THE THREE-SYSTEMS MODEL AND

SELF EFFICACY THEORY: PIANO PERFORMANCE ANXIETY

BY

MICHELLE GENEVIEVE CRASKE

B.A., University of Tasmania, 1980

B.A.(HONS), University of Tasmania, 1981

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

(Department of Psychology)

We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

December, 1982

(c) Michelle Genevieve Craske, 1982 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.

Michelle G. Craske

Department of Psychology

The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3

Date December 20, 1982

DE-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT

This study examined contrasting predicitions from Self Efficacy

theory and the Three-Systems model of fear and anxiety, in the context

of musical performance anxiety. Further experimental evidence was

sought for Hodgson and Rachmans' (1974) hypotheses derived from the

three-systems model, and for Bandura's predicted relationships between

the construct of self efficacy and behavioural, physiological and verbal response systems.

Pianists, who rated themselves as either 'relatively anxious' or

'relatively nonanxious' solo performers, were asked to play a musical piece under two conditions. First, the pianists played alone under non-evaluative conditions. Second, they played before an audience and videocamera under evaluative conditions. Measures were taken of each response system during both performance conditions; behavioural measures included performance quality and a timed checklist of observable signs of anxiety; self report measures included the State Anxiety scale,

SUD scales, Self Statement scales and several self efficacy scales; and autonomic measures, recorded continuously via telemtry, included heart rate, respiration and skin conductance.

The audience condition was found to elicit more intense emotional responses in relatively anxious pianists; this condition elicited less intense emotional responses in relatively nonanxious pianists. These group effects were enhanced when extreme scorers were analysed. In the audience condition, the relatively anxious group exhibited increased levels of anxiety in each of the response systems (i.e. synchrony), while desynchrony was observed in the relatively nonanxious group. Correlations among the dependent measures were generally weak, but concordance was most often observed when intense emotional responses were elicited.

The results obtained lent support to the three-systems model. In contrast to Bandura's predictions, self efficacy did not correlate with levels of anxiety in each response system. Issues raised by the study included the importance of multiple-system measurement, treatment implications, contrasts between 'analogue' and 'clinical' populations, and the complexity of the phenomenon of anxiety. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES vii

LIST OF FIGURES viii

LIST OF APPENDICES ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x

INTRODUCTION 1

LITERATURE REVIEW 5

Theoretical Accounts of Fear 5

Behavioural Conceptualisations 5 Classical Conditioning 5 Two-Stage Theory 5 Incubation Model 7 Cognitive-Behavioural Conceptualisations 9 Self Efficacy Theory 10 Criticisms of Self Efficacy Theory 14 The Nature of Fear 16 Formulation of the Three-Systems Model 16 The Three Systems of Fear 17 Interdependency of the Three Systems 19 Synchrony and Desynchrony 20 Theoretical Implications 21 Supporting Evidence 22 Measurement Issues 25 Verbal Response System 25 Autonomic Response System 26 Behavioural Response System 27 Treatment Issues 31 Response Treatment Matching 31

Response System Generalization in Reaction to Treatment 34 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 38 Self Efficacy Versus The Three-Systems Model 38 Theoretical Contrast 38 Treatment Choice Contrast 42 Experimental Evidence 43 Self Efficacy as an Hypothetical Construct 43 Purpose of the Study 45

Experimental Hypotheses 46

METHOD 48 Subjects 48

Experimental Setting 49 Self-Report Measures 49

Behavioural Measures 52 Autonomic Measures 53 Apparatus and Equipment 55

Assessment Conditions 57 Procedure 58 Selection of Subjects 58 Alone Condition 59 Audience Condition 61 Debriefing 61 Design and Statistical Analyses 61

RESULTS 63 Summary of Findings 63 Preliminary Variables 66 Validity of the Screening Index 69 Interrater Reliabilities 69 'Vigour', 'Video* and 'Respiration' Design Control Measures 72 Group Means Analyses 72 Extreme Group Means Analyses 82 Correlations Among Dependent Measures 96 Self Efficacy 107

DISCUSSION 117 Experimental Manipulations 118 Three Response Systems 124 Self Efficacy 136 Conclusion 140 vi

REFERENCES 143

APPENDICES 153 vii

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table I Means, Standard Deviations and F Values for Males and Females on Each Dependent Variable 67

Table II Interrater Reliabilities Assessed by Pearson Correlations 70

Table III Phi-Correlations for the Timed Checklist of Observable Signs of Anxiety 71

Table IV Pearson Correlations Between Vigour and Both Respiration and Heart Rate 73

Table V Group Frequencies of Reported Awareness, Suspicion and Unawareness of the Camera 74

Table VI Pearson Product Moment Coefficients Between Respiration Rate and Heart Rate 75

Table VII Means and Standard Deviations for Each Dependent Measure 77

Table VIII Means and Standard Deviations for Each Dependent

Measure for the Most Anxious and Least Anxious Groups 83

Table IX Pearson Correlations Between Behavioural Measures 98

Table X Pearson Correlations Between Self-Report Measures 99

Table XI Pearson Correlations Between Autonomic Measures 101

Table XII Pearson Correlations Between Behavioural and Self-Report Measures 102 Table XIII Pearson Correlations Between Behavioural and Autonomic Measures 104

Table XIV Pearson Correlations Between Self-Report and Autonomic Measures 106

Table XV Means and Standard Deviations of Self Efficacy Measures 109

Table XVI Means and Standard Deviations for Item 2 of the Self Efficacy Scale 111

Table XVII Pearson Correlations Between Self Efficacy and Dependent Variables 113

Table XVIII Pearson Correlations Between Self Efficacy Strength at Three Levels and Heart Rate 115 viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure 1 Mean Performance Quality for Relatively Anxious, Relatively Nonanxious, Most Anxious and Least Anxious Pianists 86

Figure 2 Mean Timed Checklist Scores for Relatively Anxious, Relatively Nonanxious, Most Anxious and Least Anxious Pianists 87

Figure 3 Mean Self Efficacy Strength for Relatively Anxious, Relatively Nonanxious, Most Anxious and Least Anxious Pianists 89

Figure 4 Mean Total SUDS for Relatively Anxious, Relatively Nonanxious, Most Anxious and Least Anxious Pianists 90

Figure 5 Mean State Anxiety for Relatively Anxious, Relatively Nonanxious, Most Anxious and Least Anxious Pianists 91

Figure 6 Mean Number of Negative Self Statements for Relatively Anxious, Relatively Nonanxious, Most Anxious and Least Anxious Pianists 93

Figure 7 Mean Heart Rate (Range Corrected) Prior to Playing for Relatively Anxious, Relatively Nonanxious, Most Anxious and Least Anxious Pianists 94

Figure 8 Mean Heart Rate (Range Corrected) During Performances for Relatively Anxious, Relatively Nonanxious, Most Anxious and Least Anxious Pianists 95 LIST OF APPENDICES

Page

Appendix 1 Initial Contact 153

Appendix 2 Report of Confidence as a Performer 154

Appendix 3 Subject Data 156

Appendix 4 General Trait Anxiousness Scale for Pianists 157

Appendix 5A State Scale (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory) 158

Appendix 5B SUD Scale 159

Appendix 5C Retrospective SUD Scale 160

Appendix 5D Expectations of Personal Efficacy Scale 161

Appendix 5E Self Efficacy Scale (Alone Condition) 163

Appendix 5F Self Efficacy Scale (Audience Condition) 164 Appendix 5G Performance Anxiety Self Statement Scale (Alone Condition) 165 Appendix 5H Performance Anxiety Self Statement Scale (Audience Condition) 168 Appendix 6 Definitions of Performance Quality Dimensions 171 Appendix 7 Performance Quality Rating Sheet 172 Appendix 8 Timed Behavioural Checklist (Rating Sheet and Definition of Terms) 173 Appendix 9 Audience Checklist ' 174 Appendix 10 Phone Contact Instructions 175 Appendix 11 Subject Data Sheet 176 Appendix 12 Performance Schedule 177 Appendix 13 First Set of Subject Instructions - Alone Condition 178 Appendix 14 Consent Form 1 179 Appendix 15 Debriefing Instructions in Alone Condition 180 Appendix 16 Consent Form 2 181 Appendix 17 First Set of Subject Instructions - Audience Condition 182 Appendix 18 Video Camera Questionnaire 183 Appendix 19 Second Set of Subject Instructions - Audience Condition 184

Appendix 20 Debriefing Letter 185

Appendix 21 Absolute Values of Heart Rate and Skin Conductance Level 188 Appendix 22 Summary of Repeated Measures Univariate Analyses of Variance 189 Appendix 23 Summary of Group x Condition x Time of Measurement Analyses of Variance 192

Appendix 24 Summary of Significant Univariate Analyses of Variance for Most Anxious and Least Anxious Pianists 194 X

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor K.D. Craig, whose

guidance and help throughout this work have been greatly appreciated.

I am also indebted to Professor D. Reubart and Dr. M. Kendrick for

their helpful suggestions concerning musical performance.

My thanks are also extended to Dr. W. Iacono and Michael Kozak

for their instruction in psychophysiology and to Dr. Peter Graystone

for his consultation in the use of telemetry.

I also want to thank Dr. J. Steiger and Marsha Schroeder for their

statistical supervision.

Finally, I would like to thank my family for their "long distance" encouragement, and my fellow students for their support. I am especially grateful to Charlie for his unfailing help, advice and understanding. 1

INTRODUCTION

The behavioural conceptualisation of fear and anxiety has recently

undergone two separate developments. First, a multicomponent theory,

which challenges the unitary model of fear, has emerged. Second, cognitive

variables have been assigned causal status within behavioural frameworks.

However, the essential features of each of these developments are disparate.

Gradual accumulation of empirical evidence contradicting features of

Mowrer's two-factor theory, and related unitary models of fear, led Lang

(1968) to suggest a new model which described fear reactions as comprising

three loosely coupled components, or, response systems. This "three-

systems" analysis was further elaborated by Rachman and Hodgson (1974).

The model proposed that the three major responses systems - behavioural,

autonomic and self report/verbal - are interactive, yet also partially

independent. As such, the systems are able to respond with different

intensities at any given time (i.e. discordance) and with different rates of change over time (i.e. desynchrony) (Lang, 1971; Rachman and Hodgson,

1974). The three-systems model has been widely accepted and is supported by considerable empirical evidence. The model is able to explain observed

individual differences in fear reactions, and has important treatment imp• lications. In addition, new concepts have been generated by this model, such as the 'pathways of fear acquisition' (Rachman, 1976), client by treatment matching, and the 'return of fear' (Rachman, 1979a).

Bandura's Self Efficacy theory (1977) remains the most significant cognitive-behavioural conceptualisation of fear and anxiety. Bandura proposed a single superordinate cognitive mechanism to account for changes in each response system. That is, conviction in one's ability to perform particular 2

tasks is believed to mediate subjective, autonomic and behavioural anxiety.

Self Efficacy theory offers a parsimonious interpretation of fear enhancement

and fear reduction, regardless of specific treatment strategies.

In the search for a single underlying factor that accounts for the

effectiveness of the various fear reduction techniques, Rachman (1980) proposed the notion of 'emotional processing' while Lang (1980) emphasised

the role of 'emotional imagery'; both incorporate a three-systems concept•

ualisation of fear. In contrast, Bandura asserted that self efficacy is the

active mediating agent in all response system changes; self efficacy theory

is primarily based on a unitary model of fear. A three-systems approach allows considerable variation in response patterns, and states conditions under which concordance and/or synchrony are more likely to occur (Hodgson and Rachman, 1974). On the other hand, self'efficacy theory simplifies

the fear reaction be de-emphasising such variation. In recognising the merits of both approaches, Wilson (1978) suggested that they be combined:

Hodgson and Rachman (1974) have thoughtfully set out the various clinical and experimental observations that have been reported. However, an explicit theory to explain the findings is still needed. Self efficacy theory is one alternative. Instead of ordering the desynchrony data in terms of the effects of different techniques, a finer grained analysis may generate predictions on the basis of the strength and generality of the efficacy expectations induced by the different methods. Inevitably, it will require a sophisticated and complex analysis of this sort in accounting for highly variable patterns of behaviour that are observed in therapeutic outcomes. (p. 225)

However, Wilson appears to have overlooked the fact that self efficacy theory does not contain elements that account for the independence of the response systems.

Indeed, as a result of their differing fundamental suppositions, many critical predictions of the three-systems model and of self efficacy theory are contradictory. Although this conflict has been cited in the literature (Borkovec, 1978; Wolpe, 1978), little research has been 3

conducted in order to explicitly test the conflicting predictions. Ban•

dura's research in this area has been largely restricted to analogue

populations (snake and spider phobics within college students). However,

assessments of analogue fears are susceptible to extraneous situational

influences that limit generalizability (Borkovec, 1976). As an alternat•

ive, performance anxiety is especially suitable for this type of research

as it can be severely debilitating, and groups representing different

levels of anxiety are differentiable on autonomic, behavioural and verbal

measures (Galassi, Frierson and Sharer; Holroyd, Westbrook, Kirkland,

Jones and Van Norman, 1979; Sherry and Levine, 1980).

Specifically, musical performance anxiety, like speech anxiety (Bork• ovec and O'Brien, 1976) is of a pervasive nature and often persists despite repeated exposures. Musical performance anxiety generally entails worry about performance, preoccupation with feelings of inadequacy, and heightened somatic and autonomic arousal (Kendrick, Craig, Lawson and

Davidson, 1982). Kendrick (1979) identified several important distinguish• ing characteristics of musical performance anxiety. First, unlike many other performance test situations, temporary lapses of concentration are very detrimental and have immediate effects on performance. Also, errors are more conspicuous in a well-known set piece of music as opposed to speech performance where "ad libbing" is possible. Moreover, the complexity of the motor skills involved renders musical performance very vulnerable to the effects of autonomic arousal.

Self efficacy theory predicts that high levels of perceived self efficacy produce performance mastery, and little, if any, autonomic arousal or subjective fear. The converse is predicted for preceived inefficaciousness.

Therefore, Bandura implies that, in general, the three response systems are likely to be concordant at any given time in direct correspondence to the level and strength of self efficacy, and that changes in self efficacy will be accompanied by synchronous changes in the response systems. In contrast, the three-systems model predicts that the degree of concordance depends upon the intensity of the emotional response and demand features of the situation. Also, the systems are believed to respond differentially to contrasting environmental manipulations (DeSilva and Rachman, 1981).

More specifically, under conditions which evoke strong emotional responses, where, according to the three-systems model, fearful individuals are most likely to respond with comparably high levels of anxiety in each response system (i.e. concordance), the presence of low self efficacy would most likely correlate with each response system. As such,' the causal role of either self efficacy and/or the intensity of the emotional response could not be determined. However, Bandura's theory would not be supported when self efficacy is high and the response systems concordantly indicate fear. Under conditions that do not evoke strong emotional responses fearful individuals are most likely to respond with discordance according to the three-systems model. In direct contrast, Bandura suggests that under such conditions, self efficacy would be higher, and accompanied by compar• ably low levels of anxiety in each response system (i.e. concordance). In this study the different predictions of the three-systems model and self efficacy theory have been examined in the context of musical performance anxiety in pianists. 5

LITERATURE REVIEW

THEORETICAL ACCOUNTS OF FEAR

The investigation of fear reactions over the past forty years has

resulted in substantial theoretical developments from early traumatic conditioning models. Those earlier models, unable to account for many characteristics of fear and anxiety, have been replaced by more elaborate cognitive-behavioural conceptualisations that acknowledge the complexity of fear and mediational processes. By rejecting the notion that fear is a unitary response system, and by recognising the role of cognitive processes as important causal mediators of behaviour, recent theories have proven more adequate.

This chapter describes the major behavioural models and their weaknesses and the newly evolved cognitive-behavioural conceptualisations exemplified by Bandura's (1977) Self Efficacy theory.

Behavioural Conceptualisations

Classical Conditioning In the early 1920's, Watson and Rayner postulated

that neutral stimuli (or, conditioned stimuli (CS)) associated with intrins•

ically painful or frightening events (or, unconditioned stimuli (UCS)), developed fearful qualities; the strength of the fear (or, conditioned

response (CR)) being determined by the number of repetitions of the assoc•

iation, and the intensity of the aversive experience. Also, stimuli

resembling the fear evoking stimulus were believed to acquire fear evoking properties (Rachman, 1978). However, this model has been unable to account

for the often observed strong resistance of fears to extinction.

Two-Stage Theory Mowrer (1939) later developed the Two-Stage theory in an

attempt to explain the persistence of fear during extinction trials. An

operant/instrumental conditioning stage was added to the original classical 6

conditioning model. According to Mowrer, the association of neutral

stimuli with aversive events creates an anxiety drive that motivates

defensive (avoidance/escape) behaviour. Such defensive behaviour is then

reinforced by reducing anxiety arousal. Hence, CS are continually

reinforced even when UCS are absent, and, therefore, CRs persist (Bandura,

1977; Costello, 1970; Rachman, 1976).

Various sources of evidence for Mowrer's theory included; induction of

fear in animals via conditioning, development of anxiety states in soldiers,

induction of fear in children, incidental findings with aversion therapy, and

the effects of traumatic stimulation (Rachman, 1978). However, research findings cited as support for the two-stage theory are of questionnable validity and recently strong arguments against the theory itself have developed. These include the failure of people to acquire fear in naturally occurring, theoretically fear provoking situations, and the difficulty encountered in attempting to artificially produce fear conditioned responses in people (Rachman, 1978). It is now believed that fear may not develop in reaction to traumatic events unless a correlational or contingent relat• ionship is formed between the situation and the traumatic event. That is, classical conditioning is no longer believed to simply involve CS and UCS pairings on the basis of temporal contiguity alone (Rachlin, 1976). Also, the two-stage theory rests upon the equipotentiality premise, one which is now untenable in view of the apparent nonrandom distribution of fear objects.

Seligman's preparedness theory suggests that humans are genetically prepared to develop certain specific fears as a function of evolutionary past. Thus, prepared phobias are viewed as possessing particular biological significance, related to survival of the species. Such prepared learning is selective, highly resistant to extinction, probably noncognitive and may be acquired in one trial (Emmelkamp, 1979; Hugdahl and Karker, 1981; Rachman and Seligman, 1976). However, the validity of the preparedness theory has been quest- ionned (see Emmelkamp, 1979). Further arguments cited by Rachman included the difficulty in reconciling both the distribution of fears in normal and neurotic populations, and case histories that have described a gradual development of fear in the absence of traumatic experiences, with the two- stage theory.

Rachman (1977) has suggested that conditioning constitutes only one of three main fear induction processes (or, "pathways of fear"). He claimed that vicarious experience and transmission of information (through social modelling or instruction) also elicit fear. In addition, biological differences in the propensity to develop fears are believed to exist.

Moreover, Rachman (1978) hypothesised that some individuals are particularly prone to develop conditioned fears (probably of a prepared nature) while others are more susceptible to socially transmitted fears (of an unprepared nature). However, Emmelkamp (1979) commented upon the lack of definitive data for either the vicarious or informational hypothetical acquisition processes.

Mowrer's model still fails to adequately account for the persistence of fear. That is, although avoidance responses serve to maintain fearful reactions, some nonreinforced exposure (where the stimulus is not avoided) still occurs. Moreover, evidence clearly shows that avoidance behaviour is not causally mediated by an underlying drive state of autonomic arousal

(Wilson and O'Leary, 1980). Finally, the two-stage theory cannot explain the increase in fear that sometimes occurs over extinction trials (Costello,

1970) .

Incubation Model Recognition of the paradoxical enhancement of fear over extinction trials led Eysenck (1976) to develop his incubation model of 8 human neurosis. It states that most neuroses result from repetitive, brief, intense exposure to initially moderately fear-arousing stimuli via symbolic or actual contact. In brief, the theory presumes that during Pavlovian conditioning, UCS elicit complete UCRs. When substituted for the UCS, the

CS then elicits the major components of the UCR. As in the two-stage theory, the CR is believed to acquire drive properties, hence providing reinforcement for the CS even when the UCS is absent. Eysenck hypothesised that the net effect of the CS-only presentation depends on the balance between the forces of extinction and enhancement of the CR, which in turn depend on the point a at which the CS presentation is terminated. Each individual is believed to have a relatively constant critical point in CR strength, and if the CR is below that point at CS termination, then extinction occurs. If the CR is above that point, it is enhanced. Therefore, it is possible for the CR to exceed the strength of the UCR, resulting in a slow growth of the neurotic response over time. Lengthy exposures to the feared stimulus would there• fore result in extinction of the CR (Eysenck, 1976; Bersch, 1980). Eysenck offered some explanation for individual differences in fear acquisition and fear persistence by linking tearfulness to personality characteristics; introversion/extraversion and neuroticism. He postulated that excessively fearful individuals are likely to be highly introverted and neurotic, as introverts acquire conditioned responses more readily than extraverts, and neurotics possess labile nervous systems (Eysenck, 1976; Rachman, 1978).

Eysenck's model, however, has received considerable criticism (Bersch, 1980).

The two-stage theory and the incubation model have been very influential in fear research, but recent evidence has provided reason to question the validity of these theories. Both theories postulate a synchronous and causal relationship between fear arousal and avoidance behaviour. The evidence, however, suggests that while arousal may be a cause for avoidance 9 behaviour, it is unnecessary either for learning or for maintaining avoidance behaviour (Bandura and Adams, 1977; Rachman, 1976). Experimental and clinical evidence clearly indicate the absence of a consistent causal relationship between avoidance and arousal.

Cognitive-Behavioural Conceptualisations

Rachman's (1977) concept of three "pathways of fear" acknowedges the role of cognitive variables. Most psychologists now agree that cognitions are essential in the analysis of complex behaviour, and are examining the relat• ionship between verbal reports of private events and behaviour (Wilson and

O'Leary, 1980). An important development in the shift from "S-R psychology" to more cognitively oriented frameworks was social learning theory (Bandura,

1969). This theory views behaviour, internal-interpersonal factors and environmental influences as reciprocally interlocking determinants of "action"

(Bandura, 1978, 1981; Coyne, 1982). As such, reinforcement is not concept• ualised as automatically strengthening behaviour, but rather as involving the informative and incentive value of rewards. Simple temporal contiguity of events is considered insufficient to explain classical conditioning, as some realization that the two events are correlated is required. Moreover, behaviour change due to the link between a response and the environment

(operant conditioning) is believed to depend on cognitive representations of contingencies (Bandura, 1969; Wilson and O'Leary, 1980). Thus, Moore,

Mischel and Ziess (1976) found that the manner in which children cognitively represented rewards was a significantly more potent determinant of control behaviour than the nature of the actual reward stimulus (in Wilson and

O'Leary, 1980) . Similarly, Meichenbaum (1973) suggested that we do not react to the environment per se, but to our perceptions of the environment.

The nature of the perception is thus believed to determine the emotional 10 response (Marzillier, 1980). Various models of specific cognitions that elicit fearful responses have developed, including Ellis's theory of

"irrational-beliefs" and notions of discomfort anxiety, Beck's theory of

"cognitive distortions", and Bandura's Self Efficacy theory.

Self Efficacy Theory Self efficacy theory was developed by Bandura in 1977.

Within this theory, in accordance with the social learning theory framework, cognitive processes are attributed a prominent role in the acquisition and retention of behaviour (Marzillier, 1980; Rosenthal, 1978). Motivation, which influences the activation and persistence of behaviour, is influenced by the cognitive processes of representing future consequences in thought, goal setting and self-evaluation. Because self reward is conditional upon achieving self determined standards of performance (i.e. personally set goals), its effect is attributed to self induced persistence until the goal is reached. Failure to attain performance standards motivates corrective changes in behaviour in order to reach those standards. When goals are reached, self rewards become contingent upon higher standards, and through such progressive elevation, motivation continually influences behaviour

(Bandura, 1977).

Self efficacy theory claims that the effectiveness of various fear reduction techniques is mediated through a common cognitive mechanism; each technique, to varying degrees, creates and strengthens expectations of personal efficacy. Efficacy (or, mastery) expectations refer to one's

"judgement of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations" (Bandura, 1982, p. 123). Efficacy "involves a generative capability in which component cognitive, social and behavioural skills must be organized into integrated courses of action to serve innum• erable purposes" (Bandura, 1982, p. 123). Efficacy expectations are disting• uished from outcome expectancies, which refer to the estimate that a given 11

behaviour will produce a certain outcome.

Self efficacy is characterised by three dimensions. Magnitude refers

to the level of self efficacy measured against tasks of increasing difficulty.

