Music Performance Anxiety in Young Musicians
Comparison of Playing Classical or Popular Music
Manfred Nusseck, Dr rer nat, Mark Zander, Dr phil, and Claudia Spahn, Prof Dr med, Dipl Mus
Objectives: Music performance anxiety (MPA) is an issue
frequently experienced by musicians. It occurs not only in
experienced musicians but also in children and adolescents.
Furthermore, most research on MPA has been done with musi-
cians who specialized in classical music. This study investi-
gated the development of MPA across the ages in young musi-
cians focusing on the classical and popular genres. MethOds:
In a cross-sectional survey, 239 students at German music
schools, aged between 7 and 20 yrs, were asked about their
perceived MPA and musical background. The data were ana-
lyzed according to musical genre and age. Multiple regression
analyses were performed to investigate the influences of musi-
cal experiences on MPA. Results: The analyses yielded high
levels of MPA for classical musicians between 7 and 16 yrs,
which was reduced in older students; for popular musicians,
low MPA was seen in the younger (7–11 yrs) and high MPA
in the older (16+ yrs) musicians. MPA was influenced by
gender and the number of performances in the classical music
group and only by gender and age in the popular music group.
cOnclusiOn: The results showed clear different trends for the
development of MPA between musical genres that should be
taken into account for educational aspects in musical training.
Med Probl Perform Art 2015; 30(1):30–37.
R esearch on music performance anxiety (MPA) has
experienced an increasing interest over the last two
decades, and MPA has become a well-established con-
cept.1–4 MPA is basically considered to have positive value
when creating a state of readiness and awareness. On the
other hand, MPA can refer to a serious problem character-
izing a certain kind of anxiety related to embarrassment
and humiliation before or during music performances.1
Therefore, degrees of MPA can be distinguished into per-
formance-enhancing and performance-disturbing forms.3,4
Studies have shown that musicians reporting high levels of
MPA describe bodily and emotional distractions, which
produced negative effects on the quality of the perform
Dr. Nusseck is cognitive scientist and postdoctoral researcher at the
Freiburg Institute for Musicians’ Medicine; Dr. Zander is psychologist,
Educational Psychology Information Center, Freiburg; and Prof. Spahn is
Head of the Freiburg Institute for Musicians’ Medicine, at the University
of Music and University Clinic Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
The authors declare no funding or conflicts of interest.
Address correspondence to: Prof. Dr. med. Claudia Spahn, Freiburg Insti-
tute for Musicians’ Medicine, University of Music and University Clinic
Freiburg, Breisacherstrasse 60, D-79106 Freiburg, Germany. Tel 0049
761 270-61610, fax 0049 761-270-61690. claudia.spahn@uniklinik-
freiburg.de.
© 2015 Science & Medicine. www.sciandmed.com/mppa.
https://doi.org/10.21091/mppa.2015.1005
30 Medical Problems of Performing Artists
ance.3,5 The experience of MPA by a person can vary indi-
vidually and depends on the performance context—for
instance, performing solo or in an ensemble. The audience
is also a factor.6,7
MPA occurs for performers of all ages and was found
even in children in the early stages of musical training. In
classical instrumental education, 90% of adult musicians
dated the beginning of their musical learning before the
age of 12 yrs, and 50% even before the age of 7.8 Ryan9
showed that in children of 3 to 7 yrs, MPA appeared and
was related to their individual level of anxiousness. For
very young children of 3 to 4 yrs, Boucher and Ryan10
found that MPA was lower in children who had already
performed, compared to those who had not yet performed.
By comparing young musicians with different musical
skills, Osborne and colleagues11 found that the students
with less musical training scored lower on the Music Per-
formance Anxiety Inventory for Adolescents (MPAI-A)
scale than students of higher musical training of the same
age (11–13 yrs). Sadler and Miller12 showed that MPA
decreased with increasing years of musical training for
undergraduate music students (mean age 20 yrs). Sârbescu
and Dorgo13 found that performance frequency showed an
influence on the level of MPA, i.e., the more frequently
pupils performed, the lower the MPA score was.
