In our previous posts, we explored the general nature of music performance anxiety (MPA) and how solo and group performances differ in their psychological impact. Now, we turn to a crucial factor in MPA: the presence of an audience. Fancourt et al. (2015) shed light on the audience’s role in heightening or alleviating anxiety in musicians, highlighting that simply being observed can alter a performer’s psychological and physiological state.
The Psychology of Being Watched
The mere presence of an audience can trigger the well-documented phenomenon known as the social facilitation effect (Zajonc, 1965). This theory suggests that when individuals are being watched, their dominant response tendencies become amplified. For well-practiced musicians, this can enhance performance, but for those experiencing self-doubt or playing more difficult repertoire, it may increase errors and hesitation.
Fancourt et al. (2015) demonstrated that the presence of an audience could significantly increase musicians’ heart rate, perspiration, and stress hormone levels, all of which are physiological markers of anxiety. Importantly, this reaction occurred even when musicians reported enjoying performing, suggesting that audience presence induces an automatic stress response regardless of a performer’s confidence level.
When the Audience Becomes a Stressor
The study found that MPA was particularly pronounced in musicians who perceived the audience as judgmental or evaluative rather than supportive. This aligns with previous research on evaluation apprehension (Cottrell, 1972), which proposes that anxiety spikes when individuals believe they are being critically assessed. For musicians, this perception can be heightened in high-stakes settings such as competitions, auditions, and formal concerts, where the expectation of perfection is ingrained.
Interestingly, not all audiences evoke the same response. Performers often report feeling less anxious in informal or familiar settings, such as playing for friends and family, compared to performing for a panel of adjudicators. This suggests that perceived audience intentions (whether they are there to support or to judge) play a vital role in shaping anxiety levels.
The Power of Reframing
One of the most insightful findings from Fancourt et al. (2015) was that musicians who viewed the audience as collaborators in the musical experience rather than as critics tended to experience less performance anxiety. This shift in perspective aligns with cognitive-behavioral approaches to MPA, which encourage musicians to reinterpret physiological anxiety responses as signs of excitement rather than fear (Clark & Agras, 1991).
Performers who engaged in mental preparation techniques, such as visualization and positive self-talk, were better equipped to handle audience pressure. Likewise, exposure to performance situations (through frequent concerts or simulated performances) helped desensitize musicians to the stress of being observed.
Looking Ahead
Understanding the audience effect is essential for both performers and educators. Recognizing that anxiety is a natural response to being watched can help musicians develop strategies to manage it effectively. In our next post, we’ll explore practical interventions and coping mechanisms that musicians can use to navigate MPA and enhance their performance experience.
Stay tuned for evidence-based strategies to transform performance anxiety into a powerful tool for musical growth!
References
Cottrell, N. B. (1972). Social facilitation. In C. G. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp. 185–236). Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Clark, D. M., & Agras, W. S. (1991). The assessment and treatment of performance anxiety in musicians. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148(5), 598–605.
Fancourt, D., Williamon, A., Carvalho, L. A., Steptoe, A., & Dow, R. (2015). The psychoneuroimmunology of music: Modulation of psychological state and stress-related physiological responses by music performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1156.
Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269–274.
Comments