441738

2012
POM41510.1177/0305735612441738Matthews and KitsantasPsychology of Music

Article

Psychology of Music

The role of the conductor’s goal 41(5) 630­–646

© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
orientation and use of shared sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305735612441738
performance cues on collegiate pom.sagepub.com

instrumentalists’ motivational
beliefs and performance in large
musical ensembles

Wendy K. Matthews
Wayne State University, USA

Anastasia Kitsantas
George Mason University, USA

Abstract
This study examined the effects of the conductor’s goal orientation (mastery vs. performance)
and use of shared performance cues (basic vs. interpretive vs. expressive) on instrumentalists’ self-
efficacy, collective efficacy, attributions, and performance. Eighty-one college instrumentalists from
two musical ensembles participated in the study. It was hypothesized that instrumentalists who
undergo a mastery goal-oriented rehearsal and experience a conductor’s use of expressive shared
performance cues would report higher levels in all measures than those who undergo a performance
goal-oriented rehearsal and are exposed to interpretive performance cues, which in turn surpass
those who experience basic performance cues. Results indicated that participants in the mastery
goal orientation condition reported higher levels of collective and self-efficacy beliefs and attributed
the success or failure of the ensemble most frequently to the conductor’s use of rehearsal strategies
(i.e., baton technique, verbal directions regarding the music). In addition, the conductor’s use of
expressive shared performance cues had a significant impact on instrumentalists’ collective efficacy,
self-efficacy, performance, and attributions. Findings of this study may provide some guidance on
how conductors can create effective rehearsal environments.

Keywords
conducting, goal orientation, motivation, musical ensembles, shared performance cues

Corresponding author:
Wendy K. Matthews, Assistant Professor of Music Education, Wayne State University, 1321 Old Maine, Detroit, MI
48202, USA.
Email:wkmatthewstpt@gmail.com
Matthews and Kitsantas 631

Effective conductors are described as genuine and inspiring leaders who know the musical score
thoroughly and can convey its meaning to the musicians through exceptionally trained hands
(Green, 1987). Such conductors guide musical interpretation, style, and precision using physi-
cal gestures and verbal instructions (Labuta, 2000). Research studies on conductor effectiveness
have examined such influences as gestures (Byo & Austin, 1994), non-verbal behavior (Goolsby,
1999), posture, facial expressions, body type (Van Weelden, 2002), rehearsal environments
(Duke & Henninger, 1998; Price, 1983), and supportiveness (Hamann, Mills, Bell, Daugherty, &
Koozer, 1990; Matthews & Kitsantas, 2007). These studies indicate that expert conductors have
a vast collection of non-verbal gestures that are significantly more expressive than novice con-
ductors (Byo & Austin, 1994), and spend less time on verbal instruction (Goolsby, 1999). Other
research findings also reveal that performance ratings of conductors can be affected by a con-
ductor’s posture and facial expressions, but not by body type (Van Weelden, 2002).
Learning environments are also believed to be critical to obtaining knowledge, developing
skills and fostering motivational beliefs (Bandura, 1986). This is particularly true for instru-
mentalists, who traditionally learn a musical instrument in the large ensemble setting. Here the
conductor is a central figure in creating a productive ensemble environment. Price (1983)
found that predominantly positive feedback improved ensemble concentration, attitudes, and
performance. Conversely, Duke and Henninger (1998) found that a conductor’s use of negative
feedback, when given constructively, enhanced positive performance and student attitudes.
Additionally, there is some evidence suggesting that students who experience a learning envi-
ronment consisting of strong teacher support receive higher performance ratings in the contest
or competition settings (Hamann et al., 1990) and report positive motivational beliefs
(Matthews & Kitsantas, 2007). Most of this evidence is based on descriptive, correlational stud-
ies primarily involving individual perceptions of developing music skill (Howe & Sloboda, 1991;
McPherson & McCormick, 1999). Therefore, the present study examined how conductors can
create optimal rehearsal environments for their students using experimental design in the large
ensemble setting.
Research in the domains of music, sport, and academics indicates that the conductor, coach,
or teacher’s personal goal orientation and skill can shape his or her actions, and in turn influ-
ence his or her ensemble, team, or classroom environment (Ames & Archer, 1988; Newton &
Duda, 1999; Price, 1983). Goal orientation theory distinguishes between mastery goal (or task
involving) and performance goal orientation (or ego involving) (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck
& Legget, 1988; Newton & Duda, 1999). In mastery goal orientation, emphasis is placed on the
learning process. In contrast, performance goal orientation emphasizes normative perfor-
mance. When mastery goals have been made pre-eminent by the teacher, students have pre-
ferred more challenging tasks, focused more on their effort, and developed a way of thinking
that is important in continuing involvement in learning (Ames & Archer, 1988). In contrast,
when performance goals are emphasized, students focus on their ability in comparison with the
ability of others, which influence their performance and attributional beliefs. Ultimately, mas-
tery goals lead to more adaptive outcomes and performance than performance goals (Elliot &
Dweck, 2005).
Mastery goals can positively influence music student motivational beliefs and strategy use
(Nielsen, 2004; Smith, 2005). Self-efficacy is defined as personal beliefs regarding one’s capa-
bilities to perform successfully (Bandura, 1986). Specifically, students’ goal orientation can
influence their motivation through how they respond to experiences of success or failure (Elliot,
2005; Dweck & Legget, 1988). That is, mastery-oriented students’ purpose is to improve under-
standing in a certain domain. These thought processes allow students to approach challenging
632 Psychology of Music 41(5)