A growing body of research focused on MPA in adoles-
cent musicians.13–18 In a sample of 15- to 19-yr-old pupils,
Fehm and Schmidt16 found about one third of the group
reported considerable MPA which directly influenced their
play. In general, female musicians scored higher in MPA
than males.6,14,18,19 A recent study on music school pupils
aged 12 to 18 yrs (using a multiple regression analysis)
found general anxiety to be a strong predictor for MPA18
and confirmed earlier findings.14
A well-established measure for empirical investigation of
MPA was developed by Osborne and Kenny.19 The MPAI-
A is a questionnaire assessing MPA specifically in adoles-
cents. It has been reliably evaluated on a sample of 381
young musicians aged 12 to 19 yrs who attended a school of
performing arts. Osborne and Kenny17,19 found that the
MPA rose between grade 7 (12–13 yrs) and grade 10 (15–16
yrs) and decreased afterwards to grade 12 (17–18 yrs).
Most of the studies on MPA used only classical-ori-
ented musicians of specific art schools. Moreover, the
musical genre orientation in the examined samples often
remains rather unclear, due to missing detailed descrip-
tions of the sample consistency. Some authors mentioned
that, in particular, classical musicians operate under
 TABLE 1. Sample Descriptions
Classical Music Popular Music p-Value:
(n=126) (n=113) Classical vs Popular
Gender 65% female 48% female 0.004
Age 11.1 (2.6) yrs 15.2 (2.6) yrs <0.001
7–11 yrs n=90 n=9
12–15 yrs n=27 n=55
16+ yrs n=9 n=49
Instruments
Piano 20% 21% <0.001a
Vocals 7% 19%
Strings 5% 8%
Woodwinds 39% 14%
Brass 12% 7%
Plucked 8% 18%
Drums/percussion 1% 13%
Accordion 8% 0%
No. of performances till now 18.7 (25.1) 18.5 (17.1) n.s.
Performances per year 4.4 (3.8) 3.8 (2.7) n.s.
Age of first performance 7.2 (2.1) yrs 9.6 (3.5) yrs <0.001
Time span between first performance and now 3.9 (2.5) yrs 5.7 (3.4) yrs <0.001
Instrumental lessons 4.3 (2.6) yrs 6.1 (3.4) yrs <0.001
a
Fisher’s exact test. Values in parentheses are SD.

extreme pressure, which can lead to an increase in
MPA.20,21 When questioning classical musicians and non-
classical musicians, the former emphasized more technical
and notation-based skills, whereas the latter relied more
on memorization and improvisation and included playing
for fun.20,22 Investigating MPA of young players (aged 15–
21 yrs) in marching brass bands, Levy et al.23 found a lower
prevalence of MPA symptoms compared to other studies
of classical musicians. In young band musicians (11–19
yrs), the highest level of MPA was found for the players in
the age group 14–19 yrs.11 In studies with adult musicians,
comparing professional musicians of the western classical
genre with musicians specialized in jazz, popular, and tra-
ditional (Scottish) music, Papageorgi and colleagues21
showed that classical musicians had higher levels of MPA.
Until now, the influence of the genre of music—classi-
cal vs popular music—on MPA in children and adolescent
musicians since the beginning of their instrumental educa-
tion has not been systematically examined. In the present
cross-sectional study, MPA in young musicians aged 7 to
20 yrs was investigated with a special focus on the musical
genre. For that, 239 students at different music schools spe-
cializing in either classical or popular music were asked by
questionnaire to evaluate MPA and performance practice.
METHODS
Participants
The sample was collected at different music schools in
Germany specializing in either classical or popular music
or both. These are schools in which every person who
wants to play an instrument can get lessons. They are not
specialized schools for gifted students with musical history.
During the past 10 years in Germany, there has been the
onset of music schools that are teaching current popular
music (pop, jazz, rock, etc.) to children and adolescents. In
regard to practices, rehearsals, lessons, and performances,
these schools are similarly organized as classical-oriented
music schools.
In total, 239 students participated in this survey and
were divided into a classical music group (n=126) and a
popular music group (n=113). Attribution to one of the two
groups was decided in consideration of the type of music
school and/or the instrument and/or musical genre
which was predominantly taught in the music lessons and
played by the student. The students were asked to indicate
the main instrument for which they received lessons.
