with an information pack and consent form and explained the purpose of the study. Students under 16 years also received information and consent forms for their parents or caregivers. All students agreed to participate and those under 16 years all obtained parental permission. Participants provided demographic information when they completed their first questionnaire.

Measures and Procedure

Quantitative Measures

Practice and Dress Rehearsal (DR) Questionnaire

A series of identical questionnaires was used to assess students’ psychological experiences as they prepared for the Stage Challenge competition. As we administered questionnaires multiple times and at the end of lengthy practice sessions, ease of distribution and completion were essential design features. This questionnaire was just one double-sided sheet of A4. It was administered at 9 of the 32 regular practices and 10 minutes after students came off stage from the DR. Questionnaires were spaced to represent the beginning, middle, and end stages of the preparation period as well as the first public performance (the DR). Some flexibility was required to fit in with practice routines and on three occasions, a planned questionnaire was not administered because of insufficient attendees or time. These questionnaires were given at the next suitable practice. Questionnaire completion rates ranged from 65.5% to 88.1% per practice, with noncompletion due to absence or the occasional need for a student to leave a practice early. Students received a lollipop on submission and a 50 cent donation per questionnaire was paid into the school Stage Challenge fund. Questionnaires took between 5 and 7 minutes to administer, inclusive of distribution and collection times, with students enthusiastic and cooperative throughout. (Note that we decided to use the DR, which took place in full costume in front of a large audience the day before the competition, as our “live performance” measure rather than the competition performance. This was because we felt it was inappropriate to intrude on the postperformance atmosphere at the venue by confronting students with yet another questionnaire. Moreover, with almost 1,000 competitors in one room, administration would have been a logistical nightmare.)

The questionnaires assessed the following dimensions: (a) Positive and negative emotions, (b) Flow, (c) Togetherness, and (d) Integrity.

Positive and negative emotions

Seven items (excited, proud, enthusiastic, interested, inspired, ashamed, and nervous), chosen for their relevance to a performing arts context, were derived from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS), which has demonstrated reliability for measuring affect over extended time periods (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). These emotions also have proven validity within a youth physical activity setting (Crocker, 1997). Three additional negative affect items (lonely, bored, and frustrated) were included because of their likely relevance to the performing arts environment, guided by the first author’s experience as a producer of school musicals and previous Stage Challenge entries. Boredom and frustration were assessed because both the practice period and performance day involve considerable inactivity and repetition. Finally, because we were interested in the degree of belonging from participation in this activity, students were asked to rate their loneliness.

Items were arranged into a checklist. Students rated how often they experienced the emotion during the practice on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 to 4 (0 = not at all; 4 = a lot). To streamline our large number of variables, internal consistency estimates of reliability were computed for the positive and negative emotions for all questionnaires. The Cronbach’s alphas for the five positive emotions (enthusiastic, proud, excited, interested, and inspired) ranged from .72 to .90 and it therefore seemed likely they were all measuring the same dimension, which represented an attentive, positive state. To capture this, we constructed a global score for the five positive emotions. However, the alphas for the five negative emotions were poor (ranging from .39 to .63), suggesting they each captured something unique and so were analyzed separately.

Flow

This was measured using five items from the nine-dimension Flow State Scale (FSS), developed by Jackson and Marsh (1996) and Jackson and Eklund (2002). Initially, one statement from each of the nine dimensions was selected. However, a pilot study with 10 students at the target school revealed that some items were confusing for the younger students (e.g., the concept of action and awareness merging). Thus, the final version assessed flow according to coping ability (“the practice was challenging but I had the skills to cope”), feedback (“I could sense I was doing well”), concentration (“it was easy to keep my mind on the practice”), and loss of self-consciousness (“I was not aware of what the others around me were doing”). A question relating to optimal experience, an end product of flow (“the practice left me feeling great”), was also included. It is of note that the four deleted items were found by Martin and Cutler (2002) to be the least descriptive of flow experiences among theatre actors. Students used a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 to 4 to rate their flow experiences (0 = not at all true; 4 = completely true). Cronbach’s alphas for the five flow scores were low (ranging from .47 to .73), so these items were analyzed separately.

Togetherness

Initially, one positive and one negative statement from Harré and Bullen’s (2010) Personal Projects Questionnaire were used to assess togetherness. However, there was little correlation between responses for the two statements (rs ranged from .05 to .21 across the questionnaires), with students appearing confused by the negatively worded item. Thus, togetherness was indexed by a single item, “Stage Challenge gave me a sense of togetherness with my school team” (0 = not at all true; 4 = completely true).

Integrity

Similarly, a positive and negative statement from Harré and Bullen’s (2010) questionnaire were used to assess integrity, but, as above, these items did not correlate well (rs ranged from .11 to .26). Integrity was therefore also assessed with a single item, “I felt like I could be ‘myself’ at Stage Challenge” (0 = not at all true; 4 = completely true).

Follow-up Questionnaire (FQ)

Students also completed a follow-up questionnaire weeks after the event. This lengthier survey measured the same variables as the practice and DR Questionnaire but with students being instructed to “this time, think back on Stage Challenge overall.” It included an additional question regarding students’ intention to repeat the experience if they could (rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 0 to 4, with 0 = no to 4 = yes).