tasks with a positive mindset (e.g., positive sense of self-efficacy), engage in more effective learn-
ing strategies to foster achievement, and perceive successes and failures as feedback to improve
their learning behaviors (Elliot, 2005). Smith (2005), for example, examined the relationship
between goal orientation and the self-reported musical practice of 344 undergraduate music
majors and found that mastery-oriented musicians are inclined to believe that musical ability
can be transformed through the use of effective practice strategies. Furthermore, Nielsen
(2004) examined how instrumentalists’ self-efficacy beliefs were related to their learning and
study strategies. Results demonstrated that students with greater self-efficacy used more cogni-
tive and metacognitive strategies in their practice than students with lower self-efficacy.
Goal orientation can also influence a group’s collective efficacy, a judgment of the combined
capabilities of its members to accomplish a given task (Bandura, 1986). Research reveals that
positive collective efficacy can elevate team performance (Taggar & Seijts, 2003) and influence
motivation (Hodges & Carron, 1989). Balaguer, Duda, Atienza, and Mayo (2002) examined the
relationship of perceived motivational climate created by the coach and dispositional goal ori-
entation among team members’ perceptions of their skill improvement, their satisfaction with
their personal and team level of play, and competitive result among elite female handball play-
ers. The authors found that players who perceived a strong task-involving climate had reported
greater performance improvement, greater satisfaction with performance, and held more posi-
tive views of their coach. Conversely, perceptions of an ego-involving climate were negatively
related to overall coach ratings, but were positively related to satisfaction with the team’s com-
petitive results. Similarly, in the high school musical ensemble setting, Matthews and Kitsantas
(2007) found that perceptions of the conductor relate to motivational climate, collective effi-
cacy, and group cohesion. Specifically, the findings established that instrumentalists who have
a strong sense of collective efficacy and group cohesion and are taught in a task-oriented cli-
mate are more likely to perceive their conductor as supportive. Additionally, Boemer and von
Streit (2007) found a positive interaction between the high positive group mood (in accord both
cognitively and emotionally) and the conductor’s transformational leadership style (charisma,
inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation) on the artistic quality of the orchestra.
The present study attempts to determine how an instrumentalist’s collective and self-efficacy
beliefs and performance fluctuate in performance- versus mastery-oriented conductor climates.
This is one of the first studies to extend research in collective efficacy to musical performance
settings where many challenges and obstacles faced by instrumentalists demand sustained col-
lective effort (Bandura, 1986).
Another critical component that may affect musicians’ motivational beliefs and perfor-
mance outcomes is the conductor’s gestures. During rehearsal, the conductor and the
ensemble must create a mutual mental representation of the music that contains markers, or
performance cues, that characterize the formal structure of the piece and serve to guide and
synchronize the musicians (Chaffin & Imreh, 2001). The conductor’s gestures aid in the
development of this map and function as cues to remind the musicians of their intentions
during the performance (Ripley, 2003). Ginsborg, Chaffin, and Nicholson (2006) refer to this
as “shared performance cues,” which are organized into three hierarchical levels: (a) basic,
which includes features of the score specified by the composer such as rhythm; (b) interpre-
tive, which includes markings that represent articulations phrasings and tempo; and
(c) expressive, which includes features beyond what is in the score that characterize the emo-
tion of the piece to be communicated to the audience. Using a new software developed to
analyze the trajectory of conductors’ gestures, Luck and Nte (2008) concluded that the con-
ductor’s gesture is very complex and that conductors spend very little time conducting
Matthews and Kitsantas 633

single-beat gestures. Additionally, expressiveness in the gesture differs between experts and
novices. For example, Byo and Austin (1994) found that the expert conductors were signifi-
cantly more expressive in right arm/hand, body movement, and facial expression than nov-
ices. Similarly, Goolsby (1991) found that expert conductors conveyed more information
through the gesture, spent less time on verbal instruction, and when they used verbal
instruction it contained more task-oriented content than that of novice conductors.
Conductors can change the perception of performance, as demonstrated by Morrison, Price,
Geiger, and Cornacchio (2009) who found that participants hearing the exact same perfor-
mance and viewing different video tapes of highly expressive conductor or a low-expressive
conductor rated the ensembles more expressive when viewing the highly expressive conductor.
Additionally, Cofer (1998) examined the effects of instruction using conducting gestures on
seventh-grade band students’ ability to recognize certain conducting gestures, both when per-
forming and not performing. Findings revealed that students who participated in short-term
conducting gesture instruction improved their recognition of and performance response to the
gestures. These findings provide support for the effectiveness of gestures; however, more
research is needed to examine the effects gestures have on instrumentalists’ motivation and
performance in a large ensemble.
The aim of the present study is to discover the extent to which the conductor’s goal orienta-
tion and conducting technique has an impact on the rehearsal environment, and specifically
determine how they relate to instrumentalists’ efficacy and performance. It is hypothesized
that: (a) instrumentalists who undergo a mastery goal-oriented rehearsal would report higher
degrees of collective efficacy, self-efficacy, and perform at higher levels than those who undergo
a performance goal-oriented rehearsal; (b) instrumentalists who experience a conductor’s use
of expressive shared performance cues would report higher degrees of collective efficacy, self-
efficacy, and exhibit higher levels of performance than those who are exposed to interpretive
performance cues and will in turn surpass those who experience basic performance; and (c)
instrumentalists will attribute their performance outcomes to the conductor’s use of specific
rehearsal or motivational strategies when experiencing the conditions

Method
Participants
Participants included 81 wind, percussion, and string instrumentalists participating in either a
symphony orchestra or wind ensemble course in a School of Music at a mid-Atlantic university.
To participate in these competitively auditioned ensembles members had to successfully dem-
onstrate a high level of musical ability to meet repertoire requirements. Instrumentalists were
competitively auditioned into these two highly skilled groups at the beginning of the semester.
Instrumentalists were queried via a Personal Data Questionnaire regarding age, ethnicity, gen-
der, major, class rank, amount of practice time, and age that they began studying. There were
74 undergraduate students (21% freshman, 22% sophomores, 28% juniors, and 20% seniors)
and 7 graduate students (9%). Forty-seven percent of the participants were male and 53% were
females and ranged in age from 19 to 33 years of age (M = 21.59, SD = 2.61). The ethnic com-
position of the instrumentalists included: 78% white American, 3% Hispanic American, 6%
Asian American, and 13% “other.” One instrumentalist did not report ethnicity. The majority
of the instrumentalists indicated they were working toward a bachelor’s degree in music edu-
cation (44%), followed by a bachelor’s degree in music performance (21%), Bachelor of Arts
634 Psychology of Music 41(5)

(11%), and a Master of Music (10%). The remaining 14% majored in degrees outside of music
such as nursing and economics. These instrumentalists began studying their instruments
between 6 and 18 years of age (M = 10.70, SD = 2.39). On average they spent 11.91 hours a
week practicing individually.