Table 1 shows the range of instruments grouped into
instrumental categories for the classical and popular music
groups. The instruments were classified into piano, vocals,
strings (i.e., violin and violoncello), woodwinds (i.e., flute,
clarinet, and saxophone), brass (i.e., trumpet, flugelhorn,
and trombone), plucked instruments (i.e., guitar, bass, and
harp), as well as drums (including percussions) and accor-
dion. To perform statistical analyses on the instrumental
groups between musical genre groups, drums and accor-
dion were merged into one group.
The differences among the instrument distribution
were to be expected, as the classical music group generally
learned western classical literature mainly for string instru-
ments, piano, and, for the younger children, flute. The
popular music group focused their instrumental lessons on
rock, pop, and jazz literature mainly for band instruments,

March 2015 31
i.e., (e-)piano, (e-)guitar, vocals, and drums. Both groups,
however, had to participate in regular school perform-
ances for solo and ensemble.
The classical music group contained more female musi-
cians than the popular music group (65% to 48% females,
respectively), which confirm the findings of Creech and col-
leagues20 who also reported a majority of 60% females in clas-
sical musicians compared to 40% in non-classical musicians.
In our sample the mean age was 11.1 yrs for the classical
musicians and 15.2 yrs for the popular musicians, with a
significant difference between groups (Table 1). A classifi-
cation of the students into age groups was done by using
three age ranges: 7–11 yrs, 12–15 yrs, and 16 yrs and older
(Table 1). The age groups can be described as childhood
(Group 1), preadolescence (Group 2), and adolescence to
early adulthood (Group 3). This distinction goes along
with the transition that takes place between childhood
and adolescence caused by a combination of factors, i.e.,
innate temperament, increasing cognitive capacity, and
self-reflective functions.15 In the third group, the students
are close to finishing school or are already finished.
The number of students in the age groups differed
between classical and popular music. This represents the
common distribution at German music schools. In classi-
cal music schools, we find in the last few years more stu-
dents starting earlier with their instrument, but at the same
time more students giving up their instrument before fin-
ishing school. This change seems to be caused by the
reduction of school years in Germany, which allows less
time to continue playing an instrument. In contrast, our
sample of students in popular musical genre consisted of
fewer children, indicating that most students begin playing
an instrument at the age of 12 years and older. Obviously,
there are more students in popular music than in classical
music who continue taking music lessons after age 15 yrs.
Measurements
MPAI-A
The MPAI-A by Osborne and Kenny19 was specifically
designed for use with children and adolescents. It con-
tains 15 items that have to be rated on a 7-point Likert
scale ranging from “0—not at all” to “6—all of the time”
(score range 0–90). It assesses three components of per-
formance anxiety: somatic and cognitive symptoms (8
items, e.g., “Before I perform, I tremble or shake”; score
range 0–48), preferences in the performance context (3
items, e.g., “I try to avoid playing on my own at a school
concert”; score range 0–18), and performance evaluation
anxiety (4 items, e.g., “I worry that my parents or teacher
might not like my performance”; score range 0–24). Thus,
higher scores indicate higher MPA. The main scale has an
internal consistency of Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91.17,19 In
this study we used a translated German version. The total
MPAI-A scale showed an internal consistency of Cron-
bach’s alpha 0.82.
32 Medical Problems of Performing Artists
Questions about Musical Experiences
Beside gender, age, and main instrument played, the partic-
ipants were asked about their background of performance
experiences and the years of instrument lessons. Due to
the findings of Sârbescu and Dorgo,13 participants in our
study had to assess the number of performances they did
so far and estimate the average number of performances
per year. Also, students were asked to report their age at
the first performance. With this information, the time
span between the first performance and the interview was
calculated. The amount of practicing and rehearsals was
not included, as Sârbescu and Dorgo found no influence
of the time practiced on MPA.
Statistical Analysis
Analyses were conducted using SPSS 21 (IBM-SPSS Inc.,
Armonk, NY, USA). Descriptions of the population used
cross-tabulations and Pearson’s chi-squared analyses. Cor-
relation coefficients were calculated by bivariate (Pearson)
correlation tests. Analyses of mean differences were per-
formed with independent sample t-tests or with an analysis
of variance (ANOVA) for multiple factors. The linear mul-
tiple regression to identify predictors of the MPAI-A was
applied using the “enter” method where collinearity prob-
lems were eliminated by not including factors with high
correlations. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05 (5%).