Generality refers to the notion that expectancies may vary from engaging in only a limited number of tasks to anticipating success at a wide variety of tasks and situations. Once self efficacy is established, it may generalise to other situations. However, self efficacy essentially remains situationally specific, and does not represent a global personality trait. The final dimension is strength, or conviction, of self efficacy at each level (Bandura,

1977). Bandura stated that efficacy expectations influence the choice of both activities and environmental settings, and determine the degree of both effort expended and persistence in the face of obstacles or aversive experiences. Self efficacy, therefore, influences coping behaviour in threatening situations. Further refinement of the theory has led Bandura to suggest that while high perceived self efficacy maintains the degree of effort required to master challenges, it also dampens preparatory effort when a task is viewed as nonchallenging; some uncertainty in terms of the challenge of the task spurs preparatory acquisition of knowledge and skills (Bandura,

1982) .

Self efficacy is also believed to mediate thought patterns and emotional reactions during anticipatory and actual transactions with the environment.

Poor self efficacy is believed to result in excessive dwelling upon personal deficiencies in turn creating stress and impairing performance by reducing effort and concentration upon the task at hand (Bandura, 1980, 1982). That is, fear provoking thoughts of ineptitude are believed to produce emotional arousal. However, skills and incentives are also essential determinants of action in addition to perceived self efficacy. These determinants are inter• active. Positive incentives foster performance accomplishments which enhance 12

self efficacy, and, gaining knowledge and skills that enable one to fulfill

personal standards also heighten self efficacy (Bandura, 1982) .

Bandura has provided evidence for his theory by examining the degree

of congruence between self percepts of efficacy and performance at the level

of individual tasks. Research has shown that increasing levels of perceived

self efficacy both across groups and within subjects correlate with progress•

ively higher performance accomplishments (Bandura, 1982).

The extent to which self efficacy is altered by experience depends on

the particular source of experiential information and the way in which that

information is cognitively appraised. .Of the four main sources of self

efficacy information "performance accomplishment" is the most influential.

Accomplishment provides evidence of personal achievement, and develops skills

that enable individuals to cope with threatening situations (Bandura, 1977).

Fear reduction techniques that are based upon this source of self efficacy

information include participant modelling, desensitization and flooding, as each includes enactive mastery. "Vicarious experience" - observing others perform successfully - can also raise efficacy expectations. In addition to providing a means of social comparison, the model also conveys information about the nature and predictability of events, and teaches strategies for dealing with threatening situations. Self instruction training and suggestive therapies focus on the "verbal persuasion" source of self efficacy information by convincing individuals that they possess the capabilities to cope with

threatening events. Finally, "physiological state" serves as a basis for judgements concerning one's level of anxiety from which inferences are made about performance capabilities: "Because high arousal usually debilitates performance, people are more inclined to expect success when they are not beset by aversive arousal than if they are tense and viscerally agitated"

(Bandura, 1982, p. 129). Treatment approaches that enhance self efficacy 13

through the physiological information source include relaxation and biofeed• back (Bandura 1977; Bandura and Adams, 1977). Bandura and his colleagues have tested their predictions through a series of experiments using snake and spider phobics (Bandura, 1977; Bandura and Adams, 1977; Bandura, 1980;

Bandura, 1982) . Bandura concluded that their experiments provide confirmation for the hypothesis that different therapeutic modes all raise and strengthen self percepts of efficacy. Also, it was concluded that behaviour corresponds closely to the level of self efficacy change regardless of the method by which it is enhanced: the higher the level of self efficacy, the greater the performance accomplishments; and the stronger the self efficacy, the more likely individuals will persist until they succeed. Moreover, as predicted, enactive mastery provides the highest, strongest and most generalised increases in self efficacy. Bandura (1982) also found that self efficacy is a superior predictor of performance in behavioural approach tests than is the level of performance accomplishment attained during treatment. Similiar results were obtained when the behavioural domain was extended to agoraphobia

(Bandura, Adams, Hardy and Howells, 1980).

However, the influence of self efficacy information sources is mediat• ed by cognitive appraisal processes; including appraisals of task diffic• ulty, amount of effort expended and external aid received, situational circ• umstances and temporal patterns of success and failure (Bandura, 1977, 1982).

For instance, external attribution may mitigate the self efficacy enhancing effect of performance success. Moreover, several factors affect the strength of the relationship between self efficacy and subsequent action; faulty self-knowledge, misjudgement of task requirements, unforeseen situational constraints, disincentives to act upon self efficacy and new experiences that prompt reappraisals of self efficacy in the interval between assessment of self efficacy and action (Bandura, 1982). 14

Self efficacy theory has been mainly applied to fear and avoidance behaviour. The theory states that, because self efficacy influences the initiation and persistence of coping behaviour, individuals fear and avoid those situations they believe to be beyond their coping skills, thereby retaining self debilitating expectations and defensive behaviour (Bandura and

Adams, 1977). In contrast, "those who persist in subjectively threatening activities that are in fact relatively safe will gain corrective experiences

that reinforce their sense of self efficacy, thereby eventually eliminating

their defensive behaviour" (Bandura, 1977, p. 194). Self efficacy theory

therefore explains the effectiveness of exposure therapy in a much different manner from the incubation model. Eysenck, however, maintains that self efficacy theory is essentially a noncognitive theory which merely translates the major features of the incubation model into cognitive/mentalistic language (Eysenck, 1978).

Criticisms of Self Efficacy Theory Bandura's theory has been the subject of extensive theoretical and experimental examination; both support and criticism of the theory exist. Several critics have challenged the causal significance given to cognitive processes by self efficacy theory. Eysenck

(1978) claimed that the treatment effects in Bandura et als' research can be be as easily explained by constructs relating to conditioned autonomic responses, and that self efficacy is merely a phenomonological by-product of underlying physiological change. Similarly, Borkovec (1978) viewed self efficacy as a by-product of simple conditioning. Despite Bandura's attempts to establish a causal relationship between self efficacy and action by microanalytically analysing congruence rates, it is not sufficient to merely demonstrate correlations in order to establish a causal relationship

(Eysenck, 1978; Kazdin, 1978). Hence, Bandura's results remain open to

alternative interpretations, such as those by Eysenck and Borkovec. 15

Still other criticisms focus upon the ambiguities within self efficacy

theory itself. Lang (1978) noted that the qualification entered into the rel•

ationship between sources of information and subsequent levels of self efficacy

by the "cognitive appraisal" aspect allows "an excellent post hoc interpret•

ation of any behaviour outcome" (p. 190). Moreover, the elements of both the

cognitive appraisal and incentive factors have not been sufficiently spec•

ified. Similarly, factors postulated to influence the relationship between

self efficacy and subsequent action also allow interpretation of the

failure to observe predicted behaviour patterns. Bandura therefore emphasises

the importance of microanalytical analyses in order to find predicted relat•

ionships. However, this requirement severely restricts the applicability

and generalizability of the theory. Also, Kazdin (1978) suggested that the

three postulated requirements for action - self efficacy, skill and incentive - cannot be assessed independently. It is possible that, at optimal levels, competence and incentives alone may account for behavioural outcomes without the need to incorporate notions of self efficacy. Therefore, Kazdin (1978) suggested the development of a more precise means of empirically specifying appropriate levels of competence and incentive.

In addition, other researchers have not been successful in replicating

Bandura's findings. Feltz (1982), for example, found that performance on previous trials was a more reliable predictor of back diving performance than self efficacy judgements.

Another major criticism of self efficacy theory is the juxtaposition it presents to the increasingly prominent three-systems model of fear and avoidance (Lang, 1968; Rachman and Hodgson, 1974). The conflict between the predictions derived from self efficacy theory and the three-systems model was the major focus of the study presented herein. 16

THE NATURE OF FEAR

... it is crystal clear that the problems we deal with are considerably more complex than we originally believed. (Hersen, 1981, p. 18)

Such a statement is especially apt in describing our present understanding of fear and anxiety, these being no longer conceptualised as global, undiff• erentiated phenomena (Freedman, Dornbush and Shapiro, 1981). It has been these advances, based on clinical observations, research and theoretical developments, that rendered the two-stage theory of fear and avoidance untenable. Inherent in Mowrer's theory was the assumption that subjective fear, autonomic arousal and avoidance behaviour together represent an unidimensional anxiety reaction; that autonomic responses both regulate avoidance behaviour, and must be reduced in order to eliminate avoidance.

However, as previously mentioned, fear and avoidance are not always closely tied.

Formulation of the Three-Systems Model

In reaction to repeated clinical observations of the lack of correlation between fear and avoidance, Lang (1968) presented a new conceptualisation of fear:

Emotional behaviours are multiple response systems - verbal-cognitive, motor and physiological events - that interact through interoceptive (neural and hormonal) and exteroceptive channels of communication. All systems are controlled or influenced by brain mechanisms, but the level of the important centres of influence (cortical or sub-cortical, limbic or brain stem) are varied, and like the resulting behaviours, partially independent. Because of this imperfect coupling, it is possible and even usual to generate emotional cognitions without autonomic arousal, aggressive behaviour without a hostile motive, or the autonomic and avoidant behaviour of fear without insight (proper labelling). (Lang, 1971, p. 108)

Thus, low correlations (or, discordance) found upon sampling in each system were taken to indicate that fear is not a unitary phenomena (Kozak and Miller 17

in press). The emotional response was viewed as a complex of three major measurable systems which are modulated by neural brain centres, and whose outputs have low intercorrelations, yet are highly interactive (Lang, 1971) .

However, all three systems are generally responsive to moderate to intense degrees among 'clinically' fearful patients (Rachman, 1978). Rachman and Hodgson (1974) described eight possible combinations of the response systems:

Verbal Behavioural Physiological

1 + + + 2 + + 3 + - + 4 + 5 - + + 6 - + - 7 - - + 8 - - -

The first represents true fear fulness, while the last represents true fearlessness. The latter four types do not usually come to therapeutic attention, as the response is not labelled as anxiety or fear by the indiv• idual (Rachman, 1976).

The Three Systems of Fear

Since the original formulation of the three-systems model, Lang (1978) has restricted the verbal-cognitive component to refer only to verbal reports of fear, in order to overcome the difficulties encountered in making assumpt• ions about the nature of cognitive events from verbal reports (Kozak and

Miller, in press). However, the verbal component has been interpreted in many ways. Rachman (1978) described this subjective aspect as "an alarming feeling of intense fear or panic" (p. 140) in phobic patients. The verbal system has been measured in terms of either "subjective fear and discomfort" ratings, apprehension or fright (Rachman and Hodgson, 1974). Specific anxiety-eliciting thoughts and self statements have also been identified; 18 erroneous interpretations, negative self statements, irrational beliefs self preoccupation and catastrophising statements (Boulougouris, Rabavilas and Stefanis, 1977; Elder, Edelstein and Fremow, 1981; Kanter and Goldfried,

1979; Hollandsworth, Glazeski, Kirkland, Jones and Van Norman, 1979; Kendrick,

1979; Lehrer, Schoicket, Carrington and Woolfolk, 1980; Mathews and Shaw,

1977; Meichenbaum, 1978; Ollendick and Murphy, 1977; Rabavilas and Bouloug- ouris, 1976; Sutton-Simon and Goldfried, 1979; Woodward and Jones, 1980).

Another dimension of the verbal system has been identified as the degree of awareness of internal physiological cues (Borkovec, 1973b). Borkovec, Weerts and Bernstein (1977) suggest that "autonomic perception" is somewhat indep• endent of actual arousal and interacts with the behavioural and autonomic systems.

The behavioural system also entails several elements, including avoidance or escape behaviour upon confrontation with a feared stimulus.

Learning and performance deficits are more relevant behavioural indices of social and performance anxieties. Observable signs of arousal level - such as trembling, sweating and so on - have also been included in the behavioural system.

Response in the "physiological" system refers to sympathetic innervation of the autonomic system, and will henceforth be referred to as the autonomic response system. Fear elicits various changes in the autonomic system; for example, a reduction in blood flow to the bodily extremities and increased blood flow to the brain, suppression of digestive and sexual processes, and increased respiration, electrical conductance properties of the skin, sweat gland activity and muscle tension. Those changes are manifested in heart palpitations, increased heart rate, sweaty palms, dry mouth and 'knotty stomach', respiratory difficulties and so on (Bellack, 1980).

As Lang originally claimed, and as Schwartz (1978) emphasised, the 19 verbal, behavioural and autonomic systems are all the observable outcomes of various levels of physiological processes.

Interdependency of the Three Systems

Lang (1971) described both the interactive and independent nature of the three systems of fear. The interactive nature of the response systems is evidenced by the blocking influence of instructional sets upon arousal resp• onses. Similarly, intellectualising or denying the painful circumstances of watching a stressful film may decrease levels of tonic autonomic arousal that would otherwise have been present. In more general terms, Lang (1971) described a mutually augmenting feedback loop between the systems: an individual possessing a "distress" set can become highly aware of autonomic feedback, which then confirms the cognitive 'set', and which acts as a dis• criminative cue for further anxious cognitions; the autonomic activity may then feed back interoceptively to influence striate muscle reflexes and cortical activity; such feedback may then disrupt the behavioural component by producing unskillful performance or by blocking motor activity; and such failure of psychomotor functioning may then be exteroceptively perceived and its negative valence may add to the ascending spiral of verbal, behavioual and autonomic activation. The interaction of the verbal-cognitive and autonomic systems has been especially emphasised by others, such as Borkovec,

Grayson and Hennings (1979) and Meyer and Reich (1978) .

As a result of the interactive nature of the response systems, various theories have been able to describe anxiety in terms of individual response systems. Some theorists, such as Ellis (1979) and Meichenbaum (1978), postulate that changes in self statements and thinking styles result in fading of gross motor and autonomic fear responses. Others, such as

Borkovec (1978) and Wolpe (1978) , believe that reduction of autonomic arousal 20

facilitates the reporting of less anxiety and behaviour change. Altern•

atively, Marks (1972) claimed that behaviour modification can alter verbal

reports and visceral activity. Therefore, Lang's conceptualisation provides

support for each approach. Borkovec (1976) has specified nine such inter•

actional patterns between the response systems.

Independence of the three systems becomes especially evident when fear

is attenuated; mild feeling states may merely involve a verbal report of

anxiety (Lang, 1971). Independence is attributed firstly to the fact that

none of the systems uniquely defines the emotional states; that each is

influenced by various other factors. Moreover, the systems are not equally sensitive to stress stimuli (Lang, 1977). By using a standardized index of sensitivity, Agras and Jacob (1981) found that while verbal and behavioural systems were approximately equally sensitive, autonomic indices were less sensitive. In general, self reports of fear correlate moderately well with avoidance behaviour, but only modestly well with autonomic indices (Rachman,

1978). Also, system-sensitivity may differ across individuals (Lang, 1977).

Finally, inadequate measurement may also account for some degree of indep• endence of the systems (Lang, 1977).

Synchrony and Desynchrony

Rachman and Hodgson (1974) extended the three systems model on the basis of the observation that not only may the three systems be imperfectly correlated at any given point, but they may also respond to treatment with different rates of change. Lang's original formulation centred around notions of concordance and discordance, whereas Rachman and Hodgson coined the terms of synchrony and desynchrony to refer to the degree of covariance of the changes among the response systems. Desynchronous change may involve either independent or inverse relationships. In general, the temporal order 21 of change in response to treatment proceeds from autonomic to behavioural and then to verbal systems (Rachman, 1976b, 1978).

Rachman and Hodgson (1974) identified two common patterns of synchrony; the first involving moderate subjective fear and mild avoidance behaviour

(characteristic of social anxiety), and the second involving intense fear and active avoidance followed by a reduction in fear while avoidance continues unchecked (characteristic of obsessional neurosis).

Theoretical Implications

Implications of this model include the need to seek separate explanations for the origins and course of each response component. Rachman's (1978) predictions concerning their respective mechanisms of acquisition draws upon the notion of "three pathways of fear" and biological differences in the propensity to develop fears. He suggested that some individuals may be particularly prone to develop fears by conditioning, while others may be more susceptible to the social transmission of fears. Rachman (1978) incorp• orated the three systems model into those ideas by speculating that fears acquired by conditioning are likely to mostly involve autonomic and behav• ioural responses, with the subjective element remaining minor in comparison.

In accordance Hugdahl (1981) reported that subjects with high autonomic arousal were more prone to autonomic conditioning. Further, Rachman stated that socially transmitted fears are more likely to comprise predominantly subjective responses. Rachman's predictions concord with Seligman's prep• aredness theory. Prepared fears are likely to be acquired by conditioning and are largely noncognitive, whereas unprepared fears that are socially transmitted contain a larger cognitive element (Rachman, 1978) . In addition to biological propensities, Borkovec (1976) suggested that differences in individual learning histories may also account for the relative intensities, or, functional importance of each response system in emotional reactions. 22

As well, Rachman (1978) has suggested that the systems are effected by different decremental processes. On the basis of empirical evidence showing that habituation weakens unlearned responses, while extinction weakens learned responses, he suggested that the autonomic system may be particularly susceptible to habituation, while the behavioural system resp• onds more to extinction, with the subjective system responding to both decremental processes.

Rachman and Hodgsons' model also has important treatment implications.

According to the model, fear reduction techniques are hypothesised to produce different patterns of covariance among the response systems. For example, systematic desensitization is believed to produce a reduction in subjective and autonomic responses, followed by a slight reduction in avoidance, which is eventually eliminated. Participant modelling results in a high degree of synchrony via a steady, gradual decline of each response system. Flooding therapy decreases avoidance behaviour before influencing autonomic and subjective responses. Finally, spontaneous remission is characterised by gradual autonomic and subjective fear reduction, while avoidance continues.

Supporting Evidence

In order to provide a framework for predicting the degree of concordance and/or synchrony, Hodgson and Rachman (1974) developed five hypotheses on the basis of past research. These have directed subsequent research. First, they hypothesised that concordance is more likely to occur under conditions that evoke strong emotional responses, while discordance is more likely under conditions that evoke weak emotional responses. Hence, individuals presenting with clinically severe fear reactions are more likely to respond to the presence of the feared object'in each system, whereas mildly fearful individuals from analogue populations may respond in only the more sensitive systems. This discrepancy in patterning between clinical and analogue fears 23

is important when generalising from analogue research. Sartory, Rachman and Grey (1977) and Marks, Marset, Boulougouris and Huson (1971) have provided empirical support for the first part of this hypothesis, and studies examining analogue populations, or mildly fearful individuals, generally indicate an absence of autonomic responding (Borkovec, 1973b, 1976).

Sallis, Lichstein and McGlynn (1980) reviewed 41 methodologically diverse individual and group clinical studies of phobics and anxiety states, and

54 analogue fear studies, finding that congruence between autonomic and subjective systems measures was most often reported in individual clinical studies (87%) and least often in analogue studies (24.7%). Similiar patterns appeared when comparing autonomic and behavioural systems measures

(65.4% and 41.7% respectively). Behavioural-subjective congruence was also most frequent in individual clinical studies (72%). Sallis et al. note that analyses of group means may result in spuriously low estimates of congruence.

The pattern of generally increasing congruence from analogue to group clinical to individual clinical studies supports Hodgson and Rachmans' hyp• othesis.

The second hypothesis stated that concordance is more likely under low demand conditions (such as distributed or graduated practice) than under high demand conditions (such as massed practice or flooding), where discord• ance is more likely. Grey, Sartory and Rachman (1979) have provided some empirical support for this hypothesis. Thirdly, Hodgson and Rachman hypoth• esised that the degree of synchrony resulting from treatment depends on the particular therapy employed; for instance, flooding is believed to produce desynchrony whereas participant modelling is believed to produce synchrony.

However, the evidence for this is contradictory; some studies report syn• chrony during flooding (Connolly, 1973; Emmelkamp and Emmelkamp-Benner, 1975;

Rabavalis et. al. 1976; Stern and Marks, 1973); others report desynchrony 24

(Foa, Jameson, Turner and Paynes, 1980; Benjamin, Marks and Huson, 1972;

Watson, Gaind and Marks, 1972; Lande, 1982; Nunes and Marks, 1975; Marshall,

Gauthier, Christie, Currie and Gordon, 1977): differential patterns across individual subjects have also been observed (Andrasik et al., 1980; Barlow,

Mavissakalian and Scholfield, 1980; Leitenberg, Agras, Butz and Wincze, 1971).

It appears that the effect is much more complex than a one-to-one relationship between treatment type and outcome. The fourth hypothesis, that the degree of concordance following treatment increases during follow-up, has received direct empirical support (Foa et al., 1980). Also, indirect support for that hypothesis derives from the frequent observation that self report changes occur more slowly than changes in the other response systems (Lande, 1982;

Watson et al., 1982; Nunes and Marks, 1975). Finally, Hodgson and Rachman hypothesised that desynchrony between the autonomic system and other response systems will be greater when skin conductance is measured rather than heart rate. The evidence for this is as yet inconclusive (Grey et al., 1979).

Despite the wide ranging implications of the three-systems model for fear assessment and treatment, Agras and Jacobs (1980) claimed that the model is only slowly permeating clinical research. In a review of 48 recent studies, Barlow et al. (1980) found that only two gathered data in each response system. 25

MEASUREMENT ISSUES

The measurement of each response system is very important, as levels of discordance and desynchrony reflect the independence of the systems, as well as the influence of extraneous variables upon measurement devices. Accurate measurement is essential in subject-selection procedures (to ensure that the

"fearful" sample is truly fearful) and in treatment evaluation. Although a considerable amount of research has been directed towards assessing the adequacy of various measures, the findings have not generally been applied in treatment outcome studies. The measurement of each response system, and related problems, are described below.

Verbal Response System

General questionnaires measuring the presence, absence or degree of anxiety felt in response to a variety of situations include the Fear Survey

Schedule and the S-R Inventory of Anxiousness (the latter is more specific than the former) (Hersen, 1973; Borkovec et al., 1977). More specific scales are also available to measure verbal reports of experienced fear in direct response to the feared stimulus, and are administered immediately prior to, during or immediately following exposure. One such scale is the Fear Therm• ometer, although it is found to be vulnerable to demand influences.

The Affect Adjective Checklist, Anxiety Differential and the State scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory are less subject to such invalidating influences, as their format obscures, or makes it difficult for the subject to determine, the meaning of item responses (Borkovec et al., 1977).

As with all verbal report measures, various problems arise with the use of these questionnaires; unintentional or purposeful distortion of the truth, 26 memory failure, habitual response styles, inability to make verbal discrimin• ations, inexact or confusing test items and demand influences (Borkovec et al., 1977; Lick, 1977; Lick and Katkin, 1976). However, these verbal measures are still capable of identifying groups of individuals who differ on the other measures of fear (Marzillier, Carroll and Newland, 1979).

Autonomic Response System

Inaccuracy of measurement in the autonomic system is largely a result of current lack of knowledge (Rachman, 1978). Also, most physiological responses are generated by a great variety of internal and external stimuli, so any autonomic event is unlikely to be an exact substitute as an index of the psychological state (Lang, 1971). Physiological measurement is further complicated by the lack of correspondence between different indices of auton• omic arousal, which may vary as a function of the eliciting stimuli (Lang,

1971). Therefore, autonomic arousal should be sampled in various channels

(such as cardiac, electrodermal and so on) in reaction to a particular stim• ulus (Hasset, 1978). Additional problems arise from individual differences in the lability of different response channels (Lang, 1971). Range correct• ion can be utilised to remove this confounding influence upon the interpret• ation of the data, although it is also important to examine absolute values when comparing groups (Lang, 1971). Differences between and within indiv• iduals may be reduced by controlling for obvious biological variations; time of day, menstrual month, dietary considerations, fatigue and so on (Borkovec et al., 1977). However, such extraneous factors may be assumed to be effectively controlled through random distribution within a large population and by repeated measures (Lang, 1971; Borkovec et al., 1977).

Results indicate that heart rate is fairly reliably elevated when ind• ividuals directly confront feared stimuli (Sartory et al., 1977). However, 27

the specific cognitive and motor demands of the mode of stimulus presentation

influence heart rate levels. Hence, it is suggested that responses to

fearful stimuli should be compared to responses to neutral stimuli under

equivalent setting conditions (Borkovec, Stone, O'Brien and Kaloupek, 1974).

Measures of skin properties are useful because the skin receives only

sympathetic and not parasympathetic innervation (Borkovec et al., 1977).

However, skin properties are also influenced by the attentional and motor

demands of the setting, and by stimulus complexity, novelty and cognitive

difficulty. Therefore, skin response should also be measured under equiv•

alent conditions with both neutral and fear eliciting stimuli.