Measures
Collective efficacy. This instrument measured the instrumentalists’ perception of collective efficacy
through an adaptation of the Collective Efficacy Questionnaire for Sports (CEQ-S) developed by
Short, Sullivan, and Feltz (2005), which measures team functioning across different sports. This
20 item scale has five subscales with four items each: Ability, Effort, Unity, Persistence, and
Preparation. Each item was assessed using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 “Not at All Confident”
to 9 “Extremely Confident.” Examples of questions within each subscale included:

•• In terms of today’s performance, how confident are you that your ensemble has the abil-
ity to play more skillfully than the other ensembles in this experiment? (ability).
•• In terms of today’s performance, how confident are you that your ensemble has the abil-
ity to overcome distractions? (effort)
•• In terms of today’s performance, how confident are you that your ensemble has the abil-
ity to be united? (unity)
•• In terms of today’s performance, how confident are you that your ensemble has the abil-
ity to persist when obstacles are present? (persistence)
•• In terms of today’s performance, how confident are you that your ensemble has the abil-
ity to work effectively in rehearsal? (preparation)

Pilot testing revealed the acceptable reliability estimate α = .98. The Cronbach alpha values for
the original subscales of the CEQ-S ranged from .81 to .91. Similarly, based on the actual sam-
ple in this study the Cronbach alphas ranged from .82 to .94.

Self-efficacy. This 7-item scale was created and pilot tested by the authors following procedures
outlined by Bandura (2006). It assessed the instrumentalists’ beliefs of their capability to perform
in a large ensemble. Instrumentalists were asked to rate their degree of confidence in 10-unit inter-
vals from 0 (Cannot do at all) to 100 (Highly certain can do) for the following specific seven items:
(a) play the correct pitches; (b) play with good intonation; (c) play the correct tempo and rhythms;
(d) match phrasing and articulation with others; (e) understand the conductor’s intentions; (f) play
the way the conductor wants; and (g) play in the correct style. Each instrumentalist’s score was
composed of the average self-efficacy rating for the seven items. An exploratory principal compo-
nent analysis yielded one factor, which accounted for 57% of the variance (eigenvalue = 4.01). All
items displayed acceptable loadings. Pilot testing revealed an acceptable reliability estimate as α =
.95. The present study also revealed a high reliability estimate of α = .87.

Open-ended ensemble attribution question. To reflect the proximal effects of attribution as it relates
to ensemble performance, an open-ended question asked the students “Why do you think your
ensemble was successful or not successful in today’s rehearsal and performance?” Each student’s
attributions for success or failure of his or her ensemble were classified into seven emergent cat-
egories: (a) conductor’s lack of rehearsal strategies; (b) conductor’s use of rehearsal strategies; (c)
conductor’s lack of motivational strategies; (d) conductor’s use of motivational strategies; (e)
Matthews and Kitsantas 635

ensemble’s lack of rehearsal strategies; (f) ensemble’s use of rehearsal strategies; and (g) other.
The rehearsal strategy categories included instrumentalists’ statements reflecting the conductor’s
baton technique and verbal directions regarding the music whereas the motivational strategy cat-
egories referred to instrumentalists’ comments regarding the conductor’s demeanor or the atmos-
phere the conductor created during the experiment. The ensemble’s rehearsal strategy categories
incorporated statements referring to specific ensemble members’ methods to improve musical
aspects of the performance used during the rehearsal. Finally, the “other” category referred to
statements regarding additional rehearsal elements. To establish reliability of the scoring system,
two coders grouped the answers into the above categories. The agreement was assessed by divid-
ing the coders’ agreement regarding the category of each person’s attribution by the total number
of responses. Inter-coder agreement was 97%. Differences between coders were resolved by a
third coder.

Performance. Three professional musicians, using an audiotape of each condition’s final perfor-
mance, rated each instrumentalist’s individual performance in the categories intonation, balance
and blend, dynamic, accuracy, and musicality from 1 (far below average performance) to 5 (out-
standing performance). Each instrumentalist’s score was computed by averaging the performance
rating provided by the two judges. Disagreement in the scores in the above categories was resolved
by a third judge. Kappa analyses revealed that the inter-rater agreement for the coding was .78. The
small number of participants allowed the judges to distinguish each instrument in 94% of the cases.
In the few cases that it was not possible for the judges to discern the individual player, each judge
assigned his/her average score of the condition.

Design
The participants were randomly assigned to one of the six experimental conditions, in groups
of 12 to 15 instrumentalists. The conditions were as follows: (a) basic performance cues with
performance goal orientation; (b) basic performance cues with mastery goal orientation; (c)
interpretive performance cues with performance goal orientation; (d) interpretive performance
cues with mastery goal orientation; (e) expressive performance cues with performance goal
orientation; and (f) expressive performance cues with mastery goal-orientation.