RESULTS
In the whole sample (n=239), we found an average of 4.3
musical performances per year (SD 3.8) and an average of
18.6 performances in total (SD 21.8). There were no signif-
icant differences between the musical groups (Table 1). The
popular music group had about 2 yrs more instrument les-
sons and was more than 2 years older at their first per-
formance than the classical group.
MPAI-A Scores
The mean MPAI-A value across all 239 participants was
37.8 (SD 13.7) with no significant difference between the
musical genres (F(1,235)=0.259, p=0.611). There was a sig-
nificantly higher value for the female (39.8, SD 13.8) than
for the male subjects (35.0, SD 13.1, t(232)=2.696, p=0.008).
A univariate analysis of variances (ANOVA) for multiple
factors was conducted with the MPAI-A value as a
dependent variable and the factors instrument group, age
group, and music genre. There were no effects for the
single factors, but a significant interaction between music
genre and age group on MPA (F(2,203)=4.961, p=0.008).
As shown in Figure 1, there were significant differences
in MPA between both musical genres in the age group 7–11
yrs (t=2.309, p=0.040) and in the age group older than 16 yrs
(t=–3.170, p=0.002), but not in the age group 12–16 yrs
(t=0.340, p=0.735). Regarding the development of MPA
across the age groups in each musical genre, the mean
FIGURE 1. MPAI-A distribution across age groups and musical genre. Error bars show the SEM. Asterisks identify significant p-
values (*p<0.05, ***p=0.002); n.s., not significant.

MPAI-A values of the classical music group were not differ-
ent between the age groups 7–11 yrs and 12–16 yrs (Tukey
HSD: p=0.980) and decreased drastically in the oldest age
group (Tukey HSD: p=0.029). In contrast, the MPAI-A for
the students in the popular music group showed the lowest
MPA in the age group 7–11 yrs and increased to the age
group 12–16 yrs, though not significantly (Tukey HSD,
p=0.433). The further increase between the two older age
groups was also not significant (Tukey HSD, p=0.199),
whereas the difference between the youngest and the oldest
musicians was significant (Tukey HSD, p=0.04).
For the individual components of the MPAI-A (Table
2), the somatic and cognitive scale showed a significant effect
across the age groups in both music groups, especially
between the youngest and oldest groups (classical: Tukey
HSD, p=0.038; popular: Tukey HSD, p=0.015). There was
also a significant interaction between musical genre and
age group (F(2,235)=5.809, p=0.004).
The performance context scale showed a clear age group
effect in the classical music group. There were significant
differences between the age groups 7–11 yrs and 12–16 yrs
(Tukey HSD, p=0.040) and between 12–16 yrs and 16+ yrs
(Tukey HSD, p=0.004), with the highest value identified in
the age group 12–16 years (Table 2). The popular music
group, however, showed no effect across the age groups.
The interaction of music group and age group was not sig-
nificant (F(2,237)=0.747, p=0.475).
The performance evaluation scale showed no significant
effect for the classical music group, whereas the popular
music group showed significant differences between the
age groups 7–11 yrs and 16+ yrs (Tukey HSD, p=0.040)
and between 12–16 yrs and 16+ yrs (Tukey HSD,
p=0.043). The interaction of music group and age group
showed only a trend for significance (F(2,237)=2.681,
p=0.071).
Table 3 summarizes the relationship between musical
experiences and the MPAI-A. Only age correlated signifi-
cantly with the MPAI-A value for the popular music
group. For the classical music group, only the number of
performances showed a significant correlation.

TABLE 2. Mean Values of the Components of the MPAI-A Across Musical Genre and Age Groups
Performance Performance
Musical Genre Age Group Somatic/Cognitive Context Evaluation
Classical 7–11 yrs 22.8 (8.9) 9.1 (4.3) 6.3 (4.3)
12–16 yrs 20.3 (9.4) 11.5 (4.7) 5.9 (3.6)
16+ yrs 15.1 (5.1) 6.0 (4.4) 5.2 (2.5)
p=0.034 p=0.003 p=0.665
Popular 7–11 yrs 15.8 (6.9) 10.4 (3.9) 4.2 (2.6)
12–16 yrs 20.7 (8.9) 9.8 (4.3) 5.9 (4.2)
16+ yrs 24.8 (8.9) 8.8 (4.4) 7.8 (3.8)
p=0.006 p=0.374 p=0.011
Values in parentheses are SD.