While we had not intended to include the competition result as one of our measures, it transpired that the team came sixth out of 12 schools in the regional competition. Given the school’s history of success, we thought this result might be negatively perceived by the students and influence their judgment of the overall experience. Therefore, in the FQ, we also asked about their disappointment at not being placed in the top three schools (0 = not at all true to 4 = completely true). The FQ also contained qualitative items as will be explained below. Students completed the FQ in class time and each returned questionnaire earned one dollar for the Stage Challenge fund.

Qualitative Measures and Analysis

Observations and field notes

The first author observed all practices and performances, recording field notes, taking photographs, and talking informally with students and staff members.

Open-ended items on the FQ

The FQ included five open-ended questions regarding the best and worst aspects of both the performance day and the overall experience. Students were also asked what they would miss most about Stage Challenge.

Graffiti board

Finally, a large graffiti board was placed in the dressing room on performance day with a bundle of colored pens, and students randomly and anonymously recorded their thoughts as the day progressed.

Qualitative analyses

The graffiti board and open-ended responses on the FQ were analyzed according to grounded theory processes (Charmaz, 2006). Every separate comment was listed and coded. On the FQ, students often gave several responses to the one open-ended question. For example, a student may have indicated that what she would miss most was “being with friends, being able to dance and performing on-stage.” These were analyzed as three separate comments. Using focused coding, the initial list was then scanned for recurrent themes and categories were designated. A second rater recoded every item, with 98.75% agreement between the two raters. The first author’s field notes were not formally analyzed and, instead, used to contextualize and help understand questionnaire and graffiti board responses (see Dallos, 2006 for background to this approach).

Results

This section is structured around the research questions. Research question 1 is explored first through the quantitative questionnaire items with the whole sample, and then statistical comparisons are made with a subsample (n = 59), for reasons that will be explained. The first author’s field notes are integrated as appropriate. Research questions 2 and 3 use statistical analysis with the subsample of 59. Research question 4 explores the graffiti board and open-ended responses to the FQ. This involves the whole sample, and much of this material is also relevant to the first three research questions.

Research Question 1

Our first research question investigated the degree to which positive and negative emotions, flow, togetherness, and integrity were observed and reported during the regular Stage Challenge practices, at the DR, and recalled retrospectively (i.e., rated on the FQ). It also asks how the time periods compare. The mean scores at all the measured practices and the DR are presented in Figures 1, 2, and 3. At face value, the practice period ratings appear to be fairly stable, while at the DR, all the positive measures and nervousness increase in value and the remaining four negative emotions decrease.

Figure 1.

Mean emotions for practice period, dress rehearsal, and follow-up questionnaire (n = 103)

Figure 2.

Mean flow ratings for practice period, dress rehearsal, and follow-up questionnaire (n = 103)

Figure 3.

Mean togetherness and integrity ratings for practice period, dress rehearsal, and follow-up questionnaire (n = 103)

In order to explore these trends, and how they related to responses on the FQ statistically, we then reduced the sample to only those who had attended at least five of the surveyed practices and completed the DR Questionnaire and FQ. This was to ensure that there was a reasonable degree of consistency in the students being measured at each time period. This left a sample of 59 as described in the Method section. As can be seen in the Method section, demographically, this subsample was very similar to the team as a whole. The mean questionnaire ratings for the subsample and the larger group were also very similar.

To further streamline the data, we investigated the feasibility of averaging the students’ nine practice experiences into a single practice period measure (“practice period”). To do this, we used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) which allows modeling of the trajectory of repeated measures across time without requiring the data points to be evenly balanced across participants (an advantage here, given that all participants did not complete all nine practice measures). In addition, HLM provides reliable estimates of within-subject parameters (i.e., slope of repeated measures) even when sample sizes are relatively small. Of the 17 variables of interest, 10 demonstrated remarkable stability and did not differ significantly across practice periods (γs assessing change over time = -.02 to .03, ts = -1.17 to 1.68, ps = .10 to .96). While students became more nervous leading up to the DR (γ = .02, SE = .01, t = 1.88, p = .06), they also experienced greater coping ability across time (γ = .08, SE = .02, t = 3.85, p < .01). They also became less lonely as the practices progressed (γ = -.02, SE = .01, t = -2.10, p = .04). Nevertheless, while these were interesting trends, the overall consistency gave us good justification to construct a single practice period measure. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the measures of interest with the subsample.

Table 1.

Means (and Standard Deviations) of All Questionnaire Items at Each Time Period (n = 59)