Behavioural Response System

The behavioural response system is typically measured by either the

Behaviour Approach Test (BAT) in which the subject performs a series of

progressively more fear evoking tasks, or, by duration of exposure to the

feared stimulus. Measures of both performance disruption and overall perf•

ormance effectiveness are utilized when assessing social, performance and

test anxiety. The advantage of performance measures over the BAT is that

autonomic and cognitive measures can be obtained during exposure without

introducing the confound of self control over the amount of exposure

and extent of avoidance. That is, during performance tests the subject has no opportunity to avoid the feared situation (Borkovec and O'Brien, 1976).

However, performance measures do introduce an additional confounding factor of evaluation anxiety, which can be accounted for by including a neutral condition in the experimental design (Borkovec et al., 1977).

The BAT was initially considered to be the most objective measure avail• able. However, the influence of extraneous situational variables upon BAT performance is now recognised. When the BAT is introduced to the subject as 28

a method of fear assessment, thereby becoming contextually reactive, the

implicit demand for avoidance at pretest is very apparent, and may override

the explicit demand for approach (Bernstein, 1973) . Several situational

variables contribute to the implicit avoidance demand; the subject has

usually previously informed the therapist of his fear in verbal reports, such

that avoidance behaviour is considered to be appropriate; the presence of

the therapist in itself may produce reactive effects; and where the assess• ment precedes therapy, subjects may rationalise that unless avoidance is demonstrated, therapy will not be forthcoming. Conversely, during post-test following therapeutic effort, approach behaviour is considered to be approp• riate (Bernstein, 1973). Therefore, assessments may be inaccurate and treat• ment effects may be inflated, or, at least, confounded by differential react• ions across subjects to the situational influences. Though still involving some implicit demand factors, performance-type behavioural measures are less

likely to be subject to situational influences, because, as mentioned, subjects have little control over the situational parameters.

Borkovec (1973a, 1973b, 1976) has demonstrated that reliance upon very situationally-vulnerable verbal and behavioural measures can result in inflat• ion of the estimates of fear severity. Since strong emotion is usually characterised by concordance amongst the response systems, very fearful indiv• iduals are likely to become autonomically aroused, subjectively distressed and show avoidance behaviour when confronted with feared stimuli. There• fore, Borkovec argued that without physiological responsiveness, and hence probably without intense fear, the behavioural and verbal systems are more susceptible to situational demand influences. This hypothesis has received empirical support (Borkovec, 1973a, 1973b, 1976; Hicks and Sheinber, 1976;

Bernstein and Paul, 1971; Smith, Deiner and Beaman, 1974; Levine, Gorman and Sherry, 1978; Trudel, 1979). The implication of these findings is that studies which do not obtain physiological measures or do not control for situational influences in behavioural measures may select subjects whose fears are not clinically severe (where "clinical" refers not to the psychiat• ric status of the individual, but to the severity of the fear). Analogue studies, therefore, are only considered useful when such measures are taken

(Borkovec and Rachman, 1979; Kazdin, 1978).

Extraneous situational influences can be minimised in several ways.

Presenting the BAT under conditions of high demand to approach the feared stimulus overcomes situational influences to some extent (Bernstein and Paul,

1971; Trudel, 1979). That is, subjects who show significantly and clinically relevant increases in autonomic arousal and cognitive distress as a result of the presence of the feared stimulus, or who are still unable to approach the feared object under high demand conditions are more likely to be clinically fearful. Subjects should also view their emotional responses as a source of concern which interferes with normal functioning (Bernstein, 1973) . If mildly to moderately fearful subjects are used, their performances can be compared with that of a demand change control group (Bernstein and Paul, 1971).

Additionally, behavioural measurement (of any sort) can be presented in a non-reactive context by not being identified as fear assessment. Beiman et al. (1978) developed a nonreactive, indirect measure of avoidance called the

Behavioural Committment Test for a group of mutilation phobics. The BCT involved phoning subjects unobtrusively and rating their willingness to donate blood, which the authors viewed as a high demand condition. Another strategy is to explicitly emphasise the acceptability of both avoidance and approach by informing subjects that they are not all expected to exhibit strong fear, to disregard their previous self report responses, and to respond naturally and spontaneously to the testing condition (Bernstein and

Paul, 1971; Bernstein, 1973; Borkovec and O'Brien, 1976). Additional problems with most behavioural measures include the restricted range of situations or stimuli, and the artificiality which may limit generalisability of the results (Lick and Katkin, 1976; Cohen, 1977) .

Moreover, autonomic measures should be taken continuously and not, as typically occurs, immediately following behavioural measures when sets characterised by 'relief are likely to confound the physiological response

(Borkovec and O'Brien, 1976) . Behavioural and verbal measures should also be of approximately equivalent specificity to ensure that differential sensitivities of the measurement devices do not cause discordance (Rachman and Hodgson, 1974). 31

TREATMENT ISSUES

The three-systems model also has very important treatment implications,

as any given anxiety disorder will have differential features that require different treatment modalities. (Freedman et al., 1981). Borkovec et al.

(1977) stated that:

Our concern in the assessment of anxiety is to identify the extent to which each response component contributes to the client's presenting problem and to apply therapeutic interventions appropriate to the type of response characterising the individual's reaction to the feared situation, (p. 403)

Similarly,

If individuals load differentially on the various components, identification of this should then become a routine procedure in clinical diagnosis in order to be able to tailor an appropriate method of treatment to the individual's profile of responding. (Hugdahl, 1981, p. 82)

Response Treatment Matching

Borkovec (1973) suggested that the most efficient method of fear red•

uction is to modify that response system(s) most functionally involved in the overall emotional response, by implementing a therapy that focuses on that

response system. Autonomically focussed treatments include relaxation,

systematic desensitization, biofeedback and implosion. The verbal system is

the focus of rational emotive therapy, semantic conditioning, self instruct•

ion, thought stopping, placebo, expectancy and stress innoculation. Rein•

forcement for approach behaviour, response prevention, modelling, contact desensitization and flooding therapy focus on the behavioural response system

(Borkovec, 1976; Ost, Jerramalm and Johansson, 1981). The focal aspect

refers not to the mechanisms through which the various treatments operate,

but to the response which they modify.

Evidence for the superior effectiveness achieved by matching response profile to treatment is accumulating. Progressive relaxation has been shown to be more effective with problems for which autonomic activation is a major contributing factor (Borkovec and Sides, 1979) . Social skills train•

ing seems to be more effective with socially anxious individuals who resp• ond to stress predominantly in the behavioural system, as compared to the effectiveness of relaxation with those who respond predominantly in the autonomic system (Ost et al., 1981). Partial support has been obtained for the superior effectiveness of applying cognitive restructuring to clients who are highly aware of internal arousal cues, and cognitive restructuring plus systematic desensitization to clients not only highly aware of internal cues but who also respond with actual autonomic activation to social sit• uations (Shahar and Merbaum, 1981). Also, cognitive restructuring seems to be more effective with 'low' rather than 'high' autonomic responders

(Emmelkamp, Kuipers and Eggeraat, 1978). Lehrer et al. (1980) have also shown that meditation leads to more cognitive relaxation, whereas relaxation training leads to more autonomic relaxation (on the basis of self reports of arousal).

In a related sense, Chambless, Foa, Groves and Goldstein (1979) have argued that, as agoraphobics fear not only external stimuli but also internal physiological cues, maximal treatment effectiveness would derive from exposing agoraphobics to both fears. In confirmation, they demonstrated that exposure to external fear situations only (achieved by eliminating aware• ness of autonomic arousal through sedative medication) was less effective than flooding in which arousal was not eliminated. On the other hand, others have shown that the degree of anxiety evoked during exposure procedures does not influence outcome (Hafner and Marks, 1976; Marks, 1978; Mathews, 1978).

Ollendick and Murphy (1977) found some experimental support for their pred• ictions that internally oriented individuals (on the locus of control dimens- ion) would be more responsive to techniques incorporating personal control,

such as cognitive relaxation, whereas externally oriented individuals would be more responsive to muscular relaxation, which is more structured and directive.

Davidson and Schwartz have developed a psychobiological model based on the somatic and cognitive dimensions of anxiety. Their treatment sugg• estions are based on the principle of psychobiological specificity:

If we conceptualise particular behaviour systems as having a finite amount of channel space and if we further assume that cognitive or somatic anxiety, for example, represents a recycling of unwanted information in each of the respective systems, then further activation of a neural nature in a particular system will compete with the ongoing behaviour sequence for channel space. This competition results in attenuation of the ongoing behaviour. (Schwartz et al., 1978, p. 324)

Despite its different theoretical orientation, Davidson and Schwartzs' res• earch still supports the notion of matching response system and treatment.

Hence, their research indicates that individuals practicing meditation possess less cognitive and more somatic anxiety than individuals practicing physical exercise, who possess more cognitive and less somatic anxiety

(Davidson, 1978; Schwartz, Davidson and Goleman, 1978).

In contrast to the above, some studies have failed to demonstrate a response system by treatment interaction (Elder et al., 1981; Kanter and

Goldfried, 1979). In addition, close examination of all of these studies reveals many methodological problems, mainly in the area of measurement of each response system. For instance, several studies relied on self report measures of autonomic arousal and did not control for extraneous situational influences upon behavioural and verbal measures. Clearly, further research is required on this issue. 34

Response System Generalization in Reaction to Treatment

The extent to which modification in one response system will influence

the other response systems remains unclear, and hypotheses that have been

postulated vary according to the extent to which the response systems are

believed to interact. Borkovec (1976) emphasised the interactive quality

of the systems, and claimed that while autonomic responses are strong, simple

manipulation of the behavioural and cognitive systems is ineffective, or

inefficient at lease. He attributed this to the disruptive effect of sym•

pathetic arousal upon the remaining systems. Borkovec's statement closely

parallels the two-stage theory; arousal must be inhibited before behavioural

changes can be obtained. Similarly, Marzillier et al. (1979) stated that

more fearful subjects are more physiologically reactive and require veridical

changes in arousal before avoidance will decline. However, as previously

mentioned, empirical evidence has shown that behaviour can be altered in

spite of autonomic arousal and, as a result, arousal may subside (Leitenberg

et al., 1971).

While a single response system has been shown to respond to a specific

response focussed treatment, the extent to which the remaining response

systems are influenced by that change is unclear. As Rachman and Hodgson

(1974) stated, each response system seems to react differently to particular treatment regimes. Leitenberg et al. (1971) did not find a consistent relat• ionship between changes in autonomic arousal and phobic behaviour during deconditioning. Others have shown that elimination of phobic behaviour can be preceded by either increases in autonomic arousal, decreases in autonomic arousal or no change (Bandura, 1978). Andrasik, Turner and Ollendick (1980) reported no significant correlations between pulse rate and self report of discomfort at various stages during four out of eight in vivo exposure sessions with obsessive compulsive neurotics. Marks and Huson (1973) found little correlation between self report of arousal and physiological measures during imagination of phobic imagery (in Barlow et al., 1980).

Barlow et al. (1980) found varying patterns of synchrony and desynchrony during exposure sessions in three agoraphobic women. Grey, Rachman and

Sar;tory (1981) also failed to find a clear relationship between heart rate and fearful behaviour during treatment.

Conversely, Rabavalis et al. (1976) found synchronous changes from baseline to post treatment periods between autonomic and subjective meas• ures under various testing conditions. Similarly, Connolly (1979) and

Galassi et al. (1981) observed covariance between autonomic and subjective systems.

Obviously, cross study comparisons are confounded by various factors, including the parameters hypothesised by Hodgson and Rachman (1974) to effect the degree of synchrony, such as intensity of the emotional response and the particular treatment employed, and other factors that may further complicate the relationship between response profile and treatment. For instance, covariance may occur differentially across the eight different combinations of response profiles identified by Rachman and Hodgson (1974).

Also, the adequacy of assessment methods and the exact procedures used in treatment implementation may confound cross study comparisons.

Immediate and direct reduction of fear in each response system is preferred to the longer process involved in applying a specific response focussed treatment to a particular response system, which may or may not be soon after followed by changes in the other response systems. There is growing evidence that desynchronous changes involving continued manifestation of fear in at least one response system can lead to the return of pre- 36

treatment levels of fear in each response system (DeSilva and Rachman, 1981;

Grey et al., 1979; Grey et al., 1981; Rachman, 1979a, 1980). Moreover, if

the subjective feeling of anxiety is not removed, individuals remain dis•

satisfied with treatment gains regardless of the changes made in autonomic and behavioural response systems (Lick and Katkin, 1976). Reduction of fear

in each system can be achieved in two ways. The first is Lazarus's multi• modal therapy approach, which is based on the premise that lasting therap• eutic change is achieved in direct proportion to the number of specific parameters identified, monitored and treated within the BASIC ID model

(Popler, 1977). The second, more efficient approach is to identify treatments that are capable of influencing each response system directly.

As Lang (1977) stated:

A practical approach would be to evaluate the multisystem efficiency of specific therapeutic regimes. Presuming that we are in a position to assess behaviours pertinent to the three emotional response systems, we could not only compare treatments for their effectiveness in modifying their target response component, but also note their ameliorative effect on the other response systems, (p. 182)

Further research should be directed towards developing procedures which optimise a single treatment's influence on each response system. For inst• ance, there is growing evidence that exposure therapy can directly influence the autonomic and subjective as well as the behavioural system Various explanations for the effectiveness of exposure therapy have been postulated, each assuming that exposure focuses upon one of the three response systems whose change indirectly effects changes in the remaining response systems.

Borkovec (1973) suggested that exposure acts upon conditioned autonomic resp• onses. Others attribute overall effectiveness to the changes exposure prod• uces in self statements; the individual realizes that the anticipated dis• astrous consequences do not occur (Emmelkamp et al., 1978; Emmelkamp, 1979), learns that there is nothing to fear, and gains confidences in both his own ability to deal with the situation, and in the safety of the situation

(Bellack, 1980; Ellis, 1979; Marshall et al., 1977; Mathews and Shaw, 1973)

and, the decreased feelings of discomfort mediate new approach behaviour

(Foa and Steketee, 1979). Others attribute the effects solely to behavioural

changes (Marks, 1972). Hence, it can be speculated that if exposure therapy

does directly influence each response system, then its effectiveness will be

maximised when the procedural aspects are tailored to the response system(s)

most functionally relevant in any individual. For example, exposure duration

has traditionally been controlled by predetermined time intervals or individ•

ual verbal reports of fear reduction (Andrasik et al., 1980). However, as

shown, each system responds at differential rates of change to treatment so

verbal reports may not be synchronous with autonomic and behavioural resp•

onses. Therefore, if the autonomic response is central to an individual's

overall emotional response, termination of exposure should be based on red•

uction in autonomic arousal. Researchers have begun to investigate this

issue (Gauthier and Marshall, 1977; Thomas and Rapp. 1977).

However, the relationship between treatment and response profile is

extremely complex and requires more extensive research. The main conclusions

that can be drawn to date are that the three response systems frequently react differently to treatment strategies., and that change in one system does not

always influence the remaining systems. 38

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

SELF EFFICACY THEORY VERSUS THE THREE-SYSTEMS MODEL

The essential difference between the three-systems model and self efficacy theory is that the former allows considerable response system

independence, while the latter views the response systems as interlocking determinants of a more unified construct.

Theoretical Contrast

In defending the proposed causal role of self efficacy, Bandura (1978) refuted the two-stage conditioning model which stated that autonomic arousal precedes and causes behavioural acts, and that self efficacy is a by-product of this process. Bandura argues that as autonomic latencies are more pro• longed than the latencies of skeletal response systems, autonomic arousal can not account for behaviour. Bandura also cites evidence indicating the presence of avoidance responses in the absence of physiological arousal, and the persistence of avoidance after arousal is extinguished. He concurs with

Schwartz:

All the data taken together shows that while fear (arousal), when present, may influence avoidance responding, it is not nec• essary for the occurrence of avoidance and its elimination does not result in the cessation of avoidance. (1978, p. 256)

Therefore, Bandura argues that if arousal cannot satisfactorily predict avoidance behaviour, it cannot serve as the causal antecedent for both beh• aviour and self efficacy (as was suggested by Eysenck (1978) , Wolpe (1978) and Borkovec (1978)).

This argument appears to be concordant with the three-systems model but

Bandura's statement of the social learning theory view of anxiety indicates that while he recognises some independence of the response systems, their interactive nature is emphasised to a much greater extent: 39

... thought, affect, and action operate as reciprocally interacting factors rather than as loosely linked components or as conjoint events ... The relative influence exerted by these three sets of interlocking factors will vary in indiv• iduals for different activities performed under different circumstances. (1978, p. 257)

Fear reduction in each system is attributed to a superordinate cognitive

factor (Newman and Brand, 1980). Bandura suggests throughout his research

what while the three systems can be discordant and desynchronous, they are

generally concordant and synchronous. He is almost bound to present this

view in order to uphold self efficacy theory. That is, if self efficacy

mediates emotional responses, then the measures of emotional responding

(i.e. the behavioural, verbal and autonomic response systems) must all be

responsive to changes in self efficacy.

Several challenges have been made to Bandura's contention that self

efficacy mediates change in each response system. Rachman noted that

"Although there is good reason to believe that improvements in perceived

self efficacy are particularly helpful, there is no reason to suppose that

all therapeutic changes are mediated by such improvements" (1978, p. 281).

Similarly, Kazdin (1978) stated that it seems somewhat simplistic to attribute

all therapeutic effects to self efficay, as it is unlikely to mediate all

response components.

In his review of Bandura's (1977) initial statement of self efficacy

theory, Wolpe (1978) suggested that self efficacy is only relevant to the

behavioural response system. In accordance, Kendrick (1979) found that self

efficacy was only correlated with behavioural outcome measures. Similarly,

Rachman (1978) implied that self efficacy is only directly relevant to the

behavioural system.

Rachman viewed self efficacy as "an elaborated version of the sense of controllability" (1978, p. 8). Controllability refers to a person's sense 40

of whether or not he is in a position to reduce the likelihood of an aversive

event and/or its consequences occurring. Uncontrollability is viewed as

having a major effect on fear behaviour; confidence, or controllability, is

seen as a ma jor determinant of courageous behaviour, where "courageous"

is defined as the repeated approach and exposure to objectively dangerous

situations in spite of high levels of subjective and autonomic arousal (Cox,

Hallam, O'Connor and Rachman, 1980). Courage is also dependent to a large extent upon competence, and to a lesser extent upon being.assigned tasks that

involve social responsibility (a phenomenon which Rachman (1979b) refers to

"required helpfulness"), group support and role models. Rachman suggested

that training and practice lead to a growing sense of self efficacy which in

turn reinforces courageous behaviour. However, reductions in autonomic and

subjective fear that may follow repeated episodes of courageous behaviour are not attributed to self efficacy, but to habituation resulting from repeated exposure. Although Bandura (1978) said that exceptional cases of discordance between autonomic arousal and self efficacy may occur in object•

ively dangerous situations, self efficacy theory, as Lang (1978) noted, cannot explain why individuals who repeatedly approach situations that

involve threat, and possess behavioural skills, continue to show arousal and to report fear (initially, until the fear and arousal habituate).

Self efficacy theorising and research originally focussed upon the behavioural response system (or, performance attainments). However, the autonomic system is currently receiving greater emphasis. For instance:

It is mainly perceived inefficacy in coping with potentially aversive events that makes them fearsome. Experiences that increase perceived efficacy in controlling potentially injurious events diminish fear arousal and increase commerce with what was previously avoided... People who believe that they can exercise some influence over the occurrence of aversive events display less autonomic arousal and impairment in performance than those who do not believe they have personal control, even though both groups are subjected to the same aversive stimulation. (Bandura, 1978, p. 255) 41

That is, low self efficacy is believed to result in preoccupation with

perceived inefficacy and potential calamities which in turn produce arousal.

In contrast, perceived efficaciousness is believed to reduce arousal (Bandura,

1980).

In further specifying the relationships between self efficacy and

arousal, Bandura (1980) predicted that at identical levels of self efficacy,

decreasing strength of self efficacy produces greater arousal. To test this

prediction, Bandura (1980) employed blood pressure and heart rate measures in

the assessment of spider phobics during anticipation and performance of tasks

corresponding to varying strengths of perceived self efficaciousness. On

tasks associated with strong percepts of self efficacy, the subjects were

viscerally unperturbed. On tasks assigned moderate levels of self efficacy,

heart rate and blood pressure increased above baseline levels. The antic•

ipation of tasks associated with weak percepts of self efficacy (which could

not usually be performed) resulted in decreases in heart rate and further

increases in blood pressure. Several methodological inadequacies render this

data questionnable. Firstly, the influence of different motor and cognitive

demands inherent in each task upon physiological response were not controlled.

Also, the reported increases in heart rate were of questionnable clinical

significance. Moreover, the extent to which a spider phobic population

is representative of severe fear reactions is equivocal. Most of Bandura's

subject samples have been drawn from analogue populations, and the findings

therefore may have limited generalizability (Poser, 1978; Woolfolk and Laz•

arus, 1979) . Physiological measurements have not been obtained (except in

the most recent reported study), and the effect of extraneous situational

influences upon verbal and behavioural measures have not been controlled.

Although, Bandura (1978) claimed that conditions which minimise the subject's

incentive to misrepresent cognitive processes would be sufficient to obtain accurate verbal reports. However, his subjects' responses may not have reflected true fearfulness, and/or may have inflated treatment effectiveness

(Borkovec et al., 1977).

Therefore, the relationship between self efficacy and each of the resp• onse systems should be examined under conditions which control extraneous situational influences in a population experiencing debilitating anxiety reactions.

Treatment Choice Contrast

Bandura contends that the higher the level of self efficacy induced, the more effective is treatment. This contrasts to the treatment implic• ations derived from the three-systems model; greatest treatment effective• ness results from implementing that treatment most appropriate for the indiv• idual's most functionally relevant fear response(s) (Borkovec et al., 1977;

Freedman et al., 1981). Bandura (1977) claimed that participant modelling is the most effective fear reduction technique because enactive experiences are the strongest source of efficacy information. Symbolic modelling (based on vicarious experience) and systematic desensitization (based on arousal information) are considered equally less effective. However, Wolpe (1978) suggested, in accordance with the three-systems model, that symbolic modelling and systematic desensitization are probably differentially effective with different subjects possessing different response patterns. Hence, the negative and positive treatment effects across a group of subjects probably cancel each other out. Participant modelling, however, focuses upon both arousal and behavioural response systems, is therefore most appropriate for a wider range of subjects, and so appears to be more effective. Bandura's theory fails to consider the complexity of the interaction between individual response profile and treatment. 43

Experimental Evidence

Cox et al's (1980) study did not support predictions from self efficacy

theory. They demonstrated that "courageous" (or, decorated) bomb disposal operators performed laboratory stress-inducing tasks with significantly

lower levels of physiological arousal then "noncourageous" (or, nondecorated)

bomb disposal operators, though they reported the same degree of subjective

fear. Aside from the causal issue of whether autonomic responding was red•

uced by increased self efficacy or by some other mechanism, this appears to provide support for Bandura's prediction that strong self efficacy would be empirically associated with reduced autonomic arousal. However, self effic•

acy was measured in relation to bomb disposal skills and not in relation to

the laboratory tasks. As self efficacy is supposedly very task specific,

the degree of bomb disposal related self efficacy may not have been relevant

to the laboratory task. More importantly, high self efficacy for the task would have predicted concordance between the response systems, all indic•

ating relatively low levels of anxiety. However, discordance was obtained.

Self Efficacy as an Hypothetical Construct

Kozak and Miller (in press) suggested that the three-systems model is only a methodology for assessing fear, and lacks an hypothetical construct.

Hypothetical constructs provide organizing principles for relating several

superficially dissimilar outcomes (i.e. behavioural, verbal and autonomic), are not observed directly but are inferred from their manifestations, and allow subsequent prediction of relationships among the manifesting systems

(Wiggins, 1973). Kozak and Miller argued that Lang had equated fear as a construct with observable data, without specifying principles for identifying

from that data when an individual is fearful, whereas, an hypothetical construct would enable one to account for the complexity of the data, to organize and integrate various response patterns across diverse individuals and situations. They claimed that even if the systems do not covary, some• thing must be conceptually common across the systems as grouping them would be otherwise fruitless.

However, it seems that the systems are grouped because of their relat• ionships to stimulus conditions, and the nature of the stimulus conditions has served to guide research, for it is the basis upon which Hodgson and

Rachman (1974) developed their five hypotheses. Therefore, the three-systems model could be viewed as a "response classes" model (Wiggins, 1973) in which the manifesting systems are viewed as signs of response classes rather than as signs of internal structures. Diverse attributes can be considered mem• bers of a response class when it can be demonstrated that they enter into some functional relationship with antecedent, concurrent and consequent stimulus conditons; the frequency, intensity or duration of a response class should be predictable from changes in those conditons (Wiggins, 1973).