March 2015 33
 TABLE 3. Intercorrelation Coefficients (Pearson’s r) Between MPA and Musical Experiences
Time span
No. of between first
Musical performances Performances Age of first performance Instrumental MPAI-A
genre till now per year performance and now lessons total score
Age CM 0.457** 0.108 0.421** 0.678** 0.748** –0.063
PM 0.314** 0.078 0.395** 0.357** 0.373** 0.281**
No. of performances till now CM 0.647** –0.258** 0.668** 0.643** –0.272**
PM 0.628** –0.294** 0.558** 0.453** –0.051
Performances per year CM –0.041 0.141 0.179 –0.104
PM 0.211* –0.165 0.029 –0.128
Age of first performance CM –0.369** –0.180* 0.103
PM –0.718** –0.422** 0.066
Time span between first CM 0.906** –0.128
performance and now PM 0.708** 0.163
Instrumental lessons CM –0.135
PM 0.167
CM, classical music group; PM, popular music group.
Asterisks identify significant p-values: *p<0.05, **p<0.01.

Regression Analysis
To collectively investigate which variable of musical expe-
riences influences the MPA variance, a multiple linear
regression was conducted for both music groups individu-
ally. The predicted outcome was the total MPAI-A scale
value and the variables were gender, age, number of per-
formances, years of instrumental lessons, average perform-
ances per year, the time span between the first perform-
ance and now, and the age of the first performance. For
both groups, preliminary analyses to avoid violation of
regression assumptions of normality, linearity, and
collinearity were performed.
Predictors of MPA in the Classical Music Group
As the correlation between “years of instrumental lessons”
with “time span between the first performance and now” is
very high (r=0.906), the variable of the time span was
deleted from the predictor list to avoid collinearity errors.
The model of regression was statistically significant
(F(6,107)=2.839, p=0.013), indicating that at least one of the
variables is able to sufficiently influence the MPAI-A value.
The model was able to explain 14% (r=0.375) variance of the
MPAI-A. Table 4 summarizes the individual contributions
of each variable. The main influencing variables were the
number of performances until now, gender, and the
number of performances per year. A higher number of
yearly performances and female gender predicted higher
values of MPAI-A, and a higher number of performances
until now predicted lower values of MPAI-A.
The tolerance values are the percentages of variance of
the variable which is not predictable by the other variables
in the model. Low tolerances (<0.100) indicate problems of
multi-collinearity with other variables. In this model, age
and instrument lessons were fairly correlated with each
other and also showed rather low tolerance values. Both
predictors, however, did not contribute significantly to the
model estimate (subset regression without these variables
yields 12%, r=0.340). The tolerances of the significant vari-
ables were acceptable and indicated that these variables
contribute independently to the model.
Predictors of MPA in the Popular Music Group
For the regression model, the variable “age of first per-
formance” was removed as a predictor due to very low
collinearity tolerance (<0.01). The model was statistically
significant (F(6,68)=2.913, p<0.014) and able to explain 21%
of the variance (r=0.455). Table 5 shows that the main
influencing variables in the popular music group were only
gender and age. Higher age and female gender predicted
higher MPAI-A values.
DISCUSSION
Two populations of young musicians with either classical
or popular music orientation were compared in their expe-
rience of MPA. Despite the fact that both music groups
focus on different music styles and on diverse instruments,
they received rather similar numbers of lessons at the music
schools and had to perform in occasional school perform-
ances. This can be confirmed by the similar number of total
performances and the number of performances per year.
The correlations also show that the number of perform-
ances per year is neither related to the age or to the years of
instrument lessons. Furthermore, the moment of the first
performance was similar for both music groups, about half
a year (~4 months) after the start of the instrument lessons.