	Practice period	Dress rehearsal	Follow-up questionnaire	F
Positive emotions	1.66 (0.67)^b,c	2.57 (0.95)^a	2.56 (0.75)^a	55.59**
Negative emotions
Nervous	0.37 (0.47)^b,c	0.81 (1.22)^a,c	1.22 (0.93)^a,b	19.17**
Bored	1.44 (0.75)^b	0.44 (1.24)^a,c	1.24 (1.10)^b	27.91**
Lonely	0.44 (0.66)^b	0.12 (0.38)^a,c	0.44 (0.79)^b	9.59**
Ashamed	0.33 (0.47)^b	0.17 (0.62)^a	0.32 (0.57)	3.06
Frustrated	0.97 (0.87)^b,c	0.59 (1.27)^a,c	1.27 (1.17)^a,b	13.51**
Flow
Coping ability	2.42 (1.05)^b,c	2.86 (1.37)^a	3.02 (1.24)^a	8.22**
Feedback	2.34 (0.73)^b,c	2.95 (1.02)^a	2.76 (1.09)^a	10.96**
Concentration	2.38 (0.70)^b	3.24 (0.90)^a,c	2.63 (0.96)^b	24.36**
Loss of self-consciousness	2.60 (0.78)^b,c	3.19 (1.31)^a	3.00 (1.08)^a	6.96**
Optimal experience	2.03 (0.80)^b,c	3.03 (1.13)^a,c	3.49 (0.82)^a,b	61.05**
Togetherness	2.53 (0.83)^b,c	3.12 (1.19)^a	3.00 (1.11)^a	6.54**
Integrity	3.06 (0.78)^b,c	3.49 (0.82)^a	3.44 (0.82)^a	3.81**
Desire to repeat	NA	NA	3.66 (0.82)
Reaction to result	NA	NA	2.58 (1.18)

Note: F is from repeated measures analysis of variances testing the mean differences across the three time periods with df = 2,116 in all cases, with the exception of coping ability (2,114) and togetherness (2,110). NA = not applicable. Superscripts represent pairwise comparisons significant at p < .05.

Significantly different to practice period.

Significantly different to dress rehearsal.

Significantly different to follow-up questionnaire.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Practice period

Integrity was the highest mean score reported by the girls (3.06 on the Likert-type scale ranging from 0 to 4), indicating that, above all, they felt they could “be themselves” during practices. Togetherness (M = 2.53), like integrity, was also a strong feature of the practices. The mean scores for all flow items were above average (ranging from 2.03 to 2.60), suggesting that even at practices, students were operating at a challenging level, consistently focused and confident they were doing well. From an emotional perspective, the mean practice scores were more positive than negative, ranging from a mean of 1.66 for positive emotions to a mean of 0.33 for ashamed.

The first author’s observational notes describe the rehearsing girls as initially “excited, bubbly, enthusiastic, and very animated.” One month later, they continue to be “enthusiastic and cooperative.” At the half-way point, the girls are “restless and drifting when not dancing, but try hard when it is their turn to perform. Despite much repeated routines, they are remarkably patient.” With 9 days to go, they are now “repeating what they already know over and over and, although still cooperative, have lost their enthusiasm and looked bored, even sullen.” However, in the last few days, “their focus seems to have returned and there is a sense of nervous anticipation.”

DR

As seen in Table 1, the DR showed a similar overall pattern to the practice period, but with increases in all the positive measures, and to a lesser extent, nervousness. Boredom ratings are very low. (This pattern was also seen graphically in Figures 1, 2, and 3 that include the whole sample.) The field notes record,

There is a whole different feel about today. The kids are both excited and apprehensive but mainly they are co-operative and VERY focussed on the pep-talk from the leaders prior to going on stage. A number of students have costume issues but no-one is making a fuss about it . . . on stage their commitment to the routine and the standard of their delivery is impressive. They are concentrating HARD . . . They receive a standing ovation from the audience, and seem very excited and proud as they exit the stage.

This “different feel” is also noted by the students. According to the field notes, girls commented informally to the first author that performing live added urgency and energy to their routine, especially knowing that the school’s principal was in the audience. Many students also commented on the stressful aspect of live performance, especially the preperformance nerves. They also acknowledged that the finished product could not have been achieved without the long and sometimes frustrating practice experience. Nevertheless, the overriding sentiment was that they had achieved their goal and were proud of the outcome.

FQ

Table 1 shows that the ratings from the follow-up questionnaires are closely aligned with the “real-time” measures gathered during the practice sessions but with interesting variation as to which real-time measures are most closely reflected in the follow-up ratings.. This is further explored below as well as in Research Question 2.

Statistical comparisons

Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare questionnaire ratings at each time period (see Table 1). Post hoc pairwise analyses revealed that indeed all the positive measures and nervousness were rated significantly more highly at the DR than during the practice period and all the negative measures (except nervousness) were rated less highly. In regard to the positive emotions, the overall experience as rated on the FQ was more closely aligned with the DR than the practice period, with only two items, both flow items, being significantly different to DR ratings. (They were higher in the FQ.) On the other hand, with the exception of one flow rating, the positive items on the FQ were all rated significantly higher than during the practice period. In regard to the negative emotions, these were recalled in the FQ at similar rates to the practice period, although higher rates of overall boredom and frustration were recalled.

Research Question 2

In this question, we investigated if and how students’ practice and DR questionnaires predicted their overall memory of the event (the FQ). Pearson’s correlational analyses revealed that all the practice and DR measures (except for DR togetherness) were significantly associated with the corresponding FQ measures. Multiple regression analyses were then conducted to assess the extent to which these measures predicted the FQ (Table 2).

For the negative emotions (bored, lonely, ashamed, frustrated), only the practice items predicted the FQ. The positive items showed mixed results, with three flow items predicted only by the practice period and two only by the DR, togetherness predicted only by the practice period, and positive emotions and integrity predicted by both real-time measures.

Table 2.