Procedure
The conductor involved in the study was responsible for conducting all six conditions and was
not the conductor of either course from which the participants were drawn. He was extensively
trained on statements and cueing across the conditions according to the pilot study findings by
an educational psychologist and another professional conductor. The training protocol was
developed during the pilot study based on theory, collaborative data analysis of videotapes, and
converging and diverging perspectives of researchers, conductor, and participants.
Furthermore, an analysis of the video during the actual experiment served to assess the validity
of each of the experimental conditions. These analyses involved a multifaceted, recursive pro-
cess of continuous comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
In regards to the mastery and performance goals conditions, the pilot study script was cre-
ated based on Ames and Archer’s (1988) theoretical distinctions between these goals in terms
of eight actual classroom climate dimensions: (a) success; (b) value; (c) reasons for satisfaction;
(d) instructor orientation; (e) views of error/mistakes; (f) focus of attention; (g) reason for effort;
636 Psychology of Music 41(5)

and (h) evaluation criteria. Each condition contained at least one statement representing each
of the classroom climate dimensions. These dimensions were characterized by divergent expec-
tations for mastery versus performance goals.
In mastery, success was defined as improvement and value was placed on effort. Reasons for
satisfaction were described as working hard and focusing on the challenge. Additionally, mas-
tery instructors were oriented towards students’ learning and mistakes were viewed as part of
education. Attention was focused on the process of learning. The reasons for effort were defined
as gaining knowledge of something new and the assessment for this was based on progress.
In performance, success was defined as normative and value was placed on high ability. Reasons
for satisfaction were described as comparing one’s performance to others. Performance instruc-
tors were oriented towards student performance and mistakes were viewed as creating anxiety in
students. Furthermore, attention was focused on performance in comparison to others. The rea-
sons for effort were defined by high grades and the assessment for this was based on norms.
The conducting gestures and musical feedback, the second condition of the experiment,
were created according to the work of Ginsborg et al. (2006), which includes three levels of
performance cues (a) basic; (b) interpretive; and (c) expressive. Specifically, the basic gesture
condition was limited to simple beat patterns and musical feedback correcting rhythm and
pitch errors. The interpretive category added gestures and feedback to the basic level that
focused on phrasing, dynamics, blend and balance. Finally, the expressive category built on the
basic and interpretive conditions by adding gestures and comments centered on the musicality
and emotion of the composition.
During pilot testing, the conductor was videotaped with the aim of enhancing reliability of
the training process by refining the comments and gestures, and assessing degree of fit
within the operational definitions of Ames and Archer (1988) and Ginsborg et al. (2006). To
address the intra-observer reliability the conductor and experts independently and together
watch the videotape several times to establish a convergence of conductor as participant and
researcher perspective. Each comment and gesture on the videotapes was discussed and coded
into a corresponding goal and cue category using an observational checklist. The validity of
the conductor’s words and actions were further substantiated through member checking
(Creswell, 1998, 2008). Here, the participants gave written and verbal feedback. These instru-
mentalists’ perceptions were compared to the videotape, experts’ comments and coding, as
well as used during subsequent training sessions.
This triangulation of all of the perspectives (theory, collaborative data analysis of video-
tapes, and perspectives of researchers, conductor, and participants), generated a list of com-
ments and gestures that, in turn, created an open-ended script of suitable words and gestures
that guided the conductor during his practice prior the experiment as well throughout the
experiment. Further, the actual experiment was videotaped and later reviewed. The rigor and
trustworthiness of the experimental conditions were assessed through the expert evaluation of
the videotapes and analysis of participant comments during a debriefing session. The experi-
mental conditions were found to be conclusively consistent with the criterion presented by
Ames and Archer (1988) and Ginsborg et al. (2006) and the training protocol.
Each condition in the study lasted 30 minutes. The beginning of each experimental session
was spent rehearsing a composition specifically composed by a professional composer for this
experiment and contained opportunities for the conductor to indicate basic, interpretive, and
expressive shared performance cues through his gestures and verbal instruction. The composi-
tion was within the parameters of a standard grade 4 composition, which is very accessible to
university level musicians. To facilitate stratified random assignment, the piece had flexible
Matthews and Kitsantas 637

instrumentation within the voicing of soprano, alto, tenor, bass (i.e., violins or flutes or oboes
could be assigned to the same part). This was done to ensure that each ensemble had equally
balanced instrumentation. The musicians had not previously seen this composition prior to the
experiment. The rehearsal was followed by a complete performance of the piece which was
recorded on audiotape for the performance judges to review at a later time. Following the per-
formance each musician was post-tested for self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and attributions,
which took approximately 10 minutes.
At the beginning of the rehearsal segment the conductor read a statement designed to create
a rehearsal goal structure of either mastery or performance based on Ames and Archer’s (1988)
analysis of achievement goals in the classroom climate. Within the rehearsal segment of the
experiment, the conductor conveyed the mastery goal orientation conditions by creating a
rehearsal climate that emphasized effort and individual improvement and highlighted the process
of learning. In contrast, the conductor conveyed the performance goal orientation element of
conditions by creating a rehearsal climate that directed the instrumentalists’ focus upon their
own performance relative to others similar to normative comparisons within a festival or contest
situation and that placed a high value on the final performance of the experiment.
For example, in the mastery condition the conductor made such comments as “Don’t be
afraid to make mistakes; they are just part of the learning process,” “Let’s try that again. This
time a little slower and focusing on the staccato articulations,” and “Excellent improvement –
you are working extremely hard, and I appreciate the effort.” For the performance condition the
conductor used such comments as “We need to get past the notes on the page folks, we have a
concert coming up very soon and we must perform exceptionally well. No questions about it! To
win this challenge today we must have an error free performance,” “The judges will rank the
ensembles in order of merit,” and “I’m sure that the other groups in this study will be able to
play more accurate rhythms and in tune as well.”
The cueing conditions incorporated the three levels of conducting: basic, interpretive, and
expressive. When portraying the basic condition, the conductor used his conducting gestures
and verbal instruction to exclusively address the aspects of the music dealing with pitches and
rhythms, such as correcting an incorrect rhythm. For example, his left hand or body language
did not portray any musical concepts beyond the beat, and conducted equally on the vertical
and horizontal plane. During the interpretive condition, the conductor added to the basic ges-
tures and verbal instructions the aspects marked in the score dealing with articulations, phras-
ing, dynamics. For example, the conductor varied the size of the conducting pattern and used
the left hand to emphasize dynamics, and used gestures of syncopation and subdivisions of the
beat pattern. In the expressive condition, the conductor highlighted aspects of the music deal-
ing with the emotion of the piece, such as using rubato to convey the tension of a melodic
phrase, as well as conveying the basic and interpretative elements. For example, the expressive
conductor used the concept of tension and release when conducting and used specific shapes of
left hand to enhance the mood of the selection. During the experiment, each of the conditions
was inspected and analyzed via videotape to ensure the conductor delivered the environmental
and conducting manipulations correctly.