Nevertheless, the age of the first performance lay in the

34 Medical Problems of Performing Artists

 TABLE 4. Contributions of the Variables to MPA of the Classical Music Group (n=126)
Standardized
Predictor β Coefficient
Gendera,b 0.219
Age 0.317
No. of performances –0.590
Performances per year 0.295
Age of first performance –0.109
Instrumental lessons –0.059
a
Female (value = 1) is the reference group and male is the comparative group (value = 0).
b
Females, mean MPA 38.6 (SD 13.8); males, mean MPA 34.7 (SD 12.4); p=0.116.
classical music group more than 2 years earlier than in the
popular music group, reflecting the fact that classical musi-
cians start earlier on their instruments.
Between the classical and the popular music groups,
there was an unequal distribution of the number of stu-
dents in the three age groups. The classical music students
were more represented in the youngest age group and less
in the older group. In contrast, the popular music students
were fewer in the youngest age group and more frequent in
the oldest age group. As already explained, this distribu-
tion of age cannot be interpreted as an artifact in our
sample, but rather it is representative of contemporary
music schools, at least the classical ones. Nonetheless, rea-
sons for dropping out or staying still need to be investi-
gated further. Possible explanations would be that those
who wanted to follow a professional music career probably
changed the music school or received more private lessons,
and those who did not like playing/learning an instru-
ment discontinued the training. Nevertheless, this pre-
sented cross-sectional study shows a temporal picture of
the present situation at the included music schools. To
investigate the detailed development of MPA across age,
musical genre, and the musical biography, longitudinal
studies should be applied.
The results on MPA showed significantly higher MPA
scores for the female music students. This confirms the
findings of several other studies.11,14,18 Across all partici-
pants, there was no difference in MPA between both musi-
cal genres. The interaction between musical genre and age
group, however, yielded different trends in MPA over time.
In the younger age groups, the students of classical music
showed rather high MPA values, whereas the older stu-
dents reported very low MPA. It is possible that the strict
requirements for playing a classical piece forces higher
levels of MPA in the early states, whereas with more expe-
rience and technical skills, the anxiety reduces. In con-
trast, the popular music students started with rather low
MPA, increased the MPA value over the years, and
showed the highest MPA in the oldest age group. This
could be due to the increasing perception of competition
for adolescents and certain self-imposed demands.15 To
address possible influences of cognitive factors for these
different trends, more specific research is needed.
Collinearity
t Sign. Tolerance
2.200 0.03 0.815
1.125 0.263 0.141
–3.153 0.002 0.231
2.065 0.04 0.394
–0.562 0.576 0.212
–0.245 0.807 0.139
Osborne and colleagues11 found that, for band musi-
cians, the highest MPA values were in the older group (14–
19 yrs) which our results can clearly confirm for the popu-
lar music group. For classical musicians, Osborne and
Kenny19 described rather high MPA for 10th-grade stu-
dents (15–16 yrs) and a decrease for older ones. Likewise,
the MPA values of our study in the classical music group
showed a similar finding.
Musicians of the popular music genre are often associ-
ated with less nervousness and anxiety.21,22 Compared to
classically educated musicians, in our study this idea
cannot be confirmed. Particularly in the oldest group of
our sample, the students in the popular music group scored
higher in MPA than their classical colleagues. This is also
in contradiction to findings of Papageorgi et al.,21 who
found an inverted result in their sample that consisted of
undergraduate music students and professional musicians,
with a mean age of 29.1 yrs for the classical and 23.9 yrs for
the non-classical musicians (range 18–62 yrs). Our study
addressed young musicians at their rather early state of
instrumental learning who had not (yet) decided on some
sort of musical career. Therefore, the results of Papageorgi
and our study cannot be directly compared.
To investigate the influence of musical experiences on
MPA, we performed a multiple regression analysis consid-
ering the musical history of the musicians. The explana-
tions of variance of the regression models are rather low
for both music groups. This indicates that there are other
factors that better predict MPA. Nevertheless, the main
focus of this analysis was not to explain the total variances
of MPA, but to investigate the influence of musical experi-
ences. Both models, however, were significant, revealing
the importance of the indicated variables.
For both music groups, gender accounts most for the
level of MPA. As has been discussed earlier, male musi-
cians scored lower on MPA than females. The regression
prediction confirms the findings of Sârbescu and Dorgo13
who also used multiple regression analyses.