Standardized Regression Coefficients Examining the Links Between Practice Period and Dress Rehearsal Items (Independent Variables) and Follow-Up Questionnaire Items (Dependent Variables)

	Practice period	Dress rehearsal
Positive emotions	.36 (.36)	.36 (.36)
Negative emotions
Nervous	.31 (.31)	.19 (.18)
Bored	.38 (.39)	−.05 (.08)
Lonely	.60 (.56)	−.08 (.06)
Ashamed	.37 (.40)	.19 (.18)
Frustrated	.45 (.43)	.29* (.28*)
Flow
Coping ability	.37* (.35*)	.27* (.28*)
Feedback	.42 (.43)	.17 (.19)
Concentration	.09 (.11)	.36 (.36)
Loss of self-consciousness	.20 (.20)	.38 (.37)
Optimal experience	.38 (.38)	.16 (.16)
Togetherness	.59 (.60)	.02 (.03)
Integrity	.32 (.32)	.38 (.38)

Note: n = 59. Regression coefficients in brackets control for reaction to result.

p < .05. **p < .01.

By the time students completed the FQ, the competition was 2 weeks behind them and they were coming to terms with an unexpectedly low sixth placing. As expected, the result was viewed very negatively, with 88% of students in the subsample used for these analyses expressing moderate to extreme disappointment (see Table 1 for M and SD). However, correlations between reaction to the competition result and each of the follow-up measures revealed that only lonely (r = .27), bored (r = .31), and frustrated (r = .32) were associated with the students’ reaction to the result. Nevertheless, we reran the multiple regression analyses controlling for students’ reaction to the result (results shown in parentheses in Table 2), but this did not change the effects described above.

Research Question 3

Here we investigated the key correlates and predictors of students’ desire to partake in future Stage Challenges. A Pearson’s correlational analysis revealed that desire to repeat the experience was positively associated with the following FQ items: positive emotions (r = .36), feedback (r = .34), concentration (r = .26), loss of self-consciousness (r = .27), optimal experience (r = .27), and integrity (r = .30). Practice period integrity was also correlated with desire to repeat the experience (r = .32) as was practice period frustration (r = -.25). No DR measures were correlated with desire to repeat the experience.

These results indicate that desire to repeat the experience was more strongly associated with how students remembered their experience overall than the actual experiences they reported during the practices and DR. The two exceptions were frustration and integrity reported during practices. To further investigate if these practice period ratings represented unique variance over and above follow-up ratings, two regressions were conducted. Again, to allow for any negativity bias resulting from the students’ disappointment at their low placing, we also controlled for reaction to result. These results revealed that follow-up ratings of overall integrity (β = .36, p < .05) as well as practice ratings of integrity (β = .37, p < .05) and follow-up ratings of overall frustration (β = -.30, p < .05) as well as practice frustration (β = -.34, p < .05) predicted desire to repeat the experience.

Research Question 4

Finally, we were interested in how the girls described their experiences and motivations and whether this reflected the statistical ratings. In the FQ where students were asked to describe the best and worst aspects of Stage Challenge overall, the predominant “best aspect” was the opportunity for social interaction, mentioned by 56.3% of the girls. They relished an activity they could share with friends, the chance to mix with students of different age levels and to make new friends. As a team member wrote, “I’ll miss seeing the whole cast each week, all the fun practices and the time we spent together. We became very close and some great friendships were made.”

The performance day (33%) and the performance itself (31.1%) were the next most appreciated features overall. Comments referred to the atmosphere at the venue, watching other schools perform, and preparation activities such as doing hair and makeup (e.g., “I loved the adrenalin of dressing up and getting our faces done”). When describing their experience, students often used graphic notations such as capital letters, lines of exclamation marks, stars, and hearts to illustrate their feelings.

Sense of pride was noted by 21.6% of the students, especially the satisfaction of seeing the final product. One wrote, “It was awesome seeing the whole thing come together, from the stressful meetings and teaching the dances, and seeing all the groups gel . . . every decision we made was important to the finished performance and I was really proud of all our hard work.”

Other positive aspects were sense of togetherness (18.4%) which related to working as a team, group camaraderie, and heightened school spirit, for example, “I loved the feeling of togetherness with others in the group, seeing it come together and knowing that I had played a part in it. Just being a team and giving everyone support.”

Linked to this, practices gave students a collective sense of anticipation as they worked toward an end goal. A student remarked, “It’s going to be weird having so much extra time on my hands. What am I going to do on Tuesdays after school? It was great sharing a sense of purpose, having a project to occupy ourselves with, setting small goals and achieving them in order to reach the final product.”

Students also enjoyed learning new skills such as dance moves (14.6%); the atmosphere of excitement and fun (14.6%); “everything” (11.6%); and, finally, being able to express themselves through dance (10.7%).

When looking specifically at the performance day, the standout “best aspect” was the on-stage performance (58.5%), as one wrote, “I loved the performance. That rush of excitement as you finally step on stage after weeks and weeks of practice. I just wanted to go back on again and again.” This was followed by the “atmosphere” at the venue (44.7%), interacting with other schools (43.7%), sense of pride and school spirit (19.4%), and getting into costume (18.5%). Fifteen percent of students were unable to define a single aspect and resorted to comments such as “Oh man! The whole thing. It was soooooo fun. The whole shebang!!!”.