Results
Correlational analyses
Correlations were performed to examine relationships among all the variables (see Table 1).
Several correlations emerged between collective efficacy, self-efficacy, and performance. For
638 Psychology of Music 41(5)

Table 1.  Correlations for variables.

Variables 1 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e 2 3
1. 1.00 Total collective efficacy
a. CE-ability  .88** 1.00  
  b. CE-effort  .94**  .78** 1.00  
  c. CE-persistence  .90**  .73**  .81** 1.00  
  d. CE-preparation  .94**  .74**  .91**  .85** 1.00  
  e. CE-utility  .93**  .78**  .83**  .79**  .86** 1.00  
2. Self-efficacy  .53**  .45*  .50**  .50**  .56**  .50** 1.00  
3. Performance  .10  .29**  .27*  .23*  .21  .12  .26* 1.00

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

example, the total collective efficacy subscale moderately correlated with self-efficacy r = .53,
p < .01. In addition, the different collective efficacy subscales such as preparation r = .56, p <
.01, effort r = .50, p < .01, and persistence r = .50, p < .01, were all positively associated with
self-efficacy. The performance measure was also related to the efficacy measures. For exam-
ple, performance was positively related to collective efficacy in ability, r = .29, p < .01. The
means and standard deviations for all experimental conditions are depicted in Table 2.

Factorial analyses
Collective efficacy. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to assess changes in
instrumentalist collective efficacy among the different experimental conditions. There was a sig-
nificant main effect for goals F(5,71) = 20.20, p <.001, Wilk’s λ = .41, η2 = .59, indicating that
instrumentalists who were in the mastery goal orientation condition (M = 7.13, SD = .86) reported
higher levels of collective efficacy than instrumentalists who received a performance goal orienta-
tion ( M = 5.19, SD = 1.18, d = 1.87). A significant main effect for shared cues F(10,142) = 2.73,
p < .001, Wilk’s λ = .70, η2 = .16, also emerged. According to Tukey post hoc tests, instrumental-
ists in the expressive performance cue condition (M = 6.80, SD = 1.16) reported higher levels of
collective efficacy than did those in the interpretive cue condition (M = 5.99, SD = 1.54), t(49) =
2.20, p <.05, d = .59 and the basic conditions (M = 5.72, SD = 1.63), t(45) = 2.79, p <.01, d = .76.
The effect sizes illustrate medium to large differences among the groups. The interaction between
goals and shares cues was not significant.

Self-efficacy. The univariate tests for self-efficacy yielded similar results with large effect sizes.
There was a significant main effect for type of goal orientation, F(1, 75) = 9.02, p < .01 where
instrumentalists in the mastery goal condition (M = 87.39, SD = 8.97) were more efficacious than
the instrumentalists in the performance goal condition (M = 79.53, SD = 14.41; d = .65). A main
effect for type of performance cue also emerged, F(2, 75) = 3.74, p < .05. According to Tukey post
hoc tests the expressive performance cue condition (M = 88.16, SD = 10.40) reported higher levels
of self-efficacy than the interpretive (M = 78.53, SD = 10.62), t(47) = 2.79, p < .01, d = .92. There
were no statistical differences between interpretive and basic conditions. There was no interaction
between cue and goal, F(1, 75) = 2.71, p > .05.

Performance. In regards to the measure of performance there was a significant interaction

between shared performance cues and goal orientation, F(1, 75) = 4.38, p < .05, which is
Matthews and Kitsantas 639

Table 2.  Means and standard deviations for dependent variables.

Groups Basic cues Interpretive cues Expressive cues

Mastery Performance Mastery Performance Mastery Performance

Collective M 6.93 4.31 7.05 5.00 7.42 6.26

efficacy SD .75 1.17 .75 1.43 1.09 .94
CE-ability M 6.13 3.28 6.40 4.59 7.06 6.03
SD 1.33 1.58 1.01 1.51 1.34 1.01

CE-effort M 6.59 4.50 6.92 4.93 7.29 6.10

SD .97 1.14 1.08 1.42 1.33 1.03

CE-persistance M 7.43 5.29 7.40 5.79 7.52 6.93

SD .87 1.57 .70 1.66 1.07 .95

CE-preparation M 7.11 4.77 7.23 5.41 7.58 6.32

SD .87 1.26 .96 1.60 1.08 1.19

CE-unity M 7.39 3.73 7.31 4.29 7.67 5.90

SD .94 1.54 .85 1.62 1.20 1.19

Self-efficacy M 82.85 83.25 85.13 75.33 94.20 82.93

SD 10.31 11.44 6.08 15.33 5.43 10.96

Performance M 3.09 3.44 3.33 3.22 3.92 3.69

SD .54 .40 .34 .39 .29 .25

Note: N = 81.

depicted in Figure 1. For students in the mastery condition there was a significant difference
among the three shared performance conditions in their performance. Specifically, there was
a significant difference between basic (M = 3.09, SD = .54) and expressive (M = 3.92, SD =
.29), t (20) = -4.95, p < .001, d = 1.92; and interpretive (M = 3.33, SD = .34) and expressive
(M = 3.92, SD = .29), t(23) = -4.79, p < .001, d = 1.88. In addition, significant differences
emerged in the performance condition among the three levels of shared performance cues.
Specifically, there was a significant difference between interpretive (M = 3.22, SD = .39) and
expressive (M = 3.69, SD = .25), t(22) = -3.82, p < .01, d = 1.43. Overall, the d-values indi-
cate large effect sizes.