The level of MPA of the classical musicians was addition-
ally influenced by the total number of performances and
the amount of performances per year. Thereby, the more
they performed in total, the lower the MPA. This indicates
that the global history of performances can reduce the per-
March 2015 35
 TABLE 5. Contributions of the Variables to MPA of the Popular Music Group (n=113)
Predictor
Gendera,b
Age
No. of performances
Performances per year
Time span between first performance and now
Instrumental lessons
a
Female (value = 1) is the reference group and male is the comparative group (value = 0).
b
Females, mean MPA 41.6 (SD 13.6); males, mean MPA 35.3 (SD 13.7); p=0.017.
ceived anxiety. Sârbescu and Dorgo13 also found a nega-
tive correlation of performance frequency on MPA, indi-
cating that more performances per year reduced the MPA.
In our study, however, there was a surprising difference
between the effect of total performances and of perform-
ances per year on MPA. The more the musicians in our
classical group performed per year, the higher the MPA. A
possible explanation for this could be that the general per-
formance frequency of the students of Sârbescu and
Dorgo13 was rather high compared to the number of per-
formances per year in our sample (roughly four perform-
ances). It is therefore possible that performing on a higher
level and by performing more often, the effect can be
reversed and the anxiety reduced. This particular finding
in our sample needs to be further investigated.
Regarding the individual components of the MPAI–A,
it is noteworthy that there was a significant increase in the
performance context scale in the age group 12–16 yrs by
the classical musicians. Obviously, adolescents at this age
are especially reluctant to expose themselves in a solo set-
ting on stage. This should be taken into account when
pedagogues are planning concerts with their pupils. Per-
forming in an ensemble setting could be helpful for stu-
dents in overcoming MPA.
In the regression model, the popular musicians showed
only an influence by gender and age. The older they were,
the more anxious they were. As there was no influence of
musical experiences at all, other aspects, such as cognitive
changes, may be due to the transition from childhood to
adolescence, and the creation of anxiety and self-
criticism,15 which were not examined in our study, could
have a larger influence.
CONCLUSIONS
This study contributes to the discussion on MPA develop-
ment in young musicians. It focused on the influence of
the musical genre and aspects of musical experiences
across the ages of 7 to 20 yrs. The results showed that pop-
ular and classical musicians yielded different trends in
MPA across their ages. For classical musicians, the per-
formance frequency and the amount of performances in
total showed influences on MPA, whereas for popular
36 Medical Problems of Performing Artists
Standardized Collinearity
β Coefficient t Sign. Tolerance
0.278 2.386 0.02 0.864
0.341 2.744 0.008 0.757
–0.207 –0.851 0.398 0.200
0.012 0.056 0.956 0.256
–0.021 –0.095 0.924 0.231
0.064 0.405 0.687 0.469
musicians, no effects of musical experiences were found.
Interestingly, for both groups, the years of instrument
study and the age of the first performance showed no
influences on the level of MPA.
The findings comprise indications for music pedagogy
and education. Studies already suggested that MPA should
be considered with appropriate cognitive and psychologi-
cal strategies, especially for adolescent musicians17,24 but
also for adults.4,21 For instance, executing relaxation meth-
ods such as Yoga had shown to reduce performance anxi-
ety in adolescent musicians.25 Techniques addressing the
handling of MPA should be included from the beginning
of the musical training to prevent possible problems in the
future.26 The findings of this study implicate the use of dif-
ferent approaches for young musicians with different
musical specializations.
REFERENCES
1. Nagel JJ. Treatment of music performance anxiety via psycho-
logical approaches: a review of selected CBT and psychody-
namic literature. Med Probl Perform Art 2010;25:141–148.
2. Brugués AO. Music performance anxiety. Med Probl Perform
Art 2011;26:102–105.
3. Kenny DT. The Psychology of Music Performance Anxiety. Oxford,
Oxford Univ. Press, 2011.
4. Spahn C. Lampenfieber: Handbuch für den erfolgreichen Auftritt:
Grundlagen, Analyse, Maßnahmen [Performance Anxiety: Hand-
book for Successful Performances: Background, Analysis, Meth-
ods]. Leipzig, Henschel Publish., 2012.