In spite of the previously cited evidence and arguments regarding the conflicts between predictions from self efficacy theory and the three-systems model, Wilson (1978) has suggested that self efficacy would be an appropriate hypothetical construct for the three-systems model. An examination of the relationship between self efficacy and the three response systems may be of some benefit in testing the usefulness of self efficacy as an hypothetical construct. 45

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Specific predictions from self efficacy theory and the three-systems

model were analysed in this study in the context of solo piano performance

anxiety. While both theories predict more concordance among the response

systems when intense emotional responses are elicited, self efficacy theory

also predicts concordance under conditions associated with weak emotional

responses. The three-systems model predicts more discordance under those

conditions.

Bandura has provided empirical support for a relationship between self

efficacy and both behavioural and subjective indices of fear. However, the

analogue nature of the research and the failure to control extraneous sit•

uational influences upon the behavioural and verbal response measures renders

this evidence questionnable. Also, further examination of the relationship

between autonomic responses and self efficacy is required. Therefore, this

study examined the relationship of self efficacy to each response system while attempting to control extraneous situational influences. Useful infor• mation regarding the suitability of self efficacy as an hypothetical construct

for the three-systems model was sought in the process of testing their

contrasting predictions. Further, the study provided additional data in

relation to Hodgson and Rachmans' (1974) hypotheses. Only two studies have provided empirical evidence for concordance amongst the response systems when intense emotional responses are elicited. However, the Sartory et al.

(1977) study only examined subjective and autonomic responses, and also

found that the concordance did not appreciably decrease as the emotional

response weakened. The second study (Marks et al., 1971) only reported

concordance among measures within the autonomic system. Therefore, Hodgson 46

and Rachmans' first hypothesis requires further supportive evidence.

This study also attempted to assess concordance while attempting to minimise the effects of measurement error. Specifically, this entailed

recording several physiological indices of the autonomic response, while

attempting to control both the effects of motor and cognitive demands of

the performance task upon autonomic responding by including a neutral

stimulus conditon, and extraneous influences upon behavioural and subjective measures.

Finally, this study provided additional data for the scales developed

by Kendrick (1979) specifically to measure musical performance anxiety.

Experimental Hypotheses

In accordance with the three-systems model, the following pattern of

results was hypothesised;

1. (a) Evaluative conditions will elicit more intense emotional responses

in the relatively anxious group than nonevaluative conditions;

(b) Evaluative conditions will elicit more intense emotional responses

in the relatively anxious group than the relatively nonanxious group;

2. (a) The behavioural, self report and autonomic response systems will

demonstrate more synchronous changes in the relatively anxious group

than the relatively nonanxious group;

(b) In the relatively anxious group, concordance will be more evident

under evaluative than under nonevaluative conditions;

(c) Concordance will be more evident in the relatively anxious group

under evaluative conditions than in the relatively nonanxious group

under either evaluative or nonevaluative conditions;

3. (a) In the relatively anxious group, self efficacy will be greater

under nonevaluative than evaluative conditions; (b) Self efficacy will be greater in the relatively nonanxious group under either evaluative or nonevaluative conditions, than in the relatively anxious group under evaluative conditions;

(c) In the relatively anxious group, correlations between self efficacy and each response system will be greater under evaluative conditions

than under nonevaluative conditions;

(d) Correlations between self efficacy and each response system will be greater in the relatively anxious group under evaluative conditions, than in the relatively nonanxious group under either evaluative or nonevaluative conditions. 48

METHOD

Subjects

Subjects were drawn from populations of piano students, contacted

through either music programs at the University of British Columbia,

Capilano College and King Edward College, or private music teachers

around Vancouver. Students were judged by their respective teachers to

have attained sufficient proficiency for solo performance, and had

performed solo prior to contact. Students were approached either during

classes, or by phone contact, at which point a basic rationale was given

for the study, a screening questionnaire was completed, and those interested

in participating in the study were identified (see Appendix 1).

The subject sample was selected on the basis of two criteria. Firstly,

students were assigned either "relatively anxious" or "relatively non•

anxious" status on the basis of a median split of screening questionnaire

scores: scores of 11 or higher, and 10 or lower respectively. Secondly,

those attributed "relatively anxious" status must have also stated that

anxiety during solo performances was a current source of concern, while

"relatively nonanxious" scorers stated that it was not. It has been sug• gested by Bernstein (1973) , Borkovec et al. (1974) and Borkovec and

O'Brien (1976) that this second criterion enhances the validity of subject

selection procedures. Measures relating to the aforementioned criteria are presented in Appendix 2.

Subjects were two groups of 20 piano students each. Ages ranged from

16 to 33 years; from 16 to 33 (M = 21.05, SD = 4.15) in the relatively anxious group (or group 1), and from 18 to 26 (M = 20.15, SD = 2.46) 49

in the relatively nonanxious group (or group 2). There were 16 females

and four males in group 1, and eight females and 12 males in group 2.

Groups were matched on grade level (Toronto Conservatory standards),

ranging from grade nine to A.R.C.T. Appendix 3 contains descriptive

statistics of the above mentioned subject data.

Experimental Setting

The two performance assessments were conducted in a studio located

in the Music Building at the University of British Columbia. All subjects performed on a six-foot Bechstein grand piano. The studio also contained

a video-camera, microphone, speaker and telemetry transmitters. A

nearby room ("equipment room") contained a polygraph, FM telemetry receiver,

videotape recording equipment and two oscilloscopes.

Self Report Measures

The Report of Confidence as a Performer Scale (RCP) - the screening questionnaire - consisted of 30 keyed true/false statements describing

autonomic, cognitive and behavioural manifestations of anxiety experienced during solo piano performances. Appel (1974) obtained a split half

reliability coefficient of 0.94 from RCP scores. The S-R Inventory of

General Trait Anxiousness (Endler and Okada, 1975) was adapted to the solo

piano performance situation to provide a concurrent validity measure for

the RCP (see Appendix 4). Endler and Okada (1975) reported reliability

coefficients ranging from 0.62 to 0.85. The inventory was administered

immediately prior to the first performance.

Five self report scales were administered in each performance session

(Appendix 5). The State Scale (XI) of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

(Speilberger, Gorsuch and Lushene, 1970) was administered approximately

15 minutes prior to entering the studio (see Appendix 5A). The State 50

scale focuses upon qualities of tension, nervousness, worry and appre•

hension elicited by specific situations. Subjects respond to 20 state•

ments to indicate their feelings at that particular moment. Cronbach

(1951) has reported an internal consistency range of 0.83 to 0.92 for this

scale, and empirical validity has been demonstrated (Lazarus and Opion,

1966). Also, Borkovec et al. (1977) claim that this scale is not as

susceptible to experimental demand influences as the frequently employed

Fear Thermometer.

Subjective Units of Distress Scales (SUDS) - zero to 100 - were used

to guage the degree of discomfort experienced immediately prior to and

during performance (see Appendix 5B and 5C respectively). The during

performance SUDS were obtained for three periods; immediately after

beginning, midway through, and just prior to completion of the performance.

These ratings were provided retrospectively following completion of the

performance.

Two self efficacy measures were administered approximately 10 minutes

prior to entering the studio. The Expectations of Personal Efficacy for

Musicians Scale (Kendrick, 1979) assesses pianists' expectations of being

able to complete a number of tasks relating to piano performance (see

Appendix 5D). Generalisation is measured by self efficacy ratings on five different types of piano performance tasks. Two indices of self eff• icacy were derived from each subscale (i.e. specific and general expectat• ions of personal efficacy). The first index was level of self efficacy, or, the number of tasks subjects believed they could perform with some certainty.

Certainty was the second index, referred to as the strength of self effic• acy. A strength score is obtained for each level (task) from a seven point scale indicating the degree of certainty with which the task could be 51 performed with anxiety under control. "With anxiety under control" was inc• luded as a conditional requirement in consideration of the differences be- ween Bandura's phobic populations and musicians. That is, while most snake phobics would not touch a snake, pianists have engaged in most or all of the tasks listed in the self efficacy scale, albeit with extreme levels of anxiety (Kendrick, 1979). Scale construction entailed the establishment of consensual and concurrent validation, and a test-retest reliability of .88.

Kendrick's scale does not include items that represent the performance

conditions in this study. However, Bandura (1978) claims that it is

essential that self efficacy measures be commensurate with the actual

performance task. Therefore, a second self efficacy measure was designed,

and modified to suit the parameters of each performance condition (see

Appendix 5E and 5F respectively). The tasks (or self efficacy level)

were ranked upon two dimensions: degree df mastery and presence/absence

of music sheets. These dimensions were derived from consultation with

experienced pianists. In both scales, self efficacy level was calculated

by summing the number of tasks subjects believed they could perform with

a strength value of at least one.

The Performance Anxiety Self Statement Scale (Kendrick, 1979) was

administered immediately following each performance (see Appendix 5H).

This scale was specifically developed to assess pianists' positive and

negative thoughts before, during and after a performance. Scale construct•

ion entailed establishment of consensual, concurrent and construct valid•

ation, and an internal consistency of 0.92. As this scale was designed

to assess thoughts during performances before an audience, some items

were slightly modified to suit the nonaudience experimental condition in

this study: items 7, 15, 26 and 28 (see Appendix 5G). 52

Behavioural Measures

Two behavioural measures were obtained for both performances. The first was a measure of performance effectiveness which entailed 10 point sclaes of quality of performance on each of the following dimensions: touch, phrasing, pitch and omission, rhythm, tempo, dynamics, memory and overall effectiveness (see Appendix 6 for definitions of each term).

This measure was a modification of the performance error count procedure used by Kendrick (1979). Performances were scored by two pianists, both of whom held University degrees in music and A.R.C.T.s in piano perform• ance. They worked independently from copies of the music score and audiotape recordings of the music, and were blind with respect to subjects' group membership and order of the performances. The performances were presented in a randomly counterbalanced order in each group (the first performance was viewed first for half the subjects in each group). Both performances of each subject were presented consecutively in order to allow a direct comparison of quality to be made. The raters listened to each performance at least two times (ratings were checked during the second listening). In addition the raters rated the amount of vigour with which each piece was played on a 10 point scale (from very little to very much).

Vigour was rated in order to assess possible interactions between auto• nomic measures and physical movement. The performance effectiveness rating sheet is presented in Appendix 7.

The second behavioural measure was a timed checklist of overt and observable indications of performance anxiety. The checklist was developed by Kendrick (1979), and included the following items: knees tremble, hands

tremble, lifts shoulders, stiff back and neck, stiff arms, face deadpan and moistens lips. Kendrick obtained inter-rater reliabilities between

0.8 and 1.0. The first two behaviours were omitted as they could not be clearly seen on the videotape. Two raters worked independently from

video recordings of the performances, and were blind with respect to the

subjects' group membership and condition of performance, The performances

in each group were presented in a randomly counterbalanced order. Raters

recorded the presence or absence of each target response within each of

the following three 20 second intervals: immediately following the first

note, midway through the performance, and immediately preceding the final

note (see Appendix 8 for definitions of items and rating sheet). Raters

were trained to a reliability level of 0.83.

Autonomic Measures

Three measures of autonomic arousal were collected, using a telemetry device which allowed continuous recording before, during and after perform• ances. Skin resistance level and skin resistance response (amplitude, latency and rise time) were measured and converted to conductance units

(Hassett, 1978). Amplitude was defined as —- ~~, where SRT was skin SR2 SR}_ resistance at the point before onset of the skin resistance response, and

SR2 was skin resistance at the peak of the response. Latency was defined as the interval between the onset of the tone and start of the response.

Rise time was defined as the interval between the start of the response and the peak of the response (Venables and Christie, 1980). Active eccrine gland sites are most concentrated on palmar and plantar surfaces (Venables and Christie, 1980), however, electrode placements in these regions would interfere with musical performance. Therefore, the medial hypomall- eolar are - "the medial side of the foot over the abductor hallucis muscle adjacent to the plantar surface and midway between the first phalange and a point directly beneath the ankle" (Venables and Christie, 1980) - was used. Rickles and Day (1968) found that this site provided comparable data to that of palmar placements except under low arousal conditions. A 54 two second tone (100 decibels, 1000 Hz) elicited skin resistance responses.

The tone was presented on three occasions, one minute prior to the signal to commence playing (tone 1), the signal to commence (tone 2), and one min• ute following the signal to commence (tone 3). Analyses were performed on responses to tones 1 and 3 only; responses to tone 2 would have been con• founded by movement artifact resulting from commencement of playing. Tones

1 and 3 were chosen to provide measurements of skin resistance response both prior to and during playing. Skin resistance level was recorded at three points; one minute prior to the first note (just before tone 1), one minute following the first note (just before tone 3), and immediately prior to the final note.

An attempt to measure maximum and minimum responses was made in order to calculate range-corrected heart rate and skin resistance level scores. Range correction is calculated by expressing each response as a ratio of a partic• ular subject's range of responsiveness: — Xmi? , where Xo = the observed Xmax - Xmin response (Hassett, 1978). Range correction has been used to correct for individual differences in response lability (Lykken, Rose, Luther and Maley,

1966; Lykken, 1972). The maximum value was assumed to be the subject's highest heart rate (over a 10 second sample) or highest level of skin conduc• tance (that did not represent the peak of a response) recorded throughout both assessment sessions. The minimum value was assumed to be those levels of skin conductance and heart rate recorded after a period of rel• axing, or any lower levels recorded throughout both assessment sessions.

Twenty percent of the data points for each autonomic measure were randomly selected from each performance condition for the purposes of rel• iability assessment. The reliability rater was blind with respect to the experimental conditions and group membership of the subjects. 55

Heart rate was sampled over 10 second intervals. These began: 100 seconds prior to the first note; 40 seconds prior to the first note;

10 seconds prior to the first note; 120 seconds past the first note; 180 seconds past the first note; 240 seconds past the first note; and 300 sec• onds past the first note. Measurements were not taken from the interval beginning 60 seconds past the first note to avoid confound with response to tone 3. In following the procedure used by Kendrick (1979), tachometer out• put (i.e. beat to beat intervals) was averaged within each 10 second interval.

Respiration was measured by dividing the number of peaks occurring within an interval by the length of that interval, to provide a measure of breaths per minute. Two intervals were used: the duration from the init• iation of recording to tone 1, and the duration of the musical piece.

a

It was assumed that such extraneous factors as diet, activity level prior to assessment sessions, current health, alcohol intake and so on, that may influence autonomic response, were controlled by randomisation procedures.

Apparatus and Equipment,

An RCA black and white, closed circuit camera (model number TG2011/N),

RCA video cassette recorder (model number VET 650) , and VHS tapes were

used to record subjects' performances. In addition, an RCA Time-Date

Generator (model number 1440B/02), attached to the video recording unit, displayed minutes, seconds and hundredths of a second within a 24 minute

readout. Tapes were played back on an RCA 19 inch portable television monitor (model number JD 975 WV) for visual rating purposes. Audio ratings

were made from the video cassette unit.

Sine wave tones (1 kHz) were generated via a tone generator, and

amplified by a Bogen Acousta Master amplifier ( 100 W, model number CT 100).

The tone was broadcast to the subjects via a Cerwin Vega speaker (model 56

number V-30), and was calibrated using a Triplett sound level meter (model

number 375) at the point of the subject's head.

An EKEG Electronics Co. Ltd. FM telemetry system broadcast heart rate,

respiration and skin resistance data from the subject in the studio to a

Grass Model 7 polygraph. Respiration and skin resistance were converted to

d.c. voltages, which were amplified and used to frequency modulate 4000 Hz

and 900 Hz carrier signals respectively. The carrier signals were mixed to

frequency modulate a 90 MHz transmitter, which was then demodulated in the

telemetry receiver. The output signals to the polygraph were voltages prop•

ortional to the subject's respiration and skin resistance. Heart rate data

was sent on a second transmitter (900 Hz carrier). Two Cathode Ray Oscill•

oscopes were connected to each FM receiver to facilitate the accurate tuning

of each receiver.

Respiration was measured by a chest circumference strain guage contain•

ing coconut carbon. The respiration telemetric system sent output to a 7P1

preamplifier on a Model 7 Grass Polygraph.

Two Med Associates nonpolarizing silver-silver chloride electrodes

(model TDE-20, half inch sensor diameter) were placed on the hypomalleolar

area of that foot used least whilst playing. The skin was first wiped clean

with water. Electrode paste consisted of a mixture of one part physiological

saline to two parts Unibase. This produces, a paste with a sodium chloride

concentration comparable to that found in sweat (0.05-0.75 M NaCl) thus

minimising the possibility.of sweat diffusing into the electrolyte and chang•

ing the chloride concentration (Fowles, Christie, Edelberg, Grings, Lykken

and Venables, 1981). Double sided adhesive electrode collars (Med Associates,

TD-20) were used to ensure control of skin contact area; 92 mm2. A cotton

sock was placed over the foot to maintain warmth. The skin resistance telem- 57

etric system sent output to a 7P1 preamplifier on a Grass Model 7 Polygraph.

Two electrodes of the same description were attached to the left shin and

right collar bone, using Beckman electrode paste, after the skin had been

first abraded with Hewlett-Packard Redux paste. Pilot trials indicated that

these placements were associated with the least movement artifact. The

E.K.E.G. telemetric system provided output to a 7P4A tachograph preamplifier

on a Grass Model 7 Polygraph.

Ganz Gehartet calipers were used to measure intervals on the polygraph

chart paper (accurate to 0.05 mm units).

Assessment Conditions

All subjects performed in two conditions in the following order:

(a) Performance alone (nonevaluative) - subjects performed a musical piece

in the studio with no-one else present. In an attempt to reduce

anxiety, subjects were informed that this first session was for purp•

oses of practice and adaptation only, and were not made aware of the

video camera. Subjects were debriefed following completion of the perf•

ormance .

(b) Performance before an audience (evaluative) - subjects performed the

same musical piece before an audience of five judges whom the

subjects believed were evaluating their performance. The audience

were seated in a half circle around the subject. Subjects were also

made aware of the video camera. This condition occurred one week

after the first.

The audience was comprised mostly of graduate University students, some of whom were musicians. The audience's age range was comparable to

that of the subjects'. They were introduced as being "accomplished pianists and experts in behavioural assessment who have copies of your music and will 58

be evaluating your performance". The audience was provided with music

sheets and required to write notes on four occasions during each performance, maintain a neutral to friendly facial expression, and to make no reaction to

the tones. In addition, the audience was asked to check those behaviours on the Timed Behavioural Checklist which were present at any time during

the performance (see Appendix 9). This task was undertaken to justify the audience's presence as behavioural assessors, and the data were not analysed.

Procedure

Selection of Subjects Approximately 120 pianists completed the RCP. Each person satisfying the criteria for inclusion was phone contacted either by

the researcher (R) or research assistant (RA), and asked if they would be

interested in participating in the study (see Appendix 10). Subjects were told they would be required to perform on two occasions; once alone and once before a small group of people. Subjects were also offered payment of five dollars per session. Those who indicated interest were then told to choose a piece of music, three to five minutes in length, which they had mastered and felt comfortable playing from memory.

Finally, subjects were told they would be called again to arrange dates and times.

Subjects were phone contacted again within two weeks and assigned times and dates. The title and grade level of chosen pieces were ascert• ained (the subject data sheet is presented in Appendix 11). Subjects were asked to bring a copy of their music to the first session with any deliberate changes in tempo or dynamics marked on it. Electrode placements were also described to subjects, and they were asked to refrain from wearing clothing that would hinder electrode placement (e.g., high collars etc.) Grade levels of the music pieces were then checked against the Toronto Conservatory of Music listing to ensure that subjects had 59 chosen pieces at their grade level of proficiency. In the week prior to

the first session, all subjects were reminded of dates, times, location, music copies and clothing by mail.

Fifty five pianists were selected for participation in the study.

One person was randomly selected (within the constraints of maintaining a matched group design) to be dropped from the analysis in order to produce equal group sizes. Four people completed only one assessment session. Ten people withdrew from the study prior to the first session, after having vol• unteered.

Alone Condition (Condition 1) Performances were scheduled every 15 minutes

(see Appendix 12). Subjects arrived 20 minutes prior to their performance

time and were greeted by RA^. RAi collected the subject's music copy, plac•

ing it in that student's envelope, and read a set of instructions which described the procedure and emphasised the practice nature of this session

(these are presented in Appendix 13). The subjects were informed that the purpose of this session was to allow them to become familiar with the setting

and procedures, and that evaluations would not be made. RAj_ then attached one heart rate electrode to the right collar bone. While RA^ attached remaining electrodes, subjects read and signed a consent form (see

Appendix 14), and completed the S-R Inventory of General Trait Anxious- ness, the State Anxiety Scale, the Expectations of Personal Efficacy Scales, the Self Efficacy Scale and the Sud Scale. Subjects were instructed that

"first impression" responses were most appropriate. RA^ then placed the completed questionnaires in the subject's envelope, which was then handed to Subjects were taken to the piano (in studio) by R who attached the electrodes to the transmitters. R then told subjects to:

Announce your name and the title of your piece when I leave the

room. Then, sit very still until you hear the second tone, when you 60

should begin to play. I'll return when you finish to unhook you.

After returning to the equipment room, R began the stopwatch, initiated polygraphic recording and started video equipment. Three minutes after leaving the studio, R generated the first tone. A second tone was generated following a further 60 seconds, to signal subjects to begin playing. A third tone was generated following a further 60 seconds. The researcher recorded a time-date generator point on the polygraph chart paper, in addit•

ion to the onset of each tone and the beginning and end of the piece. Exact tone onsets were obtained by viewing the time-date generator from the video• tapes at a later date.

Following completion of the performance, R returned to the studio, and

informed the subject:

Now I need to obtain an estimate of the range of your physiolog•

ical responding, because everyone differs in the amount by which their

level of arousal can change. To do this, I'll ask you to sit quietly

for a few minutes with your eyes closed and just try to relax. I'll

return in a few moments.

R then returned to the polygraph and monitored autonomic response for

three to five moments of relaxation. R then returned to the studio, unhooked the subject, and walked the subject back to the equipment room where he/she was met by RA2. Subjects completed the SUD and Self Statement scales while RA2 removed and cleaned the electrodes. Completed scales were placed in the subject's envelope. RA2 then"read the subject a set of inst•

ructions which debriefed subjects about the nature of this performance session (see Appendix 15). Subjects were informed that the initial set of

instructions was intended to reduce tension as much as possible but that, in

fact, their performances had been evaluated. They were also given the opt-

to request that the videorecordings be erased. 61

The subject then read and signed a second consent form (see Appendix

16). RA2 Paid tne subject and reminded him/her to refrain from perfecting

their piece before the next session.

Audience Condition (Condition 2) Subjects were again instructed to arrive

20 minutes prior to their performance, and were met by RA^ wno read a set of instructions, describing the evaluative role of the audience and the presence of a camera (see Appendix 17). The subjects were informed that the audience were experts who would be evaluating their performance which would also be videotaped. After attaching an electrode to the right collar bone, subjects were given a video questionnaire which asked them to state whether they had been "aware", "suspicious" or "unaware" of the video camera in the previous session (see Appendix 18). Subjects then completed the State Anxiety

Inventory, two self efficacy scales and SUD scale whilst RA^ attached the remaining electrodes.

Until completion of the performance, the procedure used in Condition 1 was followed except that the audience was present as subjects entered the studio. R then unhooked the subjects and walked them back to the equipment room where they were met by RA2. Subjects completed the Retrospective SUD and Self Statement scales while RA2 removed and cleaned the electrodes.

RA2 then thanked the subjects for participating, paid them five dollars and informed them that they would be contacted, by mail, regarding the results.

Debriefing Several months following the last experimental session, subjects were debriefed by mail contact. The letter (presented in Appendix 20) con- tianed the following information: purpose of the research, nature of the audience and personal feedback.

Design and Statistical Analyses

The experiment was a 2 x 2, mixed model design. The two independent groups formed the levels of a between factor, while the two conditions

formed the levels of a within factor. Several statistcial packages were

used in the analysis of the data. These included the Statistical Package

for the Social Sciences (Nie, Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner and Bent, 1970) ,

BMDP (Dixon, 1981) and MIDAS ( Foa and Guire, 1976). RESULTS

Summary of Findings

The performance-conditions and the subject-groupings effects were analysed through group mean comparisons. The hypotheses stated that relatively anxious pianists would be most affected by the presence of an audience. This prediction was supported by the results. The audience condition elicited self report and autonomic changes in that group on the following variables; state anxiety, mean self efficacy strength, total

SUDS and heart rate whilst playing. In contrast, the audience condition only produced heart rate changes in the relatively nonanxious group.