However, Stage Challenge was not without its frustrations as found in the quantitative results. For 50.5% of girls, practices were by far the “worst aspect” of overall experience. Above all, students complained of boredom with all the downtime, especially when leaders came to practices ill prepared and with insufficient teaching material. As one student put it, “I really hated the practices when we weren’t practising.” The other most cited negative feature overall was conflict between team members (14.1%). One member complained, “It really sucked when our leaders shouted at us.”

Students also expressed frustration at the antisocial behavior of team members who skipped practices or misbehaved as well as at the perceived inequities in the status of different dance groups within the team. Lesser mentioned negative aspects of Stage Challenge included stress and time-management difficulties (14.6%), organizational hiccups experienced on performance day (11.7%), concern about not being good enough (5.8%), and disappointment at not getting a place (4.9%).

Boredom was also the most commonly mentioned “worst aspect” of the performance day (25.5%). One student reported, “It sucked having long periods of time with nothing to do. I was standing on my feet for way too long.” This was closely followed by nervousness and stress (21.4%), especially after the first on-stage rehearsal did not go well, for example, “After the practice I was really nervous and worried. I kept thinking we came so far, and yet we weren’t there, so I was so upset.”

Also mentioned were “nothing at all,” not getting a place, logistical issues (all 17.4%), peer conflict (13.6%), and having to do an extra practice at lunchtime (5.8%). A number of students, however, qualified their negative remarks with a positive comment. For example, “The stress, having to sort out all the little things that were hindering us from being amazing. But with the good comes the bad, so it’s all part of Stage Challenge and there’s nothing you can do about it.”

Finally, students were asked what they would miss most about Stage Challenge “now that it is all over.” Once again, the social aspect of the activity was by far the most mentioned factor (60.2%). Students reported they would miss the regular meetings with the cast, having contact with students of all ages, and the general feeling of group unity and belonging. Despite practices being cited as one of the worst features of the experience, 29.3% of students also said they would be missed. As one girl noted, “T’was good fun and gets your mind off other things.” Students also said they would miss being part of the whole Stage Challenge atmosphere including the performance focus (25.5%), for example, “Having a good time, feeling good about the school and believing in our performance.” They would also miss being able to dance (17.5%), the sense of anticipation (16.5%), and “just everything” (5.8%).

The graffiti board gave us a glimpse of students’ feelings at the performance venue, both before and after the performance. Of the 85 anonymous comments, 56% were expressions of encouragement or good luck to the team, for example, “Good luck everyone. You’re all stars.” Thirty percent of comments referred to the fun and excitement of the day and expressed positive feelings about Stage Challenge, here is one: “This was the best day ever. Wahoo!! I don’t know why I didn’t try Stage Challenge before. Anyone who doesn’t do it is missing out! I mean it!”

The remainder of the comments (12%) were based on the premise that performing to the best of one’s ability is more important than winning as illustrated here: “Dear anyone. Have a good time. It doesn’t matter if you muck up or lose. It’s about having fun.” Only three comments made a specific reference to the competition result and despite expressing disappointment, retained a sense of positivity, for example, “We were NUMBER ONE. But other schools were more number one ha ha. Yeah, we did sooo well.”

Thus, students’ qualitative remarks do reflect their repeated measure questionnaires, although with a slightly different emphasis. In the students’ comments, social interaction and, especially, the on-stage performance feature strongly as highlights. Some mentioned integrity-like experiences, such as being able to express themselves through dance and a sense of pride, and flow-like experiences, such as developing new skills and the “rush” of performance day. The negative aspects of boredom and nervousness are reflected in both the qualitative and quantitative data, but in their commentaries, students also refer to peer conflict and logistical issues as being problematic.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine a youth activity from the participants’ perspective. In this discussion, we focus on our key aims—how did students experience Stage Challenge and what motivated them to come back for more? What detracted from the experience? What does this mean for structured performing arts activities in general?

Our most obvious finding was that the event was subjectively positive overall, consistent with other studies of the performing arts (e.g., Larson & Brown, 2007; Sinclair, 1997). High levels of positive emotions, flow, togetherness, and integrity were found in both our real-time measures and in students’ retrospective ratings. Our qualitative measures revealed spontaneous displays of excitement, enthusiasm, and pride. Notably, integrity (students’ feeling they could be themselves during Stage Challenge) received the highest rating at all questionnaire assessment points and both the real-time practice period ratings of integrity and students’ follow-up ratings significantly predicted their desire to repeat the experience. It is interesting that we found this in a performing arts setting, as prior research has demonstrated positive links between integrity-related measures and activity persistence in a variety of other contexts (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Harré & Bullen, 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2002). In fact, in Harré and Bullen’s (2010) study of New Zealand youth, integrity was so powerful the authors suggested that it, along with a sense of competence, acted almost like a proxy for continued motivation to stay involved in particular activities.