5. Kenny DT, Driscoll T, Ackermann B. Psychological well-being
in professional orchestral musicians in Australia: a descriptive
population study. Psychol Music, published online 12 Dec 2012.
6. LeBlanc A, Jin YC, Obert M, Siivola C. Effect of audience on
music performance anxiety. J Res Music Educ 1997;45(3):480–
496.
7. Papageorgi I. The influence of the wider context of learning,
gender, age and individual differences on adolescent musicians’
performance anxiety. In Williamon A, Coimbra D (eds). Proceed-
ings of the International Symposium on Performance Science 2007.
Utrecht, European Association of Conservatoires (AEC), 2007,
pp219–224.
8. Nagel JJ. Performance anxiety theory and treatment: one size
does not fit all. Med Probl Perform Art 2004;19:39–43.
9. Ryan CA. Experience of musical performance anxiety in ele-
mentary school children. Int J Stress Manag 2005;12:331–342.
10. Boucher H, Ryan CA. Performance stress and the very young
musician. J Res Music Educ 2011;58(4):329–345.
11. Osborne MS, Kenny DT, Holsomback R. Assessment of music
performance anxiety in late childhood: a validation study of the
Music Performance Anxiety Inventory for Adolescents (MPAI-
A). Int J Stress Manag 2005;12:312-330.
12. Sadler ME, Miller CJ. Performance anxiety: a longitudinal study
of the roles of personality and experience in musicians. Soc Psy-
chol Personality Sci 2010;1:280-287.
13. Sârbescu P, Dorgo M. Frightened by the stage or by the public?:
exploring the multidimensionality of music performance anxi-
ety. Psychol Music, published online 31 July 2013.
14. Rae G, McCambridge K. Correlates of performance anxiety in
practical music exams. Psychol Music 2004;32:432–439.
15. Kenny DT, Osborne MS. Music performance anxiety: new
insights from young musicians. Adv Cogn Psychol 2006;2(2-
3):103-112.
16. Fehm L, Schmidt K. Performance anxiety in gifted adolescent
musicians. Anx Disord 2006;20:98–109.
17. Osborne MS, Kenny DT. The role of sensitizing experiences in
music performance anxiety in adolescent musicians. Psychol
Music 2008;36(4):447–462.
18. Thomas JP, Nettelbeck T. Performance anxiety in adolescent
musicians. Psychol Music, published online 31 July 2013.
19. Osborne MS, Kenny DT. Development and validation of a
music performance anxiety inventory for gifted adolescent musi-
cians. Anx Disord 2005;19:725–751.
20. Creech A, Papageorgi I, Duffy C, et al. Investigating musical per-
formance: commonality and diversity amongst classical and
non-classical musicians. Music Educ Res 2008;10(2):215–234.
21. Papageorgi I, Creech A, Welch G. Perceived performance anxi-
ety in advanced musicians specializing in different musical
genres. Psychol Music 2011;41(1):18–41.
22. Green L. How Popular Musicians Learn: A Way Ahead for Music
Education. London, Ashgate Popular and Folk Music, 2008.
23. Levy JL, Castille CM, Farley JA. An investigation of musical
performance anxiety in the marching arts. Med Probl Perform
Art 2011;26(1):30–34.
24. Spahn C. Auftritt und Lampenfieber—Kompetenzerwerb durch
musikalische Bildung im Kindes- und Jugendalter [Performance
and performance anxiety—competence development with musi-
cal education in children and adolescence]. In: Bernatzky G,
Kreutz G (eds): Musik und Medizin—Chancen für Therapie, Präven-
tion und Bildung. [Music and Medicine—Chances for Therapy, Pre-
vention, and Education]. Wien, Springer, 2015.
25. Khalsa SBS, Butzer B, Shorter SM, et al. Yoga reduces perform-
ance anxiety in adolescent musicians. Altern Ther Health Med
2013;19(2):34-45.
26. Spahn C. Treatment and prevention of music performance anx-
iety. In: Altenmüller E, Boller F, Finger S. Music, Neurology, and
Neuroscience: History and Modern Perspectives. [Progress in Brain
Research.] Oxford, Elsevier, 2015.
March 2015 37