Moreover, the audience condition affected performance quality to a greater extent in the relatively anxious group. Therefore, as predicted, group mean differences were generally larger in the audience condition. Analyses of extreme scorers on the initial screening index (most anxious and least anxious pianists) enhanced those differences on the behavioural and self report measures.

It was also hypothesised that all changes occurring for relatively anxious (and most anxious) pianists would reflect increased anxiety. The results were also consistent with this hypothesis: performance accomp• lishment diminished, subjective distress increased, state anxiety increased, self efficacy decreased and heart rate elevated. Trends that did not reach significance were also suggestive of increased anxiety; more overt signs of anxiety tended to be observed, and more negative self statements tended to be reported. Measures on which trends were not observed included skin conductance and respiration. That is, of the 13 dependent variables, 64

five reflected significantly increased anxiety, two reflected trends

towards increased anxiety, and six failed to reflect any systematic resp•

onse to the audience condition. In contrast, the dependent measures refl•

ected either reduced anxiety (performance accomplishment increased), or

increased anxiety (subjective distress and heart rate increased), or no

change in relatively nonanxious (and least anxious) pianists.

Concordance between the dependent measures recorded during performances

was hypothesised to be more evident in the relatively anxious group when

playing before an audience. That is, the measures were expected to reflect

comparable levels of anxiety in any given subject. Though few significanct

correlations were obtained, those that did emerge supported that hypothesis.

Concordance was obtained among the following relationships in the audience

condition for relatively anxious pianists; performance quality and overt

signs of anxiety (approached significance), self statements and retrospective

SUDS, respiration and skin conductance level, overt signs of anxiety and

retrospecitve SUDS, heart rate and retrospective SUDS (approached signif•

icance) , and heart rate and self statements. That is, concordance was

obtained among dependent measures both within and between the response

systems. Only two concordant relationships were observed in the relatively

nonanxious group, one in each performance condition.

Finally, self efficacy theory predictions were not generally supported.

Relatively anxious pianists were expected to show reduced self efficacy in the audience condition as compared to their ratings in the alone condition and to the ratings of relatively nonanxious pianists. These predictions were supported by the mean self efficacy strength variable, which represented an average strength score for the three measures of self efficacy judgements.

However, only two of the six indices of self efficacy demonstrated group differences, and only one of those (strength of general expectations of 65

personal efficacy) was influenced by the audience condition. Conviction

ratings of ability to perform the particular experimental tasks also failed

to differentiate the performance conditions in either group. Moreover, in

agreement with the three-systems model, self efficacy only correlated with

one of the three response systems (self report). Details of all of the

analyses are described below.

Analyses to evaluate the interaction between preliminary subject

variables (age and sex) and dependent measures are presented first, follow•

ed by examination of the validity of the initial screening index. Interrater

reliabilities and relationships among various dependent measures and the

vigour with which the piece was played are then presented. The major anal•

yses of the study include an evaluation of group means across and within

performance conditions, and examination of correlations among dependent

measures.

Due to instrument failure, respiration data were not available for six

subjects (three in each group) in the alone condition, and six different

subjects (three in each group) in the audience condition. Skin conductance

data were also missing for one subject in each condition for similar

reasons. Missing data were replaced with unweighted means of the relevant

group's performance in either the alone or audience condition.

Range correction of heart rate and skin conductance level data was deemed appropriate from the large amount of individual variability on those measures. Range correction effectively replaces data that are confounded by

individual physiological differences with scores that reflect the relative

status of individuals with respect to the construct of interest (i.e. anx•

iety) (Lang, 1971). In accordance with Lang's suggestion, analyses were performed on both range corrected and absolute values of the autonomic 66 system. However, only range corrected values were presented in this section as the same pattern of results emerged from both types of analysis.

Absolute heart rate and skin conductance level means and standard deviations are presented in Appendix 21.

Preliminary Variables

In order to assess the comparability of the relatively anxious and relatively nonanxious groups on uncontrolled subject variables, age and sex distributions were examined. A one-way between groups analysis of variance showed that the mean age of subjects in each group did not signif• icantly differ. However, a chi-square analysis showed that sex was unequally distributed across the two groups; %{2) = 6.8, p_ < .01.

One-way between groups analyses of variance were performed to identify the relationships between sex and each dependent variable. Means, standard deviations and F values are presented in Table I. From those variables indicating significant sex differences, examination of means revealed that females reported lower strength of specific personal efficacy

(SStrength), more frequent negative self statements (SS) and lower skin conductance level at tone 1 (SCL1) when playing alone. When playing before an audience, females reported higher levels of state anxiety (State), lower strength values on all measures of self efficacy, more frequent negative self statements, higher levels of retrospective subjective units of distress (RSUDS) and lower skin conductance level at each recording period.

However, sex could not be included as a grouping factor in subsequent analyses, as some cells would be too small for valid statistical procedures.

However, sex interactions were considered in the overall interpretation of the results as sex as a factor appeared to account for at least part of the variance in several dependent variables. 67

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations and F Values

for Males and Females on each Dependent Variable

Male (n = 16) Female (n = 24) Measure M SD M SD

PQ Alone 39.56 16.03 35.92 12.58 0.65 ns Audience 38.13 16.85 36.11 12.63 0.42 ns TC Alone 3.28 1.98 3.33 1.3 8 0.92 ns Audience 3.53 2.54 3.54 1.8 7 0.99 ns State Alone 37.00 11.90 38.75 9.04 0.28 ns Audience 36.56 11.22 45.75 11.13 6.50 < .02 SLevel Alone 4.69 0.70 4.42 0.78 ,26 ns Audience 4.88 0.34 4.42 0.97 ,25 ns SStrength Alone 21.44 5.02 17.38 6.31 ,65 < .05 Audience 21.63 5.70 17.25 6.67 ,62 < .05 GLevel Alone 4.94 0.25 4.50 0.89 ,67 ns Audience 4.94 0.25 4.38 1.13 ,78 ns GStrength Alone 20.56 6.46 17.08 8.84 ,82 ns Audience 20.56 6.72 15.63 7.94 ,18 < .05 Level Alone 4.50 0.73 4.21 0.93 ,11 ns Audience 4.56 0.63 4.25 1.19 ,93 ns Strength Alone 18.44 6.14 16.96 5.89 0.59 ns Audience 19.31 5.74 15.29 5.65 4.81 < .05 SUDS Alone 35.63 22.50 40.42 24.04 0.40 ns Audience 41.25 25.00 54.58 26.04 2.60 ns RSUDS Alone 106.81 71.09 152.92 82.34 3.35 ns Audience 120.44 93.48 188.96 87.64 5.57 < .05 SS Alone 91.63 43.54 138.63 62.87 6.75 < .02 Audience 100.31 61.63 143.58 64.38 4.49 < .05 SCL1 (^mhos) Alone 7.28 3.55 ,80 2.69 2.25 ns Audience 10.00 5.69 ,46 3.06 10.75 < .01 Amplitudel (yumhos) Alone 2.22 2.13 ,71 1.45 0.82 ns Audience 1.60 1.01 ,24 1.71 0.57 ns Latencyl (sees) Alone 3.75 01 ,96 1.49 2.03 ns Audience 2.51 03 ,87 1.34 0.84 ns Risetimel (sees) Alone 2.86 42 ,74 1.51 3.37 ns Audience 2.75 04- .23 1.37 0.80 ns Table 1 (cont'd)

Male (n = 16) Female (n = 24) Measure M SD M SD F E

SCL3 (//mhos) Alone 10.63 5.47 6.84 3.49 7.17 < .02 Audience 15.04 10.50 7.02 4.90 10.64 < .01 Amplitude3 (/(mhos) Alone 0.82 0.79 0.78 0.90 0.03 ns Audience 1.57 1.55 0.78 1.08 3.58 ns Latency3 (sees) Alone 2.00 1.39 2.09 0.99 0.07 ns Audience 1.89 1.09 1.96 1.00 0.04 ns Risetime3 (sees) Alone 3.04 2.06 2.29 1.46 1.84 ns Audience 1.98 0.96 2.30 1.05 0.96 ns SCLE yumhos) Alone 11.19 10.77 6.59 3.28 3.88 ns Audience 15.53 11.96 6.72 4.15 11.14 < .01 Resp-pre Alone 16.77 2.34 16.45 2.65 0.15 ns Audience 15.78 2.45 17.98 2.31 8.34 < .01 Resp-during Alone 21.20 3.05 22.54 3.93 1.33 ns Audience 21.63 3.70 23.77 3.44 3.51 ns HR-pre Alone 94.85 12.74 92.13 16.98 0.03 ns Audience 109.50 20.83 102.31 20.68 1.16 ns HR-during Alone 108.15 17.11 100.62 18.23 1.72 ns Audience 126.31 22.76 121.04 21.84 0.54 ns

PQ = Performance Quality; TC = Timed Checklist of Observable Signs of Anxiety; State = State Anxiety Scale; SLevel = Level of Specific Expectations of Personal Efficacy (Kendrick); SStrength = Strength of Specific Expectations of Personal Efficacy (Kendrick); GLevel = Level of General Expectations of Personal Efficacy (Kendrick); GStrength = Strength of General Expectations of Personal Efficacy (Kendrick); Level = Level of Self Efficacy; Strength = Strength of Self Efficacy; SUDS = Subjective Units of Distress; RSUDS = Retrospective Subjective Units of Distress; SS = Self Statement Scale; SCL1/3 = Skin conductance level prior to tone 1/3; Amplitudel/3 = Skin conductance response amplitude at tone 1/3; Latencyl/3 = Skin conductance response latency at tone 1/3; Risetimel/3 = Skin conductance response risetime at tone 1/3; SCLE = Skin conductance level at completion of the performance; Resp-pre = Respiration rate prior to tone 1; Resp-during = Respiration rate during performance; HR-pre = Heart rate prior to tone 1; HR-dur- ing = Heart rate during performance. 69

Validity of the Screening Index

The General Trait Anxiousness Scale adapted for piano performance was included as a backup measure for the Report of Confidence as a Performer

Scale (RCP). The significant Pearson product moment correlation, r_ = .71, between these two measures provided some concurrent empirical validation for the identification of relatively anxious and relatively nonanxious pianists on the basis of RCP scores.

A one-way between groups analysis of variance also indicated that relatively anxious pianists reported significantly higher levels of general trait anxiousness (M = 33.1, SD = 7.15) than relatively nonanxious pianists

(M = 23.7, SD = 5.45); F(l,38) = 21.86, £ < .001.

Interrater Reliabilities

Interrater reliabilities were calculated separately for the alone and audience conditions for each of the nine rated variables: performance quality, vigour, observable signs of anxiety, skin conductance level, skin conductance response amplitude, latency and risetime, respiration

(prior to and during performance) and heart rate (prior to and during performance).

Observer agreement was calculated using Pearson product moment corr• elations, which are presented in Table II. Reliabilities all surpassed the acceptable level of .80 (Kazdin, 1980).

Phi correlations were also calculated for each item on the Timed

Checklist of Observable Signs of Anxiety to assess within-interval rater agreements. These are presented in Table III. The analysis showed that, on some variables, the within-interval agreement coefficients were not as high as the overall interrater coefficient. Table II

Interrater Reliabilities Assessed by Pearson Correlations

Variable Alone (r) Audience (r)

PQ 0.84 0.89

Vigour 0.86 0.89 TC 0.92 0.95

SCL 0.99 0.99 Amplitude 0.95 0.95 Latency 0.99 0.96 Risetime 0.93 0.92 Respiration-pre 0.99 0.98 Respiration-during 0.90 0.88 HR-pre 0.99 0.99 HR-during 0.99 0.99 Table III

Phi-Correlations for the Timed

Checklist of Observable Signs of Anxiety

Alone Audience

Item Interval 1 Interval 2 Interval 3 Interval 1 Interval 2 Interval 3

Lifts Shoulders 0.69 0.92 1.00 0.67 0.78 0.69

Stiff Back and 0.65 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.64 Neck

0.72 0.69 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.79 Stiff Arms

0.86 0.75 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.83 Face Deadpan

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Moistens Lips 72

'Vigour', 'Video' and 'Respiration' Design-Control Measures

In order to assess for possible confound between the amount of vigour with which each piece was played, and autonomic responding, separate

Pearson product moment correlations were calculated between vigour and respiration, heart rate and skin conductance levels that were obtained whilst subjects were performing. These are presented in Table IV. The coefficients were generally small, and therefore vigour was not included as a covariate in the subsequent analyses.

A chi-square analysis failed to reveal significant group differences regarding the degree of awareness of the videocamera when playing alone;

X (1) = 2.35, ns. Frequencies are presented in Table V.

Respiration was measured to assess the degree to which it might confound heart rate data. However, the obtained Pearson product moment correlations (presented in Table VI) were generally weak. Therefore, respiration was not included as a covariate in subsequent analyses.

Group Means Analyses

In order to reduce the probability of making Type 1 error while assessing group mean differences across and within conditions, separate multivariate analyses over repeated measures were performed on four sets of dependent measures: behavioural; self report; skin conductance; and heart rate and respiration. As mentioned, range corrected skin conductance level and heart rate analyses are presented (absolute values are presented in Appendix 21). Subjects demonstrated considerable variability in maximum and minimum values of skin conductance level, particularly within the relatively nonanxious group. For maximum values; relatively anxious group, M = 9.42, SD = 4.67; relatively nonanxious group, M =15.52,

SD = 12.87. For minimum values; relatively anxious group, M = 5.30, Table IV

Pearson Correlation Coefficients Between

Vigour and Heart Rate, Respiration and Skin Conductance

Variables Relatively Anxious Relatively Nonanxious (£) (r)

Resp-during

Alone 0.09 -0.31 Audience 0.24 0.05

HR-during

Alone 0.28 0.17 Audience 0.09 0.20

SCL3 Alone -0.12 0.04 Audience 0.21 0.29

SCLE

Alone -0.03 -0.05 Audience 0.17 0.21

*p < .05 Table V

Group Frequencies of Reported Awareness, Suspicion and Unawareness of the Camera

Relatively Anxious Relatively Nonanxious

(n = 20) (n = 20)

Aware

Suspicious

Unaware 7 12 Table VI

Pearson Product Moment Coefficients

Between Respiration Rate and Heart Rate

Variables Relatively Anxious Relatively Nonanxious (r) <£> Resp-pre,HR-pre

Alone -0.46* -0.10 Audience -0.28 -0.03

Resp-dur ing,HR-dur ing

Alone 0.15 0.40 Audience 0.12 0.07 SD = 2.53; relatively nonanxious group, M = 4.95, SD = 2.90. Within group variability was also high in heart rate data. For maximum values; relative• ly anxious group, M = 130.41, SD = 15.73; relatively nonanxious group,

M = 126.02, SD = 26.62. For minimum values; relatively anxious group,

M = 82.26, SD = 13.23; relatively nonanxious group, M = 75.79, SD = 12.63.

Means and standard deviations for each dependent measure are presented in

Table VII.

Behavioural Measures These included performance quality (on which scores could range from 0 to 80) and overt signs of anxiety (which could range from 0 to 15). No significant main effects emerged from the multivariate analysis of behavioural measures. However, the obtained F value for the group x condition interaction was significant; F(2,37) = 3.45, £ < .05.

The behaviour of relatively anxious pianists differed from that of rel• atively nonanxious pianists when performing before an audience. In order to discover if this effect was observed on discrete behavioural measures, two- way between-within univariate analyses of variance were performed on each dependent variable. A summary of the between-within univariate analyses is presented in Appendix 22. The group x condition F value for performance quality (PQ) was significant; F(l,38) = 4.64, £ < .04. Simple effects analyses were performed to further examine the nature of this interaction.

The groups' PQ scores did not significantly differ when playing alone, while the F value was almost significant when playing before an audience; F(l,38)

= 3.89, £< .056. Although dependent samples t-tests indicated that neither groups' quality of performing significantly changed from playing alone to before an audience, an analysis of difference scores reached significance;

F(l,38) = 4.64, £ < .04. Difference score means indicated that the pres• ence of an audience influenced the performances of relatively anxious pianists to a significantly greater extent than the performances of Table VII

Means and Standard

Deviations for each Dependent Measure

Relatively Anxious Relatively Nonanxious

(n = 20) (n = 20)

Measures M SD M SD

PQ Alone 35.32 12.24 39.42 15.58 Audience 33.00 12.28 41.62 15.23 TC Alone 3.00 1.89 3.50 1.47 Audience 3.70 2.00 3.35 1.93 State Alone 41.25 11.13 34.85 8.18 Audience 48.00 11.58 36.15 9.15 Level Mean Alone 4.22 0.52 4.80 0.37 Audience 4.18 0.73 4.87 0.2'3 Strength Mean Alone 15.27 3.75 21.42 4.54 Audience 13.48 4.23 22.18 3.89 SUDS Alone 40.50 22.59 36.50 24.34 Audience 55.50 23.50 43.00 27.74 RSUDS Alone 135.00 72.10 133.90 89.85 Audience 182.70 85.82 140.40 101.30 SUDS Total Alone 175.50 82.30 170.40 108.60 Audience 238.20 97.75 183.40 118.40 SS Alone 144.90 63.02 94.75 45.85 Audience 155.30 70.55 97.20 46.95 RSCL1 Alone 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.21 Audience 0.33 0.35 0.30 0.34 RSCL3 Alone 0.58 0.33 0.50 0.40 Audience 0.58 0.34 0.54 0.34 RSCLE Alone 0.54 0.23 0.38 0.33 Audience 0.53 0.27 0.54 0.33 Amplitudel (yUmhos) Alone 1.77 1.27 2.05 2.14 Audience 1.39 1.84 1.38 1.01 Latencyl (sees) Alone 3.08 1.32 3.47 2.09 Audience 2.82 1.48 2.64 0.92 78 Table VII (cont'd)

Relatively Anxious Relatively Nonanxious (n = 20) (n = 20) Measure M SD M SD

Latency3 (sees) Alone 2.31 1.26 2.44 1.65 Audience 1.93 1.09 1.94 0.97 Ristetimel (sees) Alone 3.55 1.52 3.23 1.53 Audience 3.11 1.33 3.00 2.00 Risetime3 (sees) Alone 2.75 1.85 2.44 1.65 Audience 2.43 1.05 1.91 0.93 Resp-pre Alone 16.40 2.05 16.76 2.93 Audience 17.13 3.08 17.06 2.05 Resp-during Alone 23.13 2.84 20.88 4.03 Audience 23.14 3.83 22.69 3.56 RHR-pre Alone 0.33 0.22 0.30 0.15 Audience 0.53 0.22 0.49 0.24 RHR-during Alone 0.45 0.20 0''.56 0.23 Audience 0.88 0.13 0.85 0.16

Level Mean = average of SLevel, GLevel and Level; Strength Mean = average of SStrength, GStrength and Strength; SUDS Total = SUDS + RSUDS; RSCL1/3/E = range corrected SCL1/3/E; RHR-pre = range corrected HR-pre; RHR-during = range corrected HR-during 79 relatively nonanxious pianists. Thus, while the performance quality of relatively anxious pianists tended to decrease before an audience, the perf• ormance quality of relatively nonanxious pianists tended to improve under that condition. No significant differences were found on the Timed Check• list of observable signs of anxiety.

Self Report Measures Multivariate statistics were applied to the following self report variables; state anxiety, mean level of self efficacy, mean strength of self efficacy, total SUDS and self statements. Level of self efficacy referred to the number of tasks subjects believed they could perform with some certainty (scores could range from 0 to 5), and strength of self efficacy referred to the degree of certainty with which subjects believed they could perform the tasks ( scores could range from 0 to 30). Means of the level and strength scores from the three scales of self efficacy

(i.e. Specific Expectations of Personal Efficacy, General Expectations of

Personal Efficacy and Self Efficacy) were analysed to provide global meas• ures. Separate analyses of each scale are presented later. Both group and condition main effects were significant; F(5.34) = 7.39, £ < .001, and F(5,34) = 3.56, £ < .02, respectively. Univariate analyses (see

Appendix 22) indicated that each self report measure except total SUDS contributed to the overall group effect. Examination of the means suggested

that relatively anxious pianists generally reported higher levels of state anxiety, lower level and strength of self efficacy, and more frequent negative self statements. The condition main effect can be attributed to state anxiety and total SUDS (see Appendix 22). Examination of means suggested that playing before an audience generally elicited higher reports of both state anxiety and SUDS.

More importantly, the multivariate analysis produced a significant group x condition interaction; F(5,34) = 3.03, £ < .03. Univariate analyses identified mean self efficacy strength and total SUDS as contrib• uting to this interactive significance, with state anxiety approaching significance (see Appendix 22). To examine the nature of these univariate interactions further, simple effects analyses were performed. The groups significantly differed on mean self efficacy strength both when playing alone and before an audience: F(l,38) = 21.81, £< .001, and F(l,38) =

45.86, £< .001, respectively. The means indicated that, in both cond• itions, relatively anxious pianists reported lower levels of mean self efficacy strength than relatively nonanxious pianists. Dependent samples t-tests indicated that the relatively anxious group reported significant reductions in mean self efficacy strength when playing before an audience, t(19) = 2.61, £< .02, while no changes occurred across conditions for the relatively nonanxious group. Also, analyses of variance using diff• erence scores indicated that the presence of an audience influenced the self efficacy strength of relatively anxious pianists to a significantly greater extent than that of relatively nonanxious pianists; F(l,38) = 9.41,

2 < .01.

The groups did not significantly differ on total SUDS either when playing alone or before an audience. However, dependent samples t-tests indicated that the presence of an audience elicited significantly higher levels of SUDS in the relatively anxious group; t(19) = -2.86, £< .01.

No difference across conditions was observed for relatively nonanxious pianists. Moreover, the extent to which total SUDS was influenced by audience presence was significantly greater for relatively anxious pianists than for relatively nonanxious pianists; F(l,38) = 4.21, £ < .05.

Relatively anxious pianists reported significantly higher levels of state anxiety than relatively nonanxious pianists both when playing alone and before an audience; F(l,38) = 4.30, £< .05, and F(l,38) = 12.89, 81

£ < .001, respectively. Also, dependent samples t-tests indicated the

^•presence of an audience significantly increased the relatively anxious

group's level of state anxiety, t(19) = -2.89, £ < .01, while no differences

were observed for relatively nonanxious pianists. However, state anxiety was

not influenced by audience presence to a significantly greater extent in

either group.

Univariate analyses of variance on self report measures further

indicated that groups' SS scores differed significantly in both performance

conditions; F(l,38) = 8.28, £ < .01, and F(l,38) = 9.42, £ < .01, resp-

ecitvely. In both conditions, relatively anxious pianists reported a

significantly greater number of negative self statements than relatively

nonanxious pianists. No interaction effect was observed on this variable.

Skin Conductance Measures These included range corrected skin conductance

level (prior to tone 1, tone 3 and completion of the performance), and skin

conductance response, or, amplitude, latency and rise time (at tone 1 and

tone 3). Neither the main effects nor interaction effect were significant

in the multivariate analysis. Even the more liberal univariate approach

failed to reveal significant differences on any variable. Nor were signif•

icant interactive effects apparent when time of measurement (i.e., tone 1,

tone 3, or end of performance) was analysed (see Appendix 23).

Heart Rate and Respiration Measures These included range corrected heart

rate and respiration before and during performances. Neither the group

main effect nor interaction effect reached significance in the multivariate

analysis. However, the condition main effect was significant; F(4,35) =

15.59, £ < .001. Univariate analyses of variance indicated that both heart

rate prior to playing and during playing significantly differed across

conditions; F(l,38) = 17.45, £< .001, and F(l,38) = 63.19, £< .001, resp- 82

ectively. For both measures, the means indicated that the presence of an

audience was associated with considerable increases in heart rate. Simple

effects analyses of variance indicated that heart rate levels (prior to and

during) did not significantly differ across the groups either when playing

alone or before an audience. Nor did the groups differ in the extent to

which heart rate changed across conditions. Analyses of the interaction

between time of measurement (i.e., prior to or during) and heart rate and

respiration levels did not produce significant results (see Appendix 23).