Analyses of the attributions

The participants’ responses were divided into categories of successful and non-successful.
Results indicated 36 (55%) of the participants used wording that implied the performance was
good and 30 (45%) used wording implying that the performance was poor. Nine of the partici-
pants’ answers did not indicate an evaluation of the performance. The participants’ responses
were coded and then categorized into (a) rehearsal strategies that included statements regard-
ing conductor’s baton technique or verbal directions regarding the music; (b) motivational
strategies that included statements referring to comments made by the conductor regarding
640 Psychology of Music 41(5)

Performance
3

Shared Performance
1 Cues
Basic
Interpretive
0 Expressive

Performance Mastery
Goal

Figure 1. The interaction between shared performance cues and goal orientation on ensemble
performance.

the setting but did not refer to the music; or (c) statements specifying ensemble members’ meth-
ods to improve musical aspects of the performance. These results led to further dividing the data
into three pairs of divergent categories reflecting a use or lack of use of strategy plus an “other”
category: conductor’s lack of rehearsal strategies, conductor’s use of rehearsal strategies; con-
ductor’s lack of motivational strategies, conductor’s use of motivational strategies; ensemble’s
lack of rehearsal strategies, ensemble’s use of rehearsal strategies; and other. Six instrumental-
ists did not answer the open-ended question.
Chi-square analyses revealed significant attributional differences between the mastery
and performance groups, χ²(6, N = 75) = 21.44, p < .01. The attributions for the mastery
versus performance grouping are presented in Table 3. Inspection of these frequencies
reveals that instrumentalists in the mastery group attributed their ensemble’s success or
lack of success to the conductor’s use of rehearsal strategies, followed by the ensemble’s
use of rehearsal strategies. In the mastery condition, 49% of the attributions were related
to the conductor’s rehearsal strategies. In contrast, 35% of the instrumentalists in the
performance group attributed their lack of success to the conductor’s lack of motivational
strategies.
Also, there were significant attributional differences between basic, interpretive, and
expressive cue groups, χ²(12, N = 75) = 23.98, p < .05. The attributions for the basic ver-
sus interpretive versus expressive groupings are presented in Table 4. Inspection of these
frequencies reveals 36% of the instrumentalists in the basic group attributed their ensem-
ble’s lack of success to the conductor’s lack of motivational strategies. Of the instrumen-
talists in the interpretive group, 26% attributed their ensemble’s success to the ensemble’s
use of effective rehearsal strategies. Finally, 23% of the instrumentalists in the expressive
group attributed their ensemble’s success to the conductor’s use of effective rehearsal
strategies.
Matthews and Kitsantas 641

Table 3.  Attributions for mastery vs. performance group.

Attributional sources

Condition Conductor’s Conductor’s Conductor’s Conductor’s Ensemble’s Ensemble’s Other

lack of use of lack of use of lack of use of
rehearsal rehearsal motivational motivational rehearsal rehearsal
strategies strategies strategies strategies strategies strategies
Mastery 8 9 1 4 3 7 3
(23%) (26%) (2%) (11%) (9%) (20%) (9%)

Performance 7 3 14 0 3 7 6
(17%) (8%) (35%) (0%) (8%) (17%) (15%)

Note: High numbers indicate more frequent endorsement of an attribution source.

Table 4.  Attributions for basic vs. interpretive vs. expressive group.

Attributional sources

Condition Conductor’s Conductor’s Conductor’s Conductor’s Ensemble’s Ensemble’s Other

lack of use of lack of use of lack of use of
rehearsal rehearsal motivational motivational rehearsal rehearsal
strategies strategies strategies strategies strategies strategies
Basic 7 2 8 0 3 0 2
(32%) (9%) (36%) 0%) (14%) (0%) (9%)

Interpretive 5 5 5 1 3 7 1
(19%) (19%) (19%) (3%) (11%) (26%) (3%)
Expressive 2 6 2 3 4 3 6
(8%) (23%) (8%) (11%) (16%) (11%) (23%)

Note: High numbers indicate more frequent endorsement of an attribution source.

Discussion
The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of a conductor’s goal orientation and
use of shared performance cues on instrumentalists’ self-efficacy beliefs, collective efficacy
beliefs, attributions, and performance. Overall, the findings of this study supported the first
hypothesis that the goal orientation (mastery vs. performance) manipulated by a conductor
affects instrumentalists’ self-efficacy and their collective efficacy in their interaction with the
conductor and the ensemble. However, the results indicated that the instrumentalists’ perfor-
mance was not influenced by goal orientation. In addition, findings supported the second
hypothesis that the conductor’s use of shared performance cues may increase the instrumen-
talists’ levels of self-efficacy, collective efficacy and performance.
Specific to the first hypothesis, the results demonstrated that mastery goal orientation had a
positive influence on the ensemble’s collective beliefs. The skilled instrumentalists who experi-
enced the mastery condition reported a more positive sense of unity and communication,
higher ability to perform skillfully and to their capabilities, and greater understanding of the
conductor’s expectations. In contrast, the instrumentalists who experienced the performance
642 Psychology of Music 41(5)