Flow ratings were moderately high and stable throughout the preparation period. Music and dance activities are known to promote flow experiences (Delle Fave & Massimini, 1988) and flow potential for young people is increased when these activities are experienced with peers, especially in a challenging context (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Flow ratings increased further at the DR when the students were in live performance mode, presenting a well-practiced routine. It is also possible that the donning of costumes reduced inhibition and aided concentration, freeing the dancers to lose themselves in the activity. The students’ retrospective ratings of flow were significant predictors of their desire to repeat the experience, although real-time ratings of flow were not correlated with this. This is an interesting finding. Perhaps, flow has a short half-life, especially with this age group, and bursts of flow that occurred sometime back are not accurately recalled. Nevertheless, “imagined” memories of flow are still motivating. It must also be acknowledged that peak flow probably occurred on competition day, and students’ flow experiences on that day may have been responsible for variance in their retrospective ratings.

Extracurricular activities have been credited with building community within schools (e.g., Darling et al., 2005). In the FQ, participants commented that practices allowed them to spend quality time with friends, make new friends, mix with students of different ages, work on a joint project, and dance in a team. Performance day, where they relished meeting people from other schools and sharing one huge dressing room, was mentioned as particularly socially rewarding. Fredricks et al. (2002) found that the social benefits gained from participation in the sports and arts strongly influence adolescents’ future engagement or disengagement. Interestingly, in our quantitative measures, neither real-time nor recalled togetherness was significantly correlated with desire to repeat the experience, which is somewhat at odds with other studies of activities in group settings (e.g., Baard, 1994; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002; Sheldon & Bettencourt, 2002). However, other research with youth has shown that belonging may sometimes fall away as a direct motivator if an activity provides integrity-related experiences and an avenue to express competence (Harré & Bullen, 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Our participants indeed gave high ratings of integrity and flow (which includes competence-like items) that both predicted their desire to repeat the experience. It may also be that our single measure of togetherness was inadequate to capture this dimension statistically. However, our qualitative data shows that students did in fact focus strongly on their team experience and the sense of belonging it engendered.

Youth activities are not all fun. Often they are also associated with negative emotions such as stress, boredom, anxiety, and conflict (Hansen et al., 2003), and one of our aims was to examine what detracted from the experience and the students’ desire to repeat it. In this study, the “boring” practices in the latter part of the preparation period appeared to be the “worst” aspect of Stage Challenge. Consistent with flow theory, this was when dance routines were mastered and challenge level was low (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). However, studies also show that while low challenge situations can produce boredom, this usually results from a sense of competency and hence overall enjoyment levels do not suffer (Stein et al., 1995), perhaps because good performance is virtually guaranteed (Carli, Delle Fave, & Massimini, 1988). This was supported by the observations of the first author who noticed that much of the time students appeared passively and good naturedly bored rather than restless or disruptive. Although small negative correlations were found between boredom and desire to repeat the experience, these were not significant, suggesting that while boredom was clearly experienced, and often disliked by students, it probably only had a small or possibly minimal effect on overall motivation.

Frustration during the practice period was, however, a negative predictor of desire to repeat the experience. From the first author’s observations and students’ comments, this came mainly from poorly organized practices, logistical challenges (e.g., unavailability of practice rooms), and interpersonal conflict. This has clear implications for performing arts activities as will be discussed later. Frustration after the competition took another form because the team finished a disappointing sixth. From the outset, winning the competition had been stressed at practices (“if you perform like that, we won’t win”—first author’s field notes) and after the result was announced, many girls were in tears. Nevertheless, youth activities have been found to facilitate emotional empowerment including recovery from defeat (Darling et al., 2005), and, encouragingly, students were not deterred by their disappointing result. In the bus going home from the competition, students were already planning next year’s entry. Notably too, their sense of shame did not increase at the follow-up, suggesting that their pride remained intact. The girls got a number of certificates for staging and costume design and it is possible these helped them remain motivated, despite “defeat”, as they focused the girls on the strengths of their performance.

Nervousness played an interesting role in the girls’ experiences. Although classified as a “negative” emotion in the study, it did not seem to have this connotation for the students, and there was no evidence it was negatively (or positively) related to desire to repeat the experience. One student referred to her preperformance nerves as “scary fun” (first author’s field notes), and indeed, nervousness in controlled amounts has often been promoted as desirable to keep a performer “on edge” (Sinclair, 1997).

By obtaining both real-time and retrospective ratings of the students’ experiences, we were able to see whether their real-time experiences or their retrospective assessment (i.e., memory) of the event contributed more strongly to their motivation to be involved in Stage Challenge in the future. In general, recollections of the experience were more powerful in predicting motivation to repeat the experience than the real-time measures. Notable exceptions were the practice period ratings of integrity and frustration, the latter being negatively associated with desire to repeat. In keeping with other research on how real-time experiences are recalled and how this influences future choices, we showed that the relationship between actual experience, recollection, and future motivation is complex (e.g., Kahneman, 1999; Kemp et al., 2008; Miron-Shatz et al., 2009). One thread in that complexity may have been the collective nature of the experience. The first author’s field notes showed how quickly the finished experience was assimilated into the history and culture of the school. As discussed earlier, by the end of the competition day, tears of “defeat” had turned into plans for the following year, and no girl was simply left alone to make of it what she wanted. To an extent at least, individual experiences of the process may have been swept away by the collective story.

Overall, Stage Challenge was an exciting, challenging experience, which was true to most students’ sense of self, but also had its frustrations. As one student commented, “It was like being in a ginormous, six-month long soap opera. It had everything, including the shocking season finale.”