Extreme Group Means Analyses

The preceding set of analyses suggested that while experimental man•

ipulations were generally effective, the groups were not as distinct as

intended. To test this hypothesis, post hoc analyses were performed on the

10 highest and 10 lowest scorers on the RCP. Repeated measures multivariate analyses followed by univariate analyses were performed as before. Range corrected heart rate and skin conductance level were also calculated for these analyses (absolute values are presented in Appendix 21). Maximum values for skin conductance level were; M = 8.95, SD = 3.36 for the most anxious group and M = 12.49, SD = 13.50 for the least anxious group. Skin conductance minimum levels were; M = 5.39, SD = 2.48 for the most anxious group, and M = 3.53, SD = 1.31 for the least anxious group. In heart rate data, maximum values were; M = 126.47, SD = 15.81 for the most anxious group and M = 125.52 , SD = 23.68 for the 'least anxious group. Heart rate minimum values were; M = 77.98, SD = 10.10 for the most anxious group, and M = 75.16,

SD = 11.95 for the least anxious group. Means and standard deviations for for each dependent measure are presented in Table VIII.

Behavioural Measures These included performance quality and observable signs of anxiety. Multivariate analyses of these measures produced a significant Table VIII

Means and Standard Deviations for each Dependent Measure for the Most Anxious and Least Anxious Groups

Most Anxious Least Anxious (n = 10) (n = 10) Measures M SD M SD

PQ Alone 30.05 10.95 37.10 13.82 Audience 25.80 2.44 41.40 11.21 TC Alone 3.00 1.70 4.10 1.73 Audience 4.20 2.40 3.40 2.55 State Alone 42.10 7.89 30.80 4.56 Audience 51.60 8.72 34.40 10.17 Level Alone 3.80 1.03 4.70 0.68 Audience 3.60 1.51 4.80 0.42 Strength Alone 15.50 6.90 20.70 5.03 Audience 11.40 5.34 21.70 4.24 Level Mean Alone 3.87 0.45 4.88 0.32 Audience 3.73 0.77 4.90 0.23 Strength Mean Alone 13.77 3.41 22.97 4.68 Audience 11.23 3.68 23.27 4.04 SUDS Alone . 39.90 16.40 31.00 29.23 Audience 62.00 19.89 36.00 31.69 RSUDS Alone 155.10 86.20 104.50 96.74 Audience 213.50 22.29 127.00 116.00 SUDS Total Alone 197.10 91.64 135.50 121.80 Audience 275.50 70.49 163.00 139.10 SS Alone 161.00 67.35 79.10 10.50 Audience 178.20 68.12 92.00 47.94 RSCL1 Alone 0.39 0.30 0.18 0.22 Audience 0.47 0.42 0.18 0.32 RSCL3 Alone 0.43 0.31 0.63 0.37 Audience 0.59 0.35 0.45 0.37 RSCLE Alone 0.46 0.19 0.44 0.37 Audience 0.49 0.30 0.45 0.33 Table VIII (cont'd)

Most Anxious Least Anxious

(n = 10) (n = 10) Measures M SD M SD

Amplitudel (//mhos) Alone 1.60 0.82 1.32 1.26 Audience 0.69 0.45 1.17 0.85 Amplitude3 (/tmhos) Alone 0.71 0.43 0.70 0.90 Audience 0.36 0.28 0.74 0.97 Latencyl (sees) Alone 2.87 1.30 4.09 2.18 Audience 2.79 1.19 2.74 0.84 Latency3 (sees) Alone 2.35 1.24 1.62 1.14 Audience 2.21 1.25 1.66 1.09 Risetimel (sees) Alone 3.47 1.15 2.99 1.56 Audience 2.73 1.28 3.30 2.45 Risetime3 (sees) Alone 2.69 2.38 2.31 1.07 Audience 2.25 1.01 1.79 0.94 Resp-pre Alone 16.15 1.22 16.52 3.26 Audience 16.69 3.54 17.43 2.12 Resp-during Alone 23.16 2.61 20.60 5.21 Audience 22.14 3.09 23.36 3.91 RHR-pre Alone 0.33 0.24 0.28 0.17 Audience 0.54 0.26 0.44 0.25 RHR-during Alone 0.42 0.23 0.56 0.24 Audience 0.87 0.14 0.85 0.16 85

group effect; F(2,17) = 6.75, £ < .02. Subsequent univariate analyses

attributed this significance to the PQ variable; F(l,18) = 5.24, £ < .04.

A summary of the significant univariate analyses is presented in Appendix 24.

Examination of the means indicated that the most anxious pianists generally performed less well than the least anxious pianists.

The multivariate analysis also resulted in a significant group x condition interaction; F(2,17) = 7.59, £ < .01. Univariate analyses again only reached significance on the PQ variable; F(l,18) = 11.02, £ < .01.

Simple effects analyses of variance were performed to further analyse this

finding. While the groups' performance quality did not significantly differ

in the alone condition, least anxious pianists were rated as playing signif•

icantly better before an audience than most anxious pianists; F(l,18) =

11,48, £ < .01. Dependent samples t-tests indicated that the quality of most anxious pianists' playing significantly diminished before an audience

(t(9) = 2.39), £< .025), while least anxious pianists' playing significantly

improved (t(9) = -2.30, £ < .025). Therefore, this post hoc analysis enhanced the PQ group effect. A comparison of the experimental group PQ means and the post hoc group PQ means is depicted in Figure 1.

Despite trends suggestive of group differences on the TC variable, no significant effects were obtained. Experimental and post hoc group means are presented in Figure 2.

Self Report Measures These included state anxiety, mean self efficacy level, mean self efficacy strength, total SUDS and self statements. The multivar•

iate analysis produced significant group and condition main effects; F(5,14)

= 10.00, £ < .001, and F(5.14) = 4.93, £ < .01, respectively. Univariate analyses of variance indicated that the most anxious group generally reported higher levels of state anxiety, lower level and strength of self efficacy and more negative self statements than the least anxious group. 86

Alone Audience

Figure 1: Mean Performance Quality for Relatively Anxious (n = 20),

Relatively Nonanxious (n = 20), Most Anxious (n = 10) and Least Anxious

(n = 10) Pianists. 87

Most Anxious

0 -O Relatively Anxious Q O Relatively Nonanxious 1 1 Least Anxious

Alone Audience

Figure 2: Mean Timed Checklist Scores for Relatively Anxious (n = 20),

Relatively Nonanxious (n = 20), Most Anxious (n = 10) and Least Anxious

(n = 10) Pianists. Also, the presence of an audience generally elicited higher levels of both

state anxiety and total SUDS.

However, the group x condition interaction was not significant.

Between-within univariate analyses identified one significant interaction

effect (mean self efficacy strength). Simple effects analyses showed that

most anxious subjects reported lower levels of self efficacy strength both

when playing alone (F(l,18) = 25.27, p_ < .001) and before an audience

(F(l,18) = 48.55, £ < .001). Dependent samples t-tests indicated that

while the most anxious group's self efficacy strength almost significantly

decreased across conditions (t(9) = 2.18, £ < .057), no effect was observed

for the least anxious group. Moreover, univariate analyses using difference

scores showed that the presence of an audience influenced self efficacy

strength to a significantly greater extent in the most anxious group than

the least anxious group; F{1,18) = 5.15, £ < .04. Self efficacy strength means for experimental and post hoc groups are presented in Figure 3.

Simple effects analyses of variance further showed that while the groups' SUDS scores did not significantly differ in the alone condition,

the most anxious pianists reported significantly higher SUDS than the least anxious pianists before an audience; F(1,18) = 5.21, £< .025.

Moreover, dependent samples t-tests showed that both groups' SUDS levels significantly increased when playing before an audience; t(9) = -2.75,

£< .025, and t(9) = -2.70, £< .025, respectively (see Figure 4).

Also, state anxiety differentiated the groups in both performance conditions; F(l,18) = 15.35, £< .001, and F(l,18) = 16.49, £< .001, respectively. Dependent samples t-tests indicated that the most anxious pianists' level of state anxiety significantly increased before an audience, while no changes were observed for least anxious pianists (see Figure 5). 89

Q £ Most Anxious O- O Relatively Anxious 0 D Relatively Nonanxious 1 • Least Anxious

24

22 • sz D- c 20 QJ

4J co >i u 18 (0 o •H M-1 4-1 16 w Qi W 14 C (0 —o s 12

10

Alone Audience

Figure 3: Mean Self Efficacy Strength for Relatively Anxious (n = 20),

Relatively Nonanxious (n = 20), Most Anxious (n = 10) and Least Anxious

(n = 10) Pianists. 90

Most Anxious

Q— —-Q Relatively Anxious (__) —D Relatively Nonanxious fl fl Least Anxious

280

260

240

Q D 220

(0 -U 200 O E-t C (0 180 (1) cr" S u— 160 —

140 —

120

<£ L Alone Audience

Figure 4: Mean Total SUDS for Relatively Anxious (n = 20), Relatively

Nonanxious (n = 20), Most Anxious (n = 10) and Least Anxious (n = 10)

Pianists. 91

% £ Most Anxious

0~~ — ~"0 Relatively Anxious D D Relatively Nonanxious

Alone Audience

Figure 5: Mean State Anxiety for Relatively Anxious (n = 20),

Relatively Nonanxious (n = 20), Most Anxious (n = 10) and Least

Anxious (n = 10) Pianists. The groups' SS scores also differed in both performance conditions;

F(l,18) = 11.90, £ < .01, and F(l,18) = 10.71, £ < .01, respectively.

However, dependent samples t-tests failed to reveal significant differences

across conditions for either group. Experimental and post hoc group means

are presented in Figure 6.

Therefore, the post hoc analyses of self report measures produced very

similar results to the analysis of the experimental groups, although the

former enhanced the group effect of the SUDS measure in the audience cond•

ition, and generally increased the differences between group means.

Skin Conductance Measures These included range corrected skin conductance

level (prior to tone 1, tone 3 and completion of the performance), and

skin conductance response, or, amplitude, latency and risetime (at tone 1

and tone 3). Neither main effects nor the interaction effect were signif•

icant in the multivariate analysis. Univariate analyses, however, ident•

ified two effects. First, RSCL at tone 1 was generally significantly higher

for most anxious pianists. Second, amplitude at tone 1 was generally

significantly larger when playing alone (see Appendix 24).

Heart Rate and Respiration Measures These included range corrected heart

rate and respiration prior to and during performances. Neither the group main effect nor the interaction effect reached significance in the multivar•

iate analysis. However, the condition main effect was significant; F(4,15)

= 8.61, £ < .001. Univariate analyses identified heart rate prior to and during playing as the variables contributing to this significane. Examina•

tion of the means indicated that the presence of an audience elicited considerable increases in both heart rate measures for both groups of sub•

jects. Heart rate-pre and heart rate-during means are presented in Figure

7 and Figure 8 respectively. 93

0 % Most Anxious

O O Relatively Anxious

• —Q Relatively Nonanxious

H—— B Least Anxious

190

c eQJ QJ 170 4-1 03 4J- co 150 — — — —° QJ a— co

QJ > 130 •H -U QJ 110

O

QJ 90 X! e 3 70

Alone Audience

Figure 6: Mean Number of Negative Self Statements for Relatively

Anxious (n = 20), Relatively Nonanxious (n = 20), Most Anxious (n = 10) and Least Anxious (n = 10) Pianists. 0 0 Most Anxious

O-" — ~"~O Relatively Anxious — —£_] Relatively Nonanxious | H Least Anxious

0.6

0.5

a i 0.4 «

0.3

0.2

Alone Audience

Figure 7: Mean Heart Rate (range corrected) prior to playing for

Relatively Anxious (n = 20), Relatively Nonanxious (n = 20), Most

Anxious (n = 10) and Least Anxious (n = 10) Pianists. 95

Figure 8: Mean Heart Rate (range corrected) during performances for

Relatively Anxious (n = 20), Relatively Nonanxious (n = 20), Most

Anxious (n = 10) and Least Anxious (n = 10) Pianists. 96

In conclusion, the group means analysis of relatively anxious and relatively nonanxious pianists indicated that the groups differed on performance quality, state anxiety, mean self efficacy strength, total

SUDS and self statements. No group differences were apparent on the autonomic measures. The effect of the audience condition was to enhance or create group differences on performance quality, state anxiety and mean self efficacy strength. In addition, the audience condition elevated heart rate measures for both groups of pianists.

When extreme groups were selected, the group effect was enhanced on performance quality, although the Timed Checklist data failed to produce

significant effects. Furthermore, the group effects were generally

enhanced within self report data. However, this analysis had little effect on the autonomic data.

Correlations Among Dependent Measures

In order to test the hypotheses regarding the degree of concordance

between the three response systems, separate Pearson product moment corr•

elations were generated between each dependent variable (except those measuring skin conductance response) recorded during performances. These

included performance quality, observable signs of anxiety, retrospective

SUDS, mean skin conductance level (averaged at tone 3 and at completion of

the performance), heart-rate during and respiration-during.

The sign of the coefficient indicated whether the relationship was

concordant or discordant. The size of the coefficient indicated the

strength of the concordance or discordance. The significance level of each

correlation coefficient was assessed using Student's t tests with N-2

degrees of freedom (°c= .05). Fisher's Z-transformation tests of signif•

icant differences between correlations were used to compare the degree of concordance across conditions and groups. An error rate of .10 was

chosen as a Bonferonni significance level correction for testing differences

between the correlations; .10 was deemed appropriate for reducing the

probability of Type 1 error. Correlations were generated for relatively

anxious and relatively nonanxious pianists.

It had been hypothesised that concordance amongst the response

systems would occur more often, or with greater strength, for relatively

anxious pianists when playing before an audience.

Behavioural Measures A concordant relationship between PQ and TC was

indicated by a negative coefficient. For both groups, these variables

were discordant when playing alone and concordant when playing before

an audience (see Table IX). However, the Fisher's Z-transformation test

(OC = .05) showed that the audience condition did not elicit significantly

greater concordance for relatively anxious pianists than for relatively

nonanxious pianists. Moreover, none of the coefficients reached signif•

icance. However, the correlation for relatively anxious pianists in

the audience condition approached significance.

Self Report Measures A concordant relationship between SS and RSUDS was

indicated by a positive coefficient (see Table X). For both groups, these

variables were concordant both when playing alone and before an audience.

The only correlation coefficient that did not reach significance occurred

for the relatively nonanxious group in the audience condition. However,

the presence of an audience did not elicit significantly stronger concordance for relatively anxious pianists.

Autonomic Measures As three significance tests were performed among these measures, the Bonferonni correction procedure produced anoC= .033. Concord

ance among the three autonomic variables were all indicated by positive Table IX

Pearson Correlations Between Behavioural Measures

TC

Alone Audience

Relatively Anxious °'34 -°'36

Relatively Nonanxious 0'01 "°-26 99

Table X

Pearson Correlations Between Self Report Measures

RSUDS

Alone Audience

Relatively 0.70* Anxious 0.50* SS Relatively 0.47* Nonanxious 0.16

* p < 0.05 100 coefficients (see Table XI). None of the correlations between heart rate and skin conductance level reached significance. This relationship was discordant for relatively anxious pianists in both performance conditions.

No significant differences emerged between the coefficients.

Respiration and skin conductance level were signficantly concordant in the audience condition for relatively anxious pianists, while they were almost significantly discordant for relatively nonanxious pianists in the same condition. No significant differences emerged between the coeff• icients .

Respiration and heart rate were concordant for both goups in both performance conditions. However, none of the correlations reached sig• nificance, and no significant differences emerged between the coefficients.

Behavioural and Self Report Measures As four significance tests were performed among behavioural and self report measures, the Bonferonni correction procedure produced an ot= .025. Concordance between PQ and RSUDS was indicated by a negative coefficient (see Table XII). The relation•

ship was concordant for both groups in both performance conditions.

However, none of the correlations reached significance, and Fisher's

Z-transformation tests failed to reveal any significant differences

between the coefficients.

Concordance between PQ and SS was also indicated by a negative

coefficient. The relationship was concordant for both groups in both performance conditions. However, none of the correlations reached sig• nificance, although the relationship for relatively nonanxious pianists in the alone condition was almost significantly concordant. No signif• icant differences emerged between the coefficients.

Concordance between TC and RSUDS was indicated by a positive coeff- 101

Table XI

Pearson Correlations Between Autonomic Measures

Mean SCL RHR-during Alone Audience Alone Audience

Relatively -0.24 -0.26 Anxious RHR-during Relatively -0.07 0.19 Nonanxious

Relatively 0.07 0.40* 0.21 0.07 Anxious Resp-during Relatively 0.32 -0.33 0.29 0.11 Nonanxious

* p < 0.05 102

Table XII

Pearson Correlations Between Behavioural and Self Report Measures

RSUDS SS

Alone Audience Alone Audience

Relatively -0.21 -0.11 -0.18 -0.18 Anxious PQ Relatively -0.25 -0.18 -0.37 -0.27 Nonanxious

Relatively -0.22 0.41* 0.04 -0.07 Anxious TC Relatively -0.56* 0.25 -0.29 0.16 Nonanxious

* p < 0.05 icient. The relationship was discordant for both groups when playing alone and concordant when playing before an audience. These correlations were only significant for relatively anxious pianists in the audience condition, and for relatively nonanxious pianists in the alone condition.

No significant differences emerged between the coefficients.

Concordance between TC and SS was also indicated by a positive coeff• icient. However, the correlations were very weak, and no trends emerged.

Behavioural and Autonomic Measures As six significance tests were performed among behavioural and autonomic measures, the Bonferonni correction proced• ure produced an oc = .017. Concordance between skin conductance level and

PQ was indicated by a negative coefficient (see Table XIII). No trends were apparent, and^no significant differences emerged from Fisher's

Z-transformation tests. The correlations were generally very weak.

Concordance between heart rate and PQ was also indicated by a negative coefficient. The relationship was concordant for both groups in the alone condition, and discordant before an audience. However, the correlations were generally very weak and no significant differences emerged between the coefficients.

Concordance between respiration and PQ was indicated by a negative coefficient. No trends were apparent, and no significant differences emerged between the coefficients. The correlations were generally very weak.

Concordance between skin conductance level and TC was indicated by a positive coefficient. No trends were apparent, and no significant differences were found between the coefficients. The correlations were generally very weak.

Concordance between heart rate and TC was indicated by a positive coefficient. The relationship was discordant for relatively anxious 104

Table XIII

Pearson Correlations Between Behavioural and Autonomic Measures

Mean SCL RHR-during Resp-during Alone Audience Alone Audience Alone Audience

Relatively -0.09 0.00 -0.01 0.05 -0.06 0.25 Anxious PQ Relatively -0.05 -0.25 -0.31 0.13 -0.17 0.07 Nonanxious

Relatively -0.06 0.01 -0.35 -0.18 -0.22 0.05 Anxious TC Relatively 0.07 -0.03 -0.11 0.17 0.06 0.52* Nonanxious

* p < 0.05 105 pianists both when playing alone and before an audience. However, none of the correlations reached significance, and no significant differences were found between the coefficients.

Concordance between respiration and TC was also indicated by a positive coefficient. The only correlation to reach significance occurred for relatively nonanxious pianists in the audience condition. No signif• icant differences were found using Fisher's Z-transformation tests.

Self Report and Autonomic Measures As six significance tests were performed among self report and autonomic measures, the Bonferonni correction proced• ure produced an oc = .017. Concordance between RSUDS and each autonomic measure was indicated by positive coefficients (see Table XIV). No trends were apparent in the relationship between RSUDS and skin conductance level. The coefficients were very small, and no significant differences were found between them.

RSUDS and heart rate were significantly concordant in the alone condition, and almost significantly concordant in the audience condit• ion for relatively anxious pianists. The correlations for relatively nonanxious pianists were generally weaker. No significant differences were found between the coefficients.

The relationship between RSUDS and respiration was concordant for both groups in both performance conditions. However, none of the correl• ations reached significance, and no significant differences were found between the coefficients.

SS and skin conductance level were discordant in the alone condition and concordant in the audience condition for relatively anxious pianists.

However, none of the correlations reached significance, and no signif• icant differences were found between the coefficients. 106

Table XIV

Pearson Correlations Between Self Report and Autonomic Measures

RSUDS SS

Alone Audience Alone Audience

Relatively -0.18 0.06 -0.14 0.19 Anxious Mean SCL Relatively -0.00 0.06 0.22 0.12 Nonanxious

Relatively 0.41* 0.36* 0.08 0.38* Anxious RHR-during Relatively -0.08 0.10 0.04 -0.40* Nonanxious

Relatively 0.30 0.09 -0.16 -0.28 Anxious Resp-during Relatively 0.06 0.12 0.07 0.23 Nonanxious

* p < 0.05 SS and heart rate were significantly concordant for relatively anxious pianists in the audience condition. However, the presence of an audience did not elicit significantly greater concordance than the alone condition.

The relationship was significantly discordant for relatively nonanxious pianists when playing before an audience.

No trends emerged from the correlations between SS and respiration.

None of the correlations reached significance, and no significant differences were found using Fisher's Z-transformation tests.

In conclusion, few significant relationships emerged from the correlational analyses, and no significant differences were found between the correlations. However, all but one of the significant concordant rel• ationships observed in the audience condition occurred for the relatively anxious group. This was found in the following relationships; PQ and

TC (approached significance), SS and RSUDS, respiration and skin conduct• ance level, TC and RSUDS, heart rate and RSUDS (approached significance), and heart rate and SS. The other concordant relationship observed in the audience condition occurred between TC and respiration in the relat ive- ly nonanxious group. Three additional significant concordant relationships were obtained in this analysis; SS and RSUDS for both groups of pianists in the alone condition, and heart rate and RSUDS for relatively anxious pianists in the alone condition. In contrast, the only significant discordance that was observed occurred for the relatively nonanxious group in either the alone or performance conditions. This was found in the following relationships; respiration and skin conductance level

(approached significance), TC and RSUDS, and heart rate and SS.

Self Efficacy

Between-within univariate analyses of variance were performed on the six different indices of self efficacy; SLevel, SStrength, GLevel,

GStrength, Level and Strength. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table XV. Significant group x condition interactions were only obtained on GStrength (F(l,38) = 5.17, £ < .03) and Strength

(F(l,38) = 5.40, £< .03). Simple effects analyses of variance were performed to examine the nature of these interactions further.

Relatively anxious pianists reported a significantly lower strength of general expectations of personal efficacy (GStrength) both when playing alone and before an audience; F(l,38) = 14.39, £< .001, and F(l,38) =

44.73, £< .001, respectively. Dependent samples t-tests indicated that an audience presence elicited significantly lower levels of GStrength in the relatively anxious group; t(19) = 2.24, £< .04. No significant difference occurred across conditions for relatively nonanxious pianists.

Also, analyses of variance using difference scores indicated that the extent to which GStrength was influenced by the audience condition was significantly greater for relatively anxious pianists than for relatively nonanxious pianists; F(l,38) = 5.17, £ < .03.

Relatively anxious pianists also reported significantly lower strengths of self efficacy (Strength) than relatively nonanxious pianists in the audience condition; F(l,38) = 15.32, £< .001. Neither groups' scores were significantly influenced by the presence of an audience.

However, an analysis using difference scores indicated that the extent to which the audience condition influenced Strength was significantly greater for relatively anxious pianists than for relatively nonanxious pianists; F(l,38) = 5.40, £< .03.

Item 2 of the Self Efficacy scale directly represented the exper• imental performing conditions of this study. Therefore group differ• ences on the strength values (or, conviction ratings) given to that 109

Table XV

Means and Standard Deviations of Self Efficacy Measures

Relatively Anxious Relatively Nonanxious

(n = 20) (n = 20) Measures M SD M SD

SLevel Alone 4.20 0.83 4.85 0.49 Audience 4.25 1.02 4.95 0.22 SStrength Alone 15.25 5.12 22.75 4.54 Audience 14.75 5.69 23.25 4.34 GLevel Alone 4.40 0.94 4.95 0.22 Audience 4.20 1.20 5.00 0.00 GStrength Alone 14.30 7.63 22.65 6.22 Audience 11.95 5.89 23.25 4.73 Level Alone 4.05 0.95 4.60 0.68 Audience 4.10 1.25 4.65 0.59 Strength Alone 16.25 6.48 18.85 5.22 Audience 13.75 5.49 20.05 4.66

SLevel = level of specific expectations of personal efficacy (Kendrick); SStrength = strength of specific expectations of personal efficacy (Kendrick); GLevel = level of general expectations of personal efficacy (Kendrick); GStrength = strength of general expectations of personal efficacy (Kendrick); Level = level of self efficacy; Strength = strength of self efficacy. item were examined. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table

XVI. A between-within univariate analysis of variance indicated a

significant group main effect; F(l,38) = 6.07, £< .02. Examination

of means showed that the relatively anxious group generally reported lower

conviction in their ability to perform the task at hand with their anxiety

under control than the relatively nonanxious group. The group x condition

interaction also reached significance; F(l,38) = 7.93,' £ < .01. Simple

effects analyses of variance were performed to further examine the

nature of this interaction. While the groups' level of conviction did

not differ in the alone condition, relatively anxious pianists reported

significantly lower convictions in their ability than relatively non•

anxious pianists when playing before an audience; F(l,38) = 10.28, p_ < .01. Dependent samples t-tests indicated that while the audience

condition did not significantly influence the conviction ratings of

relatively anxious pianists, the conviction ratings of relatively non•

anxious pianists significantly increased; t(19) = -2.60, £ < .02.