condition reported lower levels of their ability to work together, and of their conductor. These
findings are in line with research focusing on classroom settings (Ames & Archer, 1988). They
are also consistent with research in sport settings demonstrating that athletes who believed
their coaches were both supportive and competent teachers also displayed high levels of collec-
tive efficacy (Hoyt, Murphy, Halverson, & Watson, 2003) and valued a task-oriented motiva-
tional climate (Balaguer et al., 2002).
The second hypothesis regarding the conductor’s use of shared performance cues was par-
tially supported. Significant differences were found in collective efficacy, self-efficacy, and per-
formance between the expressive condition and the other two conditions (basic and interpretive).
These results may suggest that an expressive conductor can lead an ensemble to a higher level
of performance. Contrary to the hypothesis, there were no significant differences between the
interpretive and the basic condition, which may indicate an ambiguity in the interpretive con-
dition as defined by Ginsborg et al. (2006). In the interpretive condition, the conductor conveys
musical elements (e.g., phrasing, dynamics, and tempo) that are indicated within the score and
the instrumental parts. It is possible that at this level instrumentalists may already consider
that since these musical elements are marked in the score they are fundamental to an individ-
ual instrumentalist’s performance. Therefore, musicians might feel a sense of ownership and
responsibility to perform the interpretive aspects of a piece to their highest level despite the
conductor’s non-use of shared performance cues.
The interaction between goal orientation and shared performance cues further confirmed
the positive influence of shared performance cues on performance. Specifically, differences in
both the mastery and performance conditions emerged, suggesting that conductors who com-
municate to their ensemble using expressive gestures positively affect instrumentalists’ perfor-
mance. In particular, using a mastery orientation combined with expressive gestures can assist
the conductor in enhancing performance.
In regards to attributions, strategy use played an important role in the instrumentalists’
attributional beliefs as to the success or failure of the ensemble. Almost half of the instrumen-
talists in the mastery condition attributed their success or failure to the conductor’s ability or
inability to implement rehearsal strategies. The trend to attribute success to rehearsal strategy
use also was found within all the performance cue groups as well as the basic, interpretive, and
expressive groups. These results correspond to research in the academic classroom that demon-
strates that when students perceive mastery-oriented environments they focus on strategy use
and develop positive self-efficacy beliefs (Ames & Archer, 1988; Zimmerman & Kitsantas,
1999). In addition, these results are analogous to the experimental results in team research
that found that groups who experienced positive feedback held higher collective efficacy beliefs
(Lichacz & Parrington, 1996).
Taken as a whole, this study presents some evidence that a mastery goal orientation and use
of expressive performance cues may initiate improved learning and enhance instrumentalist
motivation as compared to performance goal orientation and the use of basic or expressive
shared performance cues. The results suggest that conductors should instill a mastery goal-
oriented climate integrated with expressive shared performance cues in their ensembles by
encouraging instrumentalists to focus on improvement as well as the expressive aspects when
developing a composition for performance. Conductors who focus on these ideas could develop
instrumentalists who can concentrate the tasks, attribute their failures to strategy deficiency
and effort rather than ability, retrace their steps, generate new strategies to improve their per-
formance, report positive beliefs in themselves and the greater group, and perform at their high-
est level. In contrast, conductors who focus on performance using only basic or interpretive
Matthews and Kitsantas 643

cues encourage students to be more concerned about an upcoming performance rather than
the process of accomplishing a goal and presenting an inspired performance. As a result, when
they collectively fail, these students attribute their unskilled and uninspired performance to the
conductor. These results also support the view that self-regulated learners exert greater effort
and engage in successful cognitive tasks that are conducive to higher achievement (Zimmerman
& Kitsantas, 2005).
The findings of the present study also indicate that exposure to a learning environment with
a mastery goal orientation and a conductor’s use of expressive shared performance cues may
influence not only the instrumentalists’ motivational beliefs, but also their musical perfor-
mance. Further, conductors must establish their expertise in rehearsal and intentionally create
a productive rehearsal environment to be successful (Price & Byo, 2002). These findings paral-
lel many similarities between research in music, academics, teams, and sports similarly have
indicated that individual and motivational beliefs can positively affect performance outcomes,
goal setting, perceptions of the leader, and the desire to continue in the task (Price, 1983;
Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1999).
Limitations of the present study include the small sample size derived from a pool of highly
skilled instrumental musicians from one university and the length of the experiment. In con-
trast, beginning musicians might focus more on the motivational aspect of the conductor’s
demeanor than on the conductor’s gestures. The converse may be true for professional musi-
cians. Furthermore, instrumentalists may select a goal pattern (Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich,
Elliot, & Thrash, 2002) or shift between goals (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1999) based on what
is the most advantageous to a specific point in the rehearsal process. These selections or shifts
may occur based on the proximity of the rehearsals to the concert and the concert itself similar
to sports research, which has found differences in goal orientation between training and com-
petition (Van de Pol & Kavussanu, 2010). Thus, future research should be extended to multiple
settings, types of ensembles, levels of musicians, and examine goal selection over time and the
function of these goals. Also given that little research has been conducted in music education
using the constructs investigated in this study (measures used were adapted from other fields),
the elusiveness of interpreting open-ended questions, and the difficulty of assessing musical
performance (which in this study the narrow range of data may have created a ceiling effect),
these findings should be interpreted with caution.

Educational implications
Music educators have been interested in what factors influence students’ performance and
motivation in the ensemble setting, and what role the conductor plays in the students’ musical
and academic development. Given today’s social, economic, and curricular changes, which
threaten to jeopardize the role of school instrumental ensembles (Byo & Austin, 1994), it is
even more critical to develop effective instructional methods to train conductors to help sustain
the profession. The findings of the present study may provide some guidance for conductors
and music educators on how to improve instruction and support instrumentalists as they
develop musical proficiency in the ensemble setting. Specifically, findings suggest that conduc-
tors who create a rehearsal climate fostering student motivation, emphasizing mastery of skills
and ultimately learning lead to higher student efficacy beliefs and more positive attributions
than rehearsals focusing on performance outcomes.
Furthermore, it is also important to understand the craft of conducting and develop effective
methods to teach future conductors. Expert conductors spend many years in specialized
644 Psychology of Music 41(5)

training and, although no two conductors conduct exactly alike, there are certain expectations
of what gestures portray. The findings of the present study suggest that conductors who focus
on expressive gestures that enhance the printed score may positively influence their ensemble
members’ efficacious beliefs and performance. Although there are many factors that bring
about a great performance beyond the conductor’s influence, the clarity of his or her gestures
as well as the ability to inspire the rehearsal environment can play an important role in many
conductors’ success.
In summary, an essential purpose of an ensemble is the connection between the music of the
composer, the conductor, the members of the ensemble, and the audience. It is a temporal form
of communication which makes each performance unique. As a result of a conductor’s ability
to inspire the ensemble, the performers together achieve musical moments that are collectively
greater than the sum of each individual’s capabilities. A conductor, like a CEO, is vital to a musi-
cal ensemble in that he or she must be able to develop personal expertise, communicate and
teach these skills to other musicians, and ultimately produce a successful performance.