This study had a number of methodological strengths. All potential participants took part and it was successful in tracking a complete team for the duration of their Stage Challenge experience. In the words of Newman and Newman (2001), this team was a “living laboratory” and a particularly obliging one. The combination of real-time and follow-up questionnaires along with quantitative and qualitative data provided a comprehensive overview of the experience. Many students commented informally on the FQ how much they had enjoyed the research participation.

However, it must be noted that despite the large number of practices surveyed, these were also those that leaders deemed most convenient for questionnaire administration. During one of our targeted practices, there was an argument between student leaders and a staff member which became so heated that many of the students walked out. The team was visibly upset. While this would have been a fascinating time to conduct a survey, it would also have been completely inappropriate.

We elected to forgo a performance day questionnaire because of the associated logistical and ethical problems of administration. However, performance day featured very strongly in the students’ qualitative comments and it would have been valuable to have delivered a questionnaire as the students came off stage.

We also acknowledge that single measures for togetherness and integrity are not ideal. However, we believe this was compensated by having multiple time point measurements. Moreover, the students’ detailed qualitative comments provided intensive description which supplemented the quantitative measures. Flow remains a difficult construct to definitively capture. In addition, flow is more the product of a moment than a process, so although we found evidence of flow during the practice period, our questionnaires did not specifically pinpoint what triggered it.

Stage Challenge as a youth activity warrants further examination. In this team alone, comparisons between leaders and nonleaders, juniors and seniors, newcomers and experienced performers could be more extensively investigated. Students in this study were all female, mainly European, and from a school in a relatively high-income area which does limit the generalizability of our findings. Further studies with different teams could ascertain if the emotional and motivational experiences we found were related to Stage Challenge as an activity or peculiar to this team. As Stage Challenge is a national competition, there is also ample opportunity to compare this team with other schools such as those who field novice, male or mixed gender, or junior teams. In some schools, Stage Challenge is offered as part of the drama curriculum and entirely teacher driven, thus ceasing to be an extracurricular activity. Would students experience it differently in this context? It would also be valuable to compare the findings from this event with other large-scale group competitions, both in the performing arts and sporting contexts.

Conclusion

What do our findings suggest for other youth performing arts activities? First, they show how important it is that youth participants feel they can “be themselves” throughout the experience. Stage Challenge may have been particularly good at producing high levels of integrity because it was student driven, and the young people were not restrained by adult rules. Ironically, however, the second finding we wish to draw attention to may also have been a product of the student-led experience. It was clear that our participants experienced frustration and this negatively impacted on their motivation. According to the first author’s observations, this frustration was primarily due to poor organization and interpersonal conflict, factors that are likely to be exacerbated when the young people themselves are in control. The obvious recommendation is that activities give young people autonomy while providing sufficient adult guidance to prevent too much chaos. Realistically, however, it may be that some chaos and frustration is almost inevitable when young people take control of a project, and perhaps this is acceptable, given just how critical integrity seems to be to young people’s motivation.

Third, our study suggests that although boredom is perceived negatively, it may not be necessary to avoid it at all costs. Our participants seemed to tolerate a degree of boredom, without it seriously affecting their ongoing motivation. Fourth, our findings suggest that it is important for young people to be able to collectively construct a positive story about the experience once it is over. Our participants’ experience ended on a bad note (losing the competition) but they took the opportunity to reframe it and refocus on the following year.

To sum up, our study showed how a student-led performing arts activity worked as a subjective and collective experience, allowing the participants to view Stage Challenge as something worth doing, again and again.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

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

References

Baard

P. P.

(1994). A motivational model for consulting with not-for-profit organizations: A study of church growth and participation. Consulting Psychology Journal, 46, 19-31.

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 479-529.

Byrne

Macdonald

Carlton

(2003). Assessing creativity in musical compositions: Flow as an assessment tool. British Journal of Music Education. 20, 277-290.

Carli

Delle Fave

Massimini

(1988). The quality of experience in the flow channels: Comparison of Italian and U.S. students. In Csikszentmihalyi

Csikszentmihalyi

I. S.

(Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 288-306). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, UK: SAGE.

Crocker

P. R. E.

(1997). A confirmatory factor analysis of the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) with a youth sport sample. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 19, 91-97.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Csikszentmihalyi

(1997). Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Csikszentmihalyi

Larson

(1984). Being adolescent: Conflict and growth in the teenage years. New York, NY: Basic Books.

10.

Custodero

L. A.

(1998). Observing flow in young children’s music learning. General Music Today, 12, 21-27.

11.

Custodero

L. A.

(2002). Seeking challenge, finding skill: Flow experience and music education. Arts Education Policy Review, 103, 3-9.

12.

Dallos

(2006). Observational methods. In Breakwell

G. M.

Hammond

Fife-Shaw

(Eds.), Research methods in psychology (pp. 124-145). London, UK: SAGE.

13.

Damasio

A. R.

(1994). Descartes error: Emotion, reason and the human brain. London, UK: Papermac.

14.

Darling

Caldwell

Smith

(2005). Participation in school-based extracurricular activities and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Leisure Research, 37, 51-76.

15.