An analysis using difference scores, however, failed to reach significance.

The analysis of conviction ratings was.repeated for the least

anxious and most anxious groups. A between-within univariate analysis of variance produced a significant group effect; F(l,18) = 41.64, £ < .001

Least anxious pianists generally reported higher conviction ratings than most anxious pianists. Simple effects analyses of variance further showed that this was the case in both performance conditions; F(l,18) =

39.88, £ < .001, and F(l,18) = 37.03, £ < .001, respectively. A significant condition effect was also obtained; F(l,18) = 7.71, £ < .02.

The presence of an audience was generally associated with higher convict• ion ratings than the alone condition. However, neither groups' level of conviction significantly changed over conditions and no interaction effect Ill

Table XVI

Means and Standard Deviations

for Item 2 of the Self Efficacy Scale

Relatively Anxious (n = 20) Relatively Nonanxious (n = 20) M SD M SD

Alone 4.55 1.40 4.85 1.14 Audience 4.10 1.29 5.40 0.75

Most Anxious (n = 10) Least Anxious (n = 10) M SD M SD

Alone 2.90 0.88 5.30 0.82 Audience 3.20 1.03 5.60 0.70 112

was observed.

To test the hypotheses concerning correlations between self efficacy and the three response systems, Pearson product moment correlations were generated between conviction ratings on item 2 of the Self Efficacy scale and the following dependent variables; performance quality, scores on the

Timed Checklist, state anxiety, retrospective SUDS, mean range corrected skin conductance level (averaged at tone 3 and at the end of performance recording periods), range corrected heart rate-during and respiration- during. These variables were recorded during the performances. Correl• ations were generated for relatively anxious and relatively nonanxious groups, and are presented in Table XVII.

It had been hypothesised that self efficacy would correlate with the dependent variables most often for the relatively anxious group in the

audience condition. No consistent trends emerged from the correlational

analyses.

A predictive correlation between self efficacy and PQ was indicated by a positive coefficient, and this occurred for relatively nonanxious pianists in both performance conditions. However, none of the correlations reached significance.

As with the remaining variables, a predictive correlation between self efficacy and TC was indicated by a negative coefficient. However, none of the TC correlations either reached significance, or occurred in a predictive direction.

The correlations with state anxiety all occurred in predictive direct• ions. Coefficients for relatively anxious pianists in the audience cond• ition and for relatively nonanxious pianists in the alone condition reached significance. 113

Table XVII

Pearson Correlations Between Self Efficacy and Dependent Variables

Relatively Anxious Relatively Nonanxious Alone Audience Alone Audience

PQ -0.18 -0.02 0.15 0.26 TC 0.02 0.28 0.11 0.08 State -0.29 -0.56* -0.77* -0.24 RSUDS -0.43* -0.40* -0.18 0.07 SS -0.10 -0.38* -0.60* -0.50* MRSCL 0.15 0.17 0.16 -0.11

RHR-during -0.43* -0.21 -0.15 0.18 Resp-during -0.12 0.18 -0.05 0.26

* p < 0.05 114

Self efficacy correlations with RSUDS were significant and predictive

for both performance conditions in the relatively anxious group. The correl•

ations were weaker in the relatively nonanxious group.

Self efficacy correlations with SS were significant and predictive

for both performance conditions in the relatively nonanxious group and for

the audience condition in the relatively anxious group.

None of the correlations with skin conductance level reached signif•

icance and no trends were apparent.

The only coefficient to reach significance in the correlations between

self efficacy and heart rate occurred for the relatively anxious group in

the alone condition.

Finally, none of the correlations with respiration reached significance

and no trends were apparent.

In conclusion, few significant correlations were obtained, most of

those occurring with the self report system. The audience condition elicited four significantly predictive correlations, three of those occurring in the relatively anxious group. The alone condition elicited

three significantly predictive correlations, two of those occurring in

the relatively nonanxious group.

In order to test Bandura's specific hypothesis concerning the ability of self efficacy strength to predict arousal levels, Pearson product moment correlations were generated between strength values at levels 3,

4 and 5 respectively of the Self Efficacy scale and both heart rate prior to and during playing. These correlations are presented in Table XVIII.

None of the correlations reached significance. At levels 3 and 4, the correlations occurred in a predictive direction; as self efficacy strength 115

Table XVIII

Pearson Correlations Between Self Efficacy Strength at Three Levels and Heart Rate

HR-pre HR-during

Level 3 (n = 12) -0.14 -0.20 Level 4 (n = 20) -0.35 -0.24 Level 5 (n = 45) 0.21 0.04

* p < 0.05 decreased, heart rate tended to increase. However, the correlations were nonpredictive at level 5. 117

DISCUSSION

The results of this study showed that the audience condition elicited

more intense emotional responses in relatively anxious pianists, and that,

in certain measures, the groups differed in the extent to which anxiety was

observed. Group differences were generally enhanced when extreme scorers on

the initial screening index were analysed.

As hypothesised, the more anxious pianists experienced synchronous changes amongst the response systems as the intensity of the emotional

response increased, consistent with the three-systems model. Desynchronous changes were observed in the less anxious pianists. This was also consistent with the three-systems model, as it empirically illustrated that the response systems can vary independently. This desynchrony was attributed to the high demand nature of the audience condition. Despite the generally weak corr• elations between the measures of each response system, concordance was most evident when intense emotional responses were elicited. This finding also supported the three-systems model.

In this study, data related to the self efficacy measures did not provide support for self efficacy theory. Self efficacy ratings were neither consistent with changes in the levels of anxiety obtained in each response system, nor correlated with more than one response system. Therefore, the overall results were interpreted as being more consistent with the three- systems model than with self efficacy theory.

This chapter describes the effects of both the group and condition independent variables. This is followed by discussion of synchrony or desynchrony and concordance or discordance amongst the response systems.

Finally, self efficacy data are commented upon. Also, various related issues 118

are raised throughout the discussion, including the influence of high demand conditions, the limitations of various dependent measures including problems in the measurement of two autonomic channels, and potential problems with the self efficacy theory.

Experimental Manipulation

It had been hypothesised that the presence of an audience would pro• mote the greatest anxiety in the relatively anxious group. This hypothesis was supported by the behavioural and self report dependent measures. On one of the two behavioural measures (PQ), the relatively anxious group were influenced to a significantly greater extent by the audience condition than the relatively nonanxious group. Of the five self report measures, three demonstrated significant condition effects only in the relatively anxious group. These measures were state anxiety, total SUDS and mean self efficacy strength. While skin conductance data did not reflect a condition effect, heart rate both prior to playing and during playing considerably increased when an audience was present. However, the heart rate effect occurred for both groups of pianists.

Therefore, the chosen method for the experimental manipulation appeared to be mostly effective. This suggests than an evaluative audience, visible videocamera and an instructional set emphasising performance evaluation, together served as quite powerful sources of evaluative anxiety for pianists who self reported performance anxiety. As such, the relatively anxious pianists seemed to experience more intense emotional responses in the audience condition and less intense emotional responses in the alone condition, thus allowing the hypotheses regarding synchrony and concordance rates amongst the three response systems to be legitimately tested. It is possible that the conditions' effect was moderated by apprehen• sion surrounding the initial exposure to experimental procedures and to the large display of sophisticated, and perhaps intimidating equipment. As such, the first performance condition (alone) may have elicited more anxiety than intended. In addition, habituation to nonspecific factors may have occurred by the second performance condition (audience). These considerations would mitigate the impact of the audience condition. Stronger group by condition interactions may have resulted had the order of conditions been counter• balanced. However, it was deemed inappropriate to expose the more anxious subjects to stressful conditions without an earlier interaction.

The results also provide confirmation of the legitimacy of grouping subjects as relatively anxious or relatively nonanxious pianists. The RCP received empirical concurrent validation from the modified version of the

General Trait Anxiousness scale that was adapted to the solo piano perform• ance situation. It had been hypothesised that the groups would differ most during the audience condition. This hypothesis was supported in the analysis of performance quality, where the group effect was very close to significance.

Group differences were also obtained for three of the five self report measures (state anxiety, mean self efficacy strength and self statements) in both performance conditions. However, the group differences were apprec• iably larger in the audience condition for two of those measures (state anxiety and mean self efficacy strength). Group effects were not observed on any autonomic measure. Of the 13 dependent measures, five demonstrated significant predicted effects and two demonstrated trends towards predicted effects in the anxious pianists. Six measures did not support the hypothes• es, and these mostly represented the autonomic response system. 120

Examination of group means suggested that the groups were not as dist• inct as intended. The median-split of the RCP scores may have resulted in an overlapping of actual anxiety levels between the groups. To test this possibility, post hoc analyses were performed on the 10 highest and 10 lowest RCP scorers. These analyses enhanced group differences in the audience condition for the PQ behavioural measure. In addition, self report group mean differences were enhanced by the post hoc analyses, and the group effect was appreciably larger in the audience condition for three self report measures; state anxiety, mean self efficacy level and mean self efficacy strength. Moreover, the groups also only differed in the audience condition on a fourth self report measure (total SUDS). While group differences were obtained on a skin conductance measure (RSCL1) by the post hoc analysis, this effect was present in both conditions.

Therefore, the post hoc analyses of extreme groups produced somewhat larger group differences in the audience condition within the behavioural, and self report measures. This finding suggests that while the RCP is an adequ• ate measure for identifying anxious and nonanxious pianists, more extreme scores more reliably identify groups with substantial differences in perf• ormance anxiety. It was apparent in the analysis of the experimental groups that some relatively nonanxious group members reported comparatively high lev• els of subjective distress and/or experienced high levels of autonomic arous• al. In addition, some relatively anxious group members reported comparat• ively low levels of subjective distress and/or experienced little arousal.

This pattern has been observed by others, who accordingly express concern for the validity of findings based on subjects selected only on self report criteria (Borkovec, 1973a, 1973b, 1976; Hicks and Steinber, 1976; Bernstein and Paul, 1971). Such observations usually result from using self report screening measures because they are susceptible to demand influences. This 121

study attempted to overcome or minimise demand influences firstly by emphas•

ising the acceptability of both anxiousness and nonanxiousness for the

study in the recruitment instructions. This strategy was suggested by

Bernstein and Paul (1973). Secondly, an additional subject selection crit•

erion was included to exclude those subjects for whom demand influences were most likely to be operative; high RCP scorers were also required to

identify performance anxiety as a current source of concern while low

RCP scorers were required to state that it was not. This strategy was

suggested by Bernstein (1973).

It is also possible that those who volunteered to participate in the

study were generally less anxious than those who avoided participation due to excessive performance anxiety. (Although, only four of the 10 vol•

unteers who dropped out of the study were relatively anxious performers).

Had this been an important consideration, however, the mean RCP score for

the relatively anxious group would have been lower than that of the popul• ation of anxious pianists. However, Appel's (1972) group of 30 graduate music students who experienced performance anxiety reported RCP scores ranging from six to 25, averaging at 15.53. Relatively anxious pianists in

this study reported RCP scores ranging from 11 to 27, averaging at 15.5.

Relatively nonanxious piansists reported RCP scores ranging from one to 10, averaging at 6.5. Therefore , the relatively anxious group in this study appeared to be comparable to the anxious pianists in Appel's study, whereas, several subjects identified as relatively nonanxious in this study reported

RCP scores higher than those of a proportion of Appel's anxious subjects.

This again suggests that the groups did not reflect as substantially diff• erent anxiety levels as intended. While the apparent overlap between the experimental groups reduced the likelihood of obtaining expected trends within the analyses, the results have greater generalizability than would 122

those obtained from extreme scorers.

The generality of the results can be examined by two means. First, the extent to which scores obtained by the relatively anxious and most anxious groups on various dependent measures compared to those obtained by other populations of anxious individuals can be examined. Second, the extent to which differences (across conditions and groups) that were stat• istically significant represented differences of real magnitude can be examined. Comparative data are not available for the performance quality measure. The changes in performance quality across conditions experienced by both groups were relatively small, which may suggest that this measure was not sensitive enough to detect the effects of differential anxiety levels within groups. However, the differences between groups in performance quality were relatively large in the audience condition, especially when comparing least anxious and most anxious subjects; most anxious subjects generally performed well below the level of average performance quality whereas least anxious subjects generally performed at average levels.

State anxiety scores obtained by relatively anxious and particularly by most anxious pianists in the audience condition were well above the mean obtained by general medical and surgical populations (M = 42.38)

(Speilberger et al., 1970) and were comparable to those obtained from anxious pianists in Kendrick's (1979) study (M = 51.42, SD = 12.24). In contrast, means obtained by relatively nonanxious and least anxious pianists were well below those obtained by general medical and surgical patients. In addition, the changes experienced across conditions in state anxiety scores were large for both anxious groups ( a 17% increase for the most anxious group). While the changes experienced by the anxious groups in strength of self efficacy were not substantial, group differences on this variable were of significant magnitude, especially in the post hoc analyses where 123 most anxious pianists' scores were 40% lower than those of least anxious

pianists. SUDS levels were slightly above moderate levels (i.e., 50) in

the audience condition for relatively anxious pianists, and well above moderate levels for most anxious pianists. The RSUDS measure reflected

further elevation above moderate levels of anxiety in those groups. In

contrast, relatively nonanxious and particularly least anxious pianists

reported SUDS and RSUDS levels well below moderate levels in the audience

condition. In addition, the anxious groups experienced changes of signif•

icant magnitude in both the SUDS measure (a 23% increase for the most

anxious group) and the RSUDS measure (a 19% increase for the most anxious

groups) across conditions. Mean negative self statement scores of the

anxious groups were comparable to those obtained by Kendrick (1979) (M =

157.15). Group differences on this variable were quite large in both

conditions ( 18% and 27% respectively). Finally, the magnitude of heart

rate elevations for the anxious and nonanxious groups were substantial.

It therefore appears that psychometric scores obtained under stressful

conditions by the anxious groups in this study were comparable to those

obtained by other anxious populations. While changes across conditions in

performance quality may not have attained 'clinical' significance, the

increases in SUDS, RSUDS, and state anxiety in the anxious groups appeared

substantial, as did the elevations in heart rate experienced by the anxious

and nonanxious groups. In addition, group differences in the audience

condition on performance quality, state anxiety, self efficacy strength,

SUDS, RSUDS, and negative self statements appeared to reflect substantial

effects.

The interaction resulting from sex differences was another factor to

consider in interpreting the major analyses. The relatively anxious group 124 was comprised of significantly more females than males. Sex interacted with several dependent variables, moreso in the audience condition.

However, sex could not be included as a grouping factor as some cells would have been too small for valid statistical analyses. Skin conduct• ance level at tone one was significantly lower for females in both perf• ormance conditions. Also, skin conductance levels at tone 3 and at complet• ion of the performance were significantly lower for females in the audience condition. Similarly, Buck, Miller and Caul (1974) found that females demonstrated less skin conductance responsiveness than males. Therefore, group differences in the audience condition on skin conductance level may have been mitigated by the large proportion of females in the relatively anxious group. On the other hand, group differences on self report measures may have been enhanced by the sex interaction. The mean values obtained by both males and females on two self report measures (strength of specific self efficacy and self statements) did not appreciably change across the performance conditions. However, the mean value obtained by the relatively anxious group, on the self efficacy measure at least, did significantly change across the performance conditions. This suggests that the group effect (i.e. level of anxiety) was greater than the sex effect on that var• iable. As a result, the only self report variables in which sex differences inflated group differences in the audience condition were state anxiety, strength of general expectations of personal efficacy and strength of self efficacy. It seems plausible to postulate that, considering the large size of the group differences on those variables, the group effect may have remained had the variance attributable to sex been removed.

Three Response Systems

It had been hypothesised that synchronous changes would be observed amongst the behavioural, self report and autonomic response systems in the relatively anxious group. That is, each response system should have reflected increases in anxiety as a result of intensification of the emotional response in the audience condition. In contrast, relatively nonanxious pianists were expected to demonstrate little change in resp• onse to the audience condition.

In general, synchrony was observed among the response systems in the relatively anxious group, while desynchrony was observed in the relatively nonanxious group. The following changes occurred across performance conditions for relatively anxious pianists; performance quality tended to decrease (this trend reached significance in the most anxious group), state anxiety increased, total subjective units of distress increased, mean self efficacy strength decreased, and heart rate increased. Trends were also present indicating more frequent signs of overt anxiety (especially in the most anxious group) and more frequent negative self statements. All of these changes were indicative of higher levels of anxiety. Similarly,

Sartory et al. (1977) found that heart rate and subjective units of distress synchronously increased in a linear fashion as the intensity of the emotional response increased. The following changes occurred across performance conditions for relatively nonanxious pianists; performance quality tended to increase (this trend reached significance in the least anxious group), and heart rate increased. Trends were also present indicating fewer signs of overt anxiety, more frequent negative self statements and increased total subjective units of distress (this trend reached significance in the least anxious group). That is, while behavioural measures reflected reduced anxiety, some self report measures remained stable, others reflected trends towards increased anxiety and heart rate levels reflected heightened auton• omic arousal. These findings support the three-systems model by showing that the three response systems can vary independently, particularly when only weak emotional responses are assessed. Furthermore, the results pertaining to relatively anxious pianists support Hodgson and Rachmans'

(1974) prediction that synchrony would be more evident .when emotional

responses are intensified.

Most of the variables reflecting increased anxiety in the relatively

nonanxious and least anxious groups belonged to the self report system.

Accordingly, Lang (1971) has stated that the self report system is the

response system most likely to reflect anxiety in mildly fearful subjects,

as the self report system is believed to be the most sensitive system (Agras

and Jacobs, 1981), and the most vulnerable to demand influences (Borkovec

and O'Brien, 1976). However, heart rate levels also reflected increased

anxiety in the relatively anxious and least anxious groups. This was

somewhat unexpected as the autonomic system is believed to be the least

sensitive response system (Agras and Jacobs, 1981).

Heart rate is generally believed to be a direct and reliable measure

of anxiety (Borkovec et al., 1977). However, group differences were not

obtained on this measure. Neither respiration nor vigour correlated signif-

icanctly with heart rate, and therefore, probably did not confound heart

rate data. The anticipatory, and especially the performance, heart rate

levels were generally very high. However, Borkovec et al. (1974) recorded

heart rates peaking at 115 beats per minute in a group of socially anxious

individuals, and Kendrick's (1979) anxious pianists attained a mean heart rate of 116 beats per minute prior to treatment. Also, the physical effort involved in playing the piano may have contributed to the elevation observed during performances in this study. In addition, the method of analysing averages of tachometer output (as used in both this and Kendrick's studies) may have inflated mean heart rate levels as a result of the infl• uence of extreme scores. Nevertheless, analyses of difference scores 127

should have controlled for the cognitive and motor demands of the task,

thereby revealing the influence of differential levels of anxiety. This

influence was not observed.

The unpredicted elevation of heart rate in the audience condition for

the relatively nonanxious group parallels the findings of Borkovec et al.

(1974) . They found that high demand conditions resulted in significantly

increased heart rate over low demand conditions in a group of 'low socially

anxious' individuals. The high demand condition of their study entailed

an expectation that subjects were to interact in a social situation while

demonstrating little or no anxiety. Performing a musical piece before an

audience may reasonably be considered to be a more demanding condition than

performing alone. Hodgson and Rachman (1974) hypothesised that high demand

conditions would result in greater discordance among the response systems

than low demand conditions. That is, demanding situations are believed to

facilitate behavioural approach to a feared stimulus, or performance accomp• lishment, while maintaining or enhancing arousal levels (subjective and autonomic).' This hypothesis has received empirical support (Grey et al.,

1979) . Similarly, relatively nonanxious and least anxious subjects in this study demonstrated increased autonomic arousal and subjective distress

(though the latter only reached significance in the least anxious group) and greater performance accomplishment when playing before an audience.

These results can therefore be parsimoniously explained by the influence of increased demand.

An alternative explanation of the performance improvement evidenced, particularly in the least anxious group, would be a curvilinear relationship between autonomic arousal and performance. Lomas (1937) found that public speakers who reported severe performance anxiety gave speeches judged least satisfactory, those who reported moderate performance anxiety gave 128

speeches judges superior, and those who reported little or no performance

anxiety gave speeches judged mediocre (in Kendrick, 1979). In following

this argument, it would be hypothesised that relatively nonanxious and least

anxious pianists experienced increased arousal in the audience condition

sufficient to motivate superior performance quality, In contrast, relat•

ively anxious and most anxious pianists would have experienced severely

high levels of arousal in the audience condition sufficient to disrupt performance. Borkovec (1976) has also postulated that very high levels of

arousal have disruptive effects upon the remaining response systems. How• ever, as previously mentioned, that notion assumes that arousal mediates behaviour, and thus is based upon a more interactive model of the response systems than that originally formulated by Lang (1968). Also, that notion cannot explain why the same level of autonomic arousal was accompanied by improved performance in one group of subjects, and diminished performance in the other group of subjects. It is also important to consider that the actual improvement demonstrated by the least anxious group was not very substantial, in which case any attempt to explain the statistical signif• icance may be unjustified without replication of the finding.

Skin conductance level and response measures did not reflect any condition or group effects in this study. Skin conductance level data appeared to be reliably recorded. However, more error was apparent in the recording of skin conductance response, which may have been due to the use of telemetry which tended to reduce the resolution of polygraph output.

In addition, measurement of skin conductance response appeared to be con• founded by at least two factors. First, it is possible that spontaneous

(or, nonspecific) fluctuations were recorded when a tone-reaction did not occur. This may account for the extreme latency times recorded for some subjects, as response latency time rarely exceeds one to two seconds (Hass- ett, 1978) . A serious design limitation was the failure to specify the 129 time in which responses should occur before being considered nonspecific.

Second, responses to tone 3 (which was ^broadcast one minute following commencement of playing) may have interacted with the loudness with which the piece was played. Such an interaction could have been systematically investigated had the loudness been rated as a dependent measure.

Skin conductance level also failed to produce systematic effects. Skin conductance may be less sensitive than other measures of anxiety, requiring more intense stimuli to elicit responsiveness. In general, the autonomic system is believed to be the least sensitive response system (Agras and

Jacobs, 1981). Also, the large amount of individual variation in the skin conductance data may have contributed to the unsystematic nature of the findings. The fact that skin conductance is influenced by many factors additional to anxiety levels may have partly explained such variability.

It is for this reason that Hodgson and Rachman (1974) hypothesised that skin conductance would show greater desynchrony with behavioural and self report measures than heart rate. Craig and Wood (1971) suggested that skin conductance is particularly responsive to attentional processes.

Similarly, Paul (1969) noted:

Higher conductance levels have recently been found under conditions of attention, novelty or unfamiliarity than under actual stress (Flanagan, 1964; Roessler et al., 1966), in some changing in the opposite direction to other physiological measures (MacNeilage, 1966) thus suggesting greater independence from sympathetic control, (in Hodgson and Rachman, 1974)

Therefore, skin conductance may not have been an appropriate measure for this study, as piano performance (particularly when playing from memory), requires intense concentration on the task at hand (Kendrick, 1979).

Attentional factors may have masked or confounded the effects of different• ial levels of anxiety upon skin conductance level. Accordingly, examination of individual data indicated that approximately half of the relatively anxious group experienced increased skin conductance levels in the audience 130

condition, while the rest experienced either decreased levels or no change.

A similar pattern emerged from the relatively nonanxious group. As such,

group differences would have been more likely prior to playing at the tone 1

period of measurement. Although skin conductance level of most anxious

pianists' was significantly higher than that of least anxious pianists' at

this point, the difference was apparent in both performance conditions.

It was apparent from visual inspection of the recordings and from the

relatively low reliabilities for respiration recordings whilst playing,

that respiration-during measures were confounded by movement artifact.

This may have obscured the often observed relationship between respiration

rate and heart rate that was not found to be significant in this study.