References
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and
motivational processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.
Balaguer, I., Duda, J. L., Atienza, F. L., & Mayo, C. (2002). Situational and dispositional goals as predictors
of perceptions of individual and team improvement, satisfaction, and coaching ratings among elite
female handball teams. Psychology of Sport & Exercise, 3, 293–308.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy
beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Boerner, S., & von Streit, C. F. (2007). Promoting orchestral performance: The interplay between musi-
cians’ mood and a conductor’s leadership style. Psychology of Music, 35, 134–143.
Byo, J. L., & Austin, K. R. (1994). Comparison of expert and novice conductors: An approach to the analy-
sis of nonverbal behaviors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, 11–34.
Chaffin, R., & Imreh, G. (2001). A comparison of practice and self-report as sources of information about
the goals of expert practice. Psychology of Music, 29, 39–69.
Cofer, R. (1998). Effects of conducting-gesture instruction on seventh-grade band students’ performance
response to conducting emblems. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 360–373.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative
research (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Duke, R. A., & Henninger, J. C. (1998). Effects of verbal corrections on student attitude and performance.
Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 482–495.
Dweck, C. S., & Legget, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological
Review, 95, 256–273.
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck
(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). New York: The Guilford Press..
Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C.S. (2005). Competence and motivation: Competence as the core of achievement
motivation. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 3–12).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Ginsborg, J., Chaffin, R., & Nicholson, G. (2006). Shared performance cues in singing and conducting: A
content analysis of talk during practice. Psychology of Music, 34, 167–194.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Matthews and Kitsantas 645

Goolsby, T. W. (1999). A comparison of expert and novice music teachers’ preparing identical band com-
positions: An operational replication. Journal of Research in Music Education, 47, 174–187.
Green, E. A. H. (1987). The modern conductor. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R, Elliot, A. J., Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achieve-
ment goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 638–645.
Hamann, D. L., Mills, C., Bell, J., Daugherty, E., & Koozer, R. (1990). Classroom environment as related to
contest ratings among high school performing ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 38,
215–224.
Hodges, L., & Carron, A. V. (1989). Collective efficacy and group performance. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 23, 48–59.
Holden, R. (2003). The technique of conducting. In J. A. Bowen (Ed.), Conducting (pp. 3–16). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Howe, M., & Sloboda, J. A. (1991). Young musicians’ account of significant influences in their early lives:
Teachers, practicing, and performing. British Journal of Music Education, 8, 53–63.
Hoyt, C. L., Murphy, S. E., Halverson, S.K., & Watson, C. B. (2003). Group leadership: Efficacy and effec-
tiveness. Group Dynamics, 7, 259–274.
Labuta, J. A. (2000). Basic conducting techniques (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lichacz, F. M., & Parrington, J. T. (1996). Collective efficacy and true group performance. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, 146–158.
Luck, G., & Nte, S. (2008). An investigation of conductors’ temporal gestures and conductor—musician
synchronizations, and a first experiment. Psychology of Music, 36, 81–99.
Matthews, W. K., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Group cohesion, collective efficacy, and motivational climate as
predictors of conductor support in musical ensembles. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 6–17.
McPherson, G. E., & McCormick, J. (1999). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of musi-
cal practice. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 98–102.
MENC – The National Association for Music Education. (2006). National standards for music education.
Retrieved from http://www.menc.org/publication/books/standards.htm
Morrison, S. J., Price, H.E., Geiger, C. G., & Cornacchio, R. A. (2009). The effect of conductor expressivity
on ensemble performance evaluation. Journal of Research in Music Education, 57(1), 37–49.
Newton, M., & Duda, J. L. (1999). The interaction of motivational climate, dispositional goal orientations
and perceived ability in predicting indices of motivation. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 30,
63–82.
Nielsen, S. G. (2004). Strategies and self-efficacy beliefs in instrumental and vocal individual practice.
A study of students in higher music education. Psychology of Music, 32, 418–431.
Price, H. E. (1983). The effect of conductor academic task presentation, conductor reinforcement, and
ensemble practice on performers’ musical achievement and attitude. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 31, 245–257.
Price, H. E., & Byo, J. L. (2002). Rehearsing and conducting. In R. Parncutt & G. E. McPherson (Eds.), The
science and psychology of music performance (pp. 335–351). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ripley, R. L. (2003). The orchestra speaks. In J. A. Bowen (Ed), Conducting Cambridge (pp. 79–90).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Short, S., Sullivan, P., & Feltz, D. (2005). Development and preliminary validation of the collective efficacy
questionnaire for sports. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 9, 181–202.
Smith, B. P. (2005). Goal orientation, implicit theory of ability, and collegiate instrumental music practice.
Psychology of Music, 33, 36–57.
Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H. (2003). Leader and staff role-efficacy as antecedents of collective efficacy and
team performance. Human Performance, 16, 131–156.
Van de Pol, P. K. C., & Kavussanu, M. (2010). Achievement goals and motivational response to tennis?
Does the context matter? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 12, 176–183.
Van Weelden, K. (2002). Relationships between perceptions of conducting effectiveness and ensemble
performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 50, 165–176.
646 Psychology of Music 41(5)

Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (1999). Acquiring writing revision skill: Shifting from process to out-
come self-regulatory goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 241–250.
Zimmerman, B., & Kitsantas, A. (2005). Homework practices and academic achievement: The mediat-
ing role of self-efficacy and perceived responsibility beliefs. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30,
397–417.

Author biographies
Wendy K. Matthews is an Assistant Professor in the College of Fine, Performing & Communication
Arts at Wayne State University. Her research interests focus on the role of motivation and self-
regulation in music learning.

Anastasia Kitsantas is Professor of Educational Psychology in the College of Education and

Human Development at George Mason University, USA. Her research interests focus on the role
of self-regulation on learning and performance across diverse areas of functioning, including
academics, athletics, and health. She is the co-author or author of one book and over 100
scholarly publications, many of which are directed toward the training of self-regulation.