Daykin

Orme

Evans

Salmon

McEachran

Brain

(2008). The impact of participation in the performing arts on adolescent health and behaviour: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 251-264.

16.

Delle Fave

Massimini

(1988). Modernisation and the changing contexts of flow in leisure and work. In Csikszentmihalyi

Csikszentmihalyi

I. S.

(Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp. 193-213). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Dworkin

J. B.

Larson

Hansen

(2003). Adolescents’ accounts of growth experiences in youth activities. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 17-26.

18.

Eccles

J. S.

(1987). Gender roles and women’s achievement-related decisions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 135-171.

19.

Eccles

Barber

Stone

Hunt

(2003). Extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 865-899.

20.

Eccles

J. S.

Wigfield

(2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.

21.

Edwards

Mullis

(2001). Creating a sense of belonging to build safe schools. Journal of Individual Psychology, 57, 196-202.

22.

Fredricks

J. A.

Alfeld-Liro

C. J.

Hruda

L. Z.

Eccles

J. S.

Patrick

Ryan

A. M.

(2002). A qualitative exploration of adolescents’ commitment to athletics and the arts. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 68-97.

23.

Grunstein

Bauman

Nutbeam

(2001). The Rock Eisteddfod Challenge® as a health promotion to increase adolescent resiliency and improve health behaviours (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

24.

Hansen

D. M.

Larson

R. W.

Dworkin

J. B.

(2003). What adolescents learn in organized youth activities: A survey of self-reported developmental experiences. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 25-55.

25.

Harré

Bullen

(2010). Personal project commitment in adolescence: The role of relatedness, competence and integrity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 235-251.

26.

Hektner

J. M.

(2001). Family, school and community: Predictors of adolescent growth-conducive experiences: Global and specific approaches. Applied Developmental Science, 5, 172-183.

27.

Jackson

S. A.

(1992). Athletes in flow: A qualitative investigation of flow states in elite figure skaters. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 4, 161-180.

28.

Jackson

S. A.

Eklund

R. C.

(2002). Assessing flow in physical activity: The Flow State Scale-2 and Dispositional Flow Scale-2. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 24, 133-150.

29.

Jackson

S. A.

Marsh

H. W.

(1996). Development and validation of a scale to measure optimal experience: The Flow State Scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 17-35.

30.

Kahneman

(1999). Objective happiness. In Kahneman

Diener

Schwarz

(Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 3-25). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

31.

Kahneman

Fredrickson

B. L.

Schreiber

C. A.

Redelmeier

D. A.

(1993). When more pain is preferred to less: Adding to a better end. Psychological Science, 4, 401-405.

32.

Kemp

Burt

C. D. B.

Furneaux

(2008). A test of the peak-end rule with extended autobiographical events. Memory and Cognition, 36, 132-138.

33.

Larson

R. W.

(2000). Toward a psychology of positive youth development. American Psychologist, 55, 170-183.

34.

Larson

R. W.

Brown

J. R.

(2007). Emotional development in adolescence: What can be learned from a high school theatre programme. Child Development, 78, 1083-1099.

35.

Martin

J. C.

Cutler

(2002). An exploratory study of flow and motivation in theater actors. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 14, 344-352.

36.

Miron-Shatz

(2009). Evaluating multiepisode events: Boundary conditions for the peak-end rule. Emotion, 9, 206-213.

37.

Miron-Shatz

Stone

Kahneman

(2009). Memories of yesterday’s emotions: Does the valence of experience affect the memory-experience gap? Emotion, 9, 885-891.

38.

Newman

B. M.

Newman

P. R.

(2001). Group identity and alienation: Giving the we its due. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 515-536.

39.

O’Neill

(1999). Flow theory and the development of musical performance skills. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 129-134.

40.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

41.

Raymore

L. A.

Barber

B. L.

Eccles

J. S.

Godbey

G. C.

(1999). Leisure behaviour pattern stability during the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 79-103.

42.

Royal

M. A.

Rossi

R. J.

(1996). Individual-level correlates of sense of community: Findings from workplace and school. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 395-416.

43.

Ryan

R. M.

(1989). The nature of the self in autonomy and relatedness. In Strauss

Geothals

G. R.

(Eds.), The self: Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 208-238). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

44.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

45.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialetic perspective. In Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-36). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

46.

Ryff

C. D.

Singer

B. H.

(1998). The contours of positive human health. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 1-28.

47.

Sarrazin

Vallerand

Guillet

Pelletier

Cury

(2002). Motivation and dropout on female handballers: A 21-month prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 395-418.

48.

Sheldon

K. M.

Bettencourt

B. A.

(2002). Psychological need-satisfaction and subjective well-being within social groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 25-38.

49.

Sheridan

Byrne

(2002). Ebb and flow of assessment in music. British Journal of Music Education, 19, 136-143.

50.

Sinclair

J. R.

(1997). Children in the spotlight: Emotional correlates of cooperative performance in early adolescence (Doctoral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. (Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT NQ 28059)

51.

Stage Challenge Foundation New Zealand. (2008, October 10). Retrieved from http://www.stagechallenge.co.nz/

52.

Stein

G. L.

Kimiecik

J. C.

Jackson

S. A.

(1995). Psychological antecedents of flow in recreational sport. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 125-135.

53.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.