Though the observed trends in the Timed Checklist of Observable Signs

of Anxiety data occurred in predicted directions, they did not reach signif•

icance. Most of the checklist items were observed very rarely, accounting

for the somewhat low within-interval rater agreements on several items. Also,

the location of the videocamera meant that several of the fine motor behav•

iours were obscured (e.g. hands tremble, knees tremble). If the camera had

been located closer to the subjects, this behavioural measure may have

yielded more information. However, Borkovec et al. (1974) also failed to

find group differences using a more complete version of a Timed Checklist.

They attributed their unsystematic findings to low interrater reliability

(r = .71). Also, Kendrick (1979) suggested that some of the more subtle

behaviours observed during actual performances do not appear on the video-

recording. She questionned the usefulness of the Timed Checklist for video

rating purposes. In this respect, it is notable that mean scores on this

variable were extremely low, which further suggests that this measure is

not suitable for video ratings of signs of anxiety in pianists.

Although the relatively anxious group reported significantly higher levels of subjective units of distress when playing before an audience than when playing alone, only the extreme groups differed significantly on this variable. The large amount of inter-individual variability may have con• tributed to the failure to obtain a difference between relatively anxious and relatively nonanxious groups. More subject training in the standard• ised use of the SUD scales may have yielded more systematic findings.

It was also hypothesised, in accordance with Hodgson and Rachman(1974), that concordance would be most evident when intense emotional responses were elicited; that is, in the relatively anxious group when performing before an audience. Intercorrelations were examined among the dependent

-a measures recorded during performances. In general, the correlations were weak and few attained statistical significance. Past research has found that the intercorrelations among measures within a response system are generally stronger than intercorrelations between response systems (Lang,

1971). Within behavioural measures, performance quality and scores on the

Timed Checklist were discordant when playing alone and concordant when playing before an audience. That is, as performance quality decreased, the number of overt signs of anxiety tended to increase. The only correlation, however, that approached significance occurred for relatively anxious pianists in the audience condition. The relationships between self statements and retrospective SUDS were significantly concordant for relatively anxious performers in both conditions. Despite significant concordance in the alone condition, these measures correlated very poorly for relatively nonanxious pianists in the audience condition. Only one relationship reached signif• icance within the autonomic measures. This occurred between skin conduct• ance and respiration for relatively anxious pianists when playing before an audience; as respiration quickened, the level of skin conductance tended to 132

increase. In contrast, an almost significant uncoupling occurred between

those measures for relatively nonanxious pianists in the same condition.

Low intercorrelations within the autonomic system have been previously rep• orted (Lang, 1971; Hassett, 1978), and is one reason for recording more than one autonomic measure. As previously mentioned, skin conductance data were probably confounded by attentional factors, thereby disturbing the

intercorrelations.

In summary, the within-system intercorrelations were generally strongest

in the self report system, followed by the behavioural system, and finally

the autonomic system. Also, in accordance with predictions, all but one of the significant concordances obtained occurred for relatively anxious pianists when playing before an audience. In contrast, discordant trends were most apparent in the relatively nonanxious group. This pattern of results lends support to the hypothesis that concordance would be more evid• ent when more intense emotional responses are evoked. However, these effects for within systems correlations were not sufficiently large to produce diff• erences between the correlations. That is, the audience condition did not elicit significantly greater concordances in the relatively anxious group.

Between-systems correlations were then analysed. None of the correl• ations between performance quality and the self report measures reached levels beyond that attributable to chance. A general tendency was observed, however, for performance quality to decrease as more SUDS and more frequent negative self statements were reported. While assessing anxious pianists in condit• ions similar to the alone condition in this study, Kendrick (1979) obtained a significant correlation (r_ = .57) between performance and self statements.

The only self report measure in this study with which Timed Checklist data were significantly concordant was retrospecitve SUDS. This occurred for the relatively anxious group when playing before an audience; more signs of 133 overt anxiety were recorded as subjects reported more subjective distress.

This relationship was significantly discordant for relatively nonanxious pianists in the alone condition. This pattern of results also lent support to the hypothesis. However, significant differences were not obtained between the correlations, and the relationships between the Timed

Checklist data and self statements were generally weak. Therefore, only one of the four subsets of correlational analyses between the behavioural and self report systems provided some support for the hypotheses. Yet, stronger relationships were expected, as the intercorrelations between the behavioural and self report systems are reportedly the strongest (Rach• man, 1978). This may only be the case for behavioural avoidance.

Unlike behavioural approach tests, where subjects have the choice to avoid the feared stimulus, fearful subjects in this study were required to confront the feared situation. As a result, concordance rates may have been weakened by enforcing behavioural accomplishment in the anxious subjects in spite of subjective and autonomic arousal. That is, the high demand nature of the audience condition may have counteracted the effects on concordance rates of intense emotional responses.

Correlations between behavioural and autonomic measures were generally weak. Performance quality did not significantly correlate with any auton• omic measure; nor did any trends emerge in the data. Kendrick (1979) also failed to find signficant correlations between performance quality and heart rate. Similarly, the Timed Checklist data correlated only weakly with the autonomic measures. The only relationship that reached significance occurred in the relatively nonanxious group when playing before an audience; subjects tended to appear more anxious as respiration quickened. This result did not support the hypothesis. Rachman (1978) has previously commented upon the generally low correlations found between behavioural and autonomic 134 measures. This has been atributed to the unequal sensitivity of the sys•

tems (Lang, 1971). Error variation in measures also reduces intercorrel• ations (Hodgson and Rachman, 1974) which may partly explain the lack of relationship with skin conductance levels.

Two of the six subsets of intercorrelations between the self report

and autonomic responses lent support to the hypothesis. Heart rate signif•

icantly correlated with subjective units of distress in a concordant

direction. This occurred for relatively anxious pianists in both perform•

ance conditions. However, greater concordance was not elicited by the

audience condition. Those variables were very poorly related in the relat•

ively nonanxious qroup. More support for the hypothesis was evident in the

correlations between heart rate and self statements; the audience

condition elicited significant concordance in the relatively anxious group

which was not elicited by the alone condition. In contrast, relatively

nonanxious pianists experienced a significant uncoupling of heart rate and

self statements.

The only autonomic measure that related at all systematically to self

reDort measures was heart rate. Skin conductance did not significantly

correlate with either behavioural or self report measures. These findings

support Hodgson and Rachmans' (1974) fifth hypothesis that heart rate would be more concordant or synchronous with the remaining response systems

than skin conductance.

In general, the intercorrelations amongst the response systems were

weak. In addition, significant differences were not obtained between the

correlations when using a conservative Bonferonni correction procedure.

That is. the audience condition did not elicit significantly stronger

concordances for the relatively anxious group than the alone condition, 135

or the relatively nonanxious group. The case for concordance among the

different measures of the hypothetical construct of interest, namely

anxiety, may be complicated by other factors as yet unspecified. Again,

one is struck by the complexity of the phenomena. Problems measuring the

relationships may have derived from the low statistical power associated

with correlational analyses. Relatively small numbers of subjects would

also appear to have minimised the number of significant correlations found.

Also, Hodgson and Rachman (1974) noted that the range of scores affects

the correlation coefficients; lower correlations are to be expected when

the range of scores is small.

However, all but one of the significant correlations obtained lent

support to the hypothesis that concordance would be more evident amongst the response systems of relatively anxious pianists when playing before an audience. In contast, relatively nonanxious pianists demonstrated either nondescript or discordant relationships. The correlational results also support the notion of the three response systems, by illustrating that they are not necessarily well correlated at any given point. This set of data, therefore, does not support the unitary model of fear.

This study also revealed some qualitative differences in the response patterns of more fearful and less fearful subjects. Therefore, unless precautions are taken to ensure that mildly fearful subjects are excluded, the validity of generalizing from analogue to clinical populations is questionnable. As this study indicated, and as previously suggested

(Bernstein and Paul, 1971; Sallis et al., 1980), severely fearful indiv• iduals are more likley to respond to the feared object in each response system whereas less fearful individuals seem to respond to varying degrees in each system. 136

This study also demonstrated the importance of using multiple mode measurement in fear and anxiety related research. Under certain conditions, levels of subjective anxiety are unlikely to parallel levels of either behavioural or physiological arousal. Several measures were obtained for each response system in this study. Despite potential biases operating within self report measures (Borkovec et al., 1977; Lick, 1977; Lick and

Katkin, 1976), these measures were generally able to discriminate the two groups and were responsive to the experimental manipulation. Within the autonomic system, skin conductance and respiration (being confounded by measurement problems) did not differentiate the groups or conditions, while heart rate differentiated the conditions but not the groups. Of the two behavioural measures, the performance quality variable provided the most information.

Self Efficacy

Group by condition interactions only occurred on two of the six ind• ices of self efficacy; strength of general expectations of personal efficacy and strength of self efficacy. As predicted, the audience condition elicited greater group differences on those variables than the alone condition.

However, it should be noted that sex interactions were also present on those variables. The extent to which group effects would have remained had the variance attributable to sex been removed is uncertain. Sex differences may therefore be an important consideration in any assessment of self efficacy.

It should also be noted that predicted interaction effects were apparent in the analysis of mean self efficacy strength (i.e. the average strength scores for the three measures). However, in accordance with Bandura's recommendation for microanalytic analyses, that variable is not appropriate for determining the relationships between self efficacy judgements and the response systems. 137

Ceiling effects were apparent on the level of self efficacy indices,

which reduce the power to detect significant differences on those variables.

The results suggest that those indices were inappropriate for this sample

of subjects to the extent that they were insensitive to the different levels

of the independent variables because the range of scores was so restricted.

It is not possible to compare this study's results with those obtained by

Kendrick (1979) from the Expectations of Personal Efficacy scale where only

composite scores (combined level and strength) were presented. It would

appear that the level of self efficacy correlated very little with the

strength of self efficacy in this study, and the usefulness of the level

index was equivocal.

Self efficacy ratings not only distinguished the groups in the audience

condition, but also in the alone condition. Self efficacy theory would

predict, that, as self efficacy mediates all of the response systems, group

differences should also have been observed in each response system when

playing alone. However, only two measures, both within the self report

system and both involving sex interactions (state anxiety and self state• ments) distinguished the groups in the alone condition. The behavioural

and autonomic response systems did not differentiate the groups when play•

ing alone, and therefore, the results from the alone condition do not support self efficacy theory predictions.

The only index of self efficacy that reflected reduced confidence in the relatively anxious pianists' ability to perform when playing before an audience was the strength of general expectations of personal efficacy.

Yet, it was expected that the Self Efficacy scale that was specifically designed to be commensurate with the performance conditions in this study, would be most likely to reflect that reduction in confidence. In contrast, the General Expectations of Personal Efficacy scale was comprised of items 138

least representative of the performance conditions.

However, the finding that a significant decrease in at least one measure

of self efficacy was accompanied by increased levels of anxiety in each

response system is consistent with self efficacy theory. That is, a reduced

confidence in one's ability to perform certain tasks is believed to produce

more self defeating thoughts and distress, diminished behavioural mastery

and heightened arousal (Bandura, 1982). Therefore, such findings could be

interpreted to suggest that self efficacy mediated all of those increases

in anxiety experienced by the relatively anxious group. However, the pattern

of results exhibited by the relatively nonanxious group was not consistent

with self efficacy theory. Self efficacy theory predicts that stability of

self efficacy judgements across conditions should be accompanied by stability

of anxiety levels in each response system. However, while self efficacy

indices did not alter across conditions for the relatively nonanxious group, their heart rates increased. Therefore, it would be more parsimonious to explain these two sets of findings for each group in terms of a single model (such as the three-systems model) than to postulate the mediating role of self efficacy for only one set of results.

Predictions from self efficacy theory were more reasonably tested when

conviction ratings of ability to perform the specific experimental task in each performance condition (as represented by item 2 of the Self Efficacy scale) were examined. In accordance with the experimental hypotheses, the groups' levels of conviction did not significantly differ in the alone condition. Whereas, relatively anxious pianists reported significantly lower conviction than relatively nonanxious pianists in the audience condition.

However, this difference was not due to an expected decrease in conviction for relatively anxious pianists, but to a significant increase in conviction 139 for relatively nonanxious pianists. The results pertaining to the first mentioned group were unlikely to be due to inadequate group distinctiveness, as similiar results were obtained when examining most anxious and least anxious pianists. However, habituation of the anxious subjects to the experimental nature of the setting following the initial exposure in the alone condition may have mitigated the effect of the audience condition on their conviction ratings. Yet, the three response systems did show increased levels of anxiety in response to the audience condition. Therefore, the lack of consistency between the conviction ratings for anxious pianists and their response system measures does not lend support to self efficacy theory.

Moreover, while conviction ratings increased for relatively anxious pianists, they did not experience significant anxiety reductions in any response system, and even experienced heightened autonomic arousal. As such, this more "reasonable" test of Bandura's predictions still failed to lend support to his theory.

Bandura's research has mostly focused upon fears of spiders and snakes in subjects who probably had few enduring encounters with their feared objects due to avoidance behaviour. Therefore, those subjects were unlikely to have developed skills related to feared objects. In contrast, pianists are required to play before audiences, and are more likely to have developed skill related to their feared situations. Rachman (1978) claimed that self efficacy (or, controllability) is very dependent on competence or skills.

Pianists in this study had all attained quite developed skill bases, as their grades ranged from nine to A.R.C.T. levels. As a result, judgements of competence may have remained stable across the conditions, thereby accounting for the stability of the self efficacy ratings in the anxious groups. Indeed, this observation is consistent with the commonplace rep- 140 ort from expert concert pianists that they are able to play, and do so most effectively, in front of very demanding audiences, despite consid• erable apprehension and distress (Kendrick, 1979).

It had been hypothesised that self efficacy would be most correlated with the response systems in the relatively anxious group when playing before an audience. This hypothesis was based on the three-systems model prediction that the response systems would also be most concordant under those conditions. However, self efficacy ratings in this study signif• icantly correlated with self report measures only. This parallels

Kendrick's (1979) pretreatment correlational findings. Also, the corr• elations were neither more evident nor stronger for the audience condition or for the relatively anxious group.

A second analysis was performed on the relationship between self eff• icacy and autonomic arousal on the basis of Bandura's (1980) prediction that self efficacy strength is most predictive of anticipatory and perf• ormance arousal when the level of self efficacy is held constant. However, neither anticipatory nor performance heart rate levels significantly correlated with self efficacy strength at either level 3, 4 or 5. Also, in contrast to predicted trends, heart rate tended to increase as self efficacy strength increased at level 5. Therefore, the correlational analyses also failed to lend support to self efficacy theory predictions.

Conclusion

The results were more consistent with the three-systems model than with self efficacy theory. Consistency with the three-systems model was based on two major findings. First, the response systems demonstrated independent change over time (i.e. desynchrony) and independent intensities at any given time (i.e. discordance) under certain conditions. Second, 141

synchrony and concordance were more evident when intense emotional responses

were elicited, although the concordance rates were not as frequent or as

strong as expected. Inconsistency with the self efficacy theory was based

on three major findings. First, increases or decreases in self efficacy

were not accompanied by decreases or increases, respectively, in anxiety

levels of each response system. Second, stability of self efficacy was

not accompanied by stability of anxiety levels. Third, self efficacy did

not correlate with more than one response system. Together, these findings

suggest that self efficacy did not mediate changes in each response system.

It would seem from comments following their performances that some

pianists were surprised by their reactions to the experimental conditions,

or by the quality of their performances. That is, their pre-performance

predictions were not substantiated by their actual performance. Bandura's

theory is based on the assumption that people are good predictors of their

own reactions, but this may not necessarily be the case. The counter arg•

ument offered by self efficacy theory is that, unless microanalytical

analyses are performed, relationships between self efficacy judgements and

actions will become incongruent through the influence of such intervening

variables as reappraisals and faulty self knowledge (Bandura, 1982).

However, the self efficacy scale designed for this study was very specific

to the experimental tasks, and was completed very soon before the subjects performed. If self efficacy analyses must be more specific than the proc• edure used in this study in order to obtain predicted results, the useful•

ness and applicability of self efficacy theory are severely limited. In conclusion, self efficacy theory does not seem able to accommodate the predictions from the three-systems model, and thus would not appear to be suitable hypothetical construct for that model as was suggested by Wilson

(1978). On the other hand, the three-systems model also requires further empirical investigation in order to clarify the nature of those conditions that reliably predict more or less concordance and/or synchrony. 143

REFERENCES

Agras, W., & Jacob, R. Phobia: Nature and Measurements. In M. Maviss- akalin & D. Barlow (Eds.), Phobia: Psychological and Pharmacological Treatment. New York: Guilford Press, 1981

Anderson, M., & Borkovec, T. Imagery Processing and Fear Reduction during Repeated Exposures to Two Types of Phobic Imagery. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1980, 18, 537-540.

Andrasik, F., Turner, S., & Ollendick, T. Self Report and Physiologic Responding During In Vivo Flooding. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1980, 18, 593-594.

Appel, S. Modifying Solo Performance'Anxiety in Adult Pianists (Doctoral Dissertation, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 35, 3503A.

Appel, S. Modifying Solo Performance Anxiety in Adult Pianists. Journal of Music Therapy, 1976, 13_, 2-16.

Bandura, A. Self Efficacy: Towards a Unifying Theory of Behavior Therapy. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. The Self System in Reciprocal Determinism. American Psycholog• ist, 1978, 33(1), 344-58.

Bandura, A. Reflections on Self Efficacy. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1978, 1, 237-269.

Bandura, A. In Search of Pure Unidirectional Determinants. Behavior Ther• apy, 1981, 12, 30-40.

Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American Psychologist, 1982, 37, 122-147.

Bandura, A., & Adams, N. Analysis of Self Efficacy Theory of Behavioural Change. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1977, _1J4) , 287-310.

Bandura, A., Adams, N., & Beyer, J. Cognitive Processes Mediating Behavioral Change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35_(3), 125-139.

Bandura, A., Adams, N., Hardy, A., & Howells, A. Tests of the Generality of Self Efficacy Theory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1980, 4_(1) , 39-66.

Bandura, A., Reese, L., & Adams, N. Microanalysis of Action and Fear Arousal as a Function of Differential Levels of Perceived Self Efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, _4_3 (1) , 5-21.

Barlow, D., & Mavissakalin, M. Directions in the Assessment and Treatment of Phobia: The Next Decade. In M. Mavissakalin & D. Barlow (Eds.) Phobia: Psychological and Pharmacological Treatment. New York: Guilford Press, 1981. 144

Barlow, D., Mavissakalin, M., & Scholfield, L. Patterns of Desynchrony in Agoraphobia: A Preliminary Report. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1980, 18.(5) , 441-448.

Beiman, I., O'Neil, P., Wachtel, D., Finge, E., Johnson, S., & Feuerstein, M. Validation of a Self Report/Behavioural Subject Selection Proc• edure for Analog Fear Research. Behavior Therapy, 1978, _9_, 169-177.

Bellack, A. Anxiety and Neurotic Disorders. In A. Kazdin, A. Bellack & M. Hersen (Eds.) New Perspectives in Abnormal Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980

Benjamin, S., Marks, I., & Huson, J. Active Muscular Relaxation in Desens• itization of Phobic Patients. Psychological Medicine, 1972, _2_, 381-390.

Bernstein, D. Behavioural Fear Assessment: Anxiety or Artifact? In N. Adams & B. Unikel (Eds.) Issues and Trends in Behavior Therapy. Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1973

Bernstein, D., & Paul, G. Some Comments on Therapy Analogue Research with Small Animal Phobias. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1971, 2j 225-237.

Bersch, P. Eysenck's Theory of Incubation: A Critical Analysis. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1980, 18, 11-17.

Borkovec, T. The Effects of Instructional Suggestion and Physiological Cues on Analogue Fear. Behavior Therapy, 1973(a), 4_, 185-192.

Borkovec, T. The Role of Expectancy and Physiological Feedback in Fear Research: A Review with Special Reference to Subject Characteristics. Behavior Therapy, 1973 (b), 4_, 491-505.

Borkovec, T. Physiological and Cognitive Processes in the Regulation of Anx• iety. In G. Schwartz & S. Shapiro (Eds.) Consciousness and Self Regulation: Advances in Research, Vol. 1. New York: Plenum Press, 1976

Borkovec, T. Self Efficacy: Cause or Reflection of Behaviour Change? Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1977/8, 1_, 163-170.

Borkovec, T., Grayson, J., & Hrnnings, B. Mitigation of False Physiological Feedback Effects on Anxiety Via Cognitive Appraisal. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1979, 3.(4), 381-387.

Borkovec, T., & O'Brien, G. Methodological and Target Behaviour Issues in Analogue Therapy Outcome Research. Progress in Behaviour Modification, 1976, 2_, 33-72.

Borkovec, T., & Rachman, S. The Utility of Analogue Research, Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1979, 17, 253-261.

Borkovec, T., & Sides, J. Critical Procedural Variables Related to the Physiological Effects of Progressive Relaxation: A Review. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1979, _17_, 119-125. 145

Borkovec, T., Stone, N., O'Brien, G., & Kaloupek, D. Evaluation of a Clinically Relevant Target Behaviour for Outcome Research. Behavior Therapy, 1974, 5., 503-513.

Borkovec, T., Weerts, T., & Bernstein, D. Assessment of Anxiety. In A. Ciminero, K. Calhoun & H. Adams (Eds.) Handbook of Behavioural Assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1977

Boulougouris, J., Rabavalis, A., & Stefanis, C. Psychophysiological Resp• onses in Obsessive-Compulsive Patients. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1979, 15, 221-230.

Buck, R., Miller, R., & Caul, W. Sex, Personality and Physiological Variables in the Communication of Emotion via Facial Expression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1974, J33, 587-596.

Chambless, D., Foa, E., Groves, G., & Goldstein, A. Flooding with Brevital in the Treatment of Agoraphobia: Countereffective? Behaviour Res• earch and Therapy, 1979, 17, 243-251.

Cohen, D. Comparison of Self Report and Overt Behavioural Procedures for Assessing Acrophobia. Behavior Therapy, 1977, 8_, 17-23.

Connolly, J. Tonic Physiological Responses to Repeated Presentations of Phobic Stimuli. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1979, 17_, 189-196.

Costello, C. Symptoms of Psychopathology. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1970

Cox, D., Hallam, R., O'Connor, K., & Rachman, S. An Experimental Analysis of Fearlessness and Courage, in press.

Coyne, J. A Critique of Cognitions as Causal Entities with Particular Ref• erence to Depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1982, _6_(1) , 3-14.

Craig, K., & Wood, K. Autonomic Components of Observers Responses to Pict• ures of Homicide Victims and Nude Females. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1971, _5_(4) , 304-309.

Davidson, R. Speciality and Patterning of Biobehavioural Systems. American Psychologist, 1978, _3_3, 430-436.

De Silva, P., & Rachman, S. Is Exposure a Necessary Condition for Fear- Reduction?. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1981, _19_, 227-232.

Elder, J., Edelstein, B., & Fremow, W. Client by Treatment Interactions in Response Acquisition and Cognitive Restructuring Approaches. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1981, _5_, 202-210.

Ellis, A. A Note on the Treatment of Agoraphobics with Cognitive Modification Versus Prolonged Exposure in Vivo. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1979, 1979, 17, 162-164.

Emmelkamp, P. Self Observation Versus Flooding in the Treatment of Agora• phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1974, 12, 229-237.

Emmelkamp, P. Phobias: Theoretical and Behavioural Theoretical Considerat• ions. In J. Boulougouris & A. Rabavalis (Eds.) The Treatment of 146

Phobic and Obsessive Compulsive Disorders. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1977

Emmelkmap, P. The Behavioural Study of Clinical Phobias. In M. Hersen, R. Eisler and P. Miller (Eds. ). Progress in Behaviour Modification. New York: Academic Press, 1979

Emmelkamp, P., & Emmelkamp-Benner, A. Effecrs of Historically Portrayed Modelling and Group Treatment on Sekf Observation: A Comparison with Agoraphobics. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1975, 13, 135-139.

Emmelkamp, P., Kuipers, A., & Eggeraat, J. Cognitive Modification versus Prolonged Exposure in Vivo: A Comparison with Agoraphobics as Subjects. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1978, 16., 33-41.

Endler, N., & Okada, M. A Multidimensional Measure of Trait Anxiety: The S-R Inventory of General Trait Anxiousness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1975, 43_(3) , 319-329.

Eysenck, H. The Learning Theory Model of Neurosis - A New Approach. Beh• aviour Research and Therapy, 1976, _14_, 251-267.

Eysenck, H. Expectations As Causal Elements in Behavioural Change. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1978, _1, 171-175.

Feltz, D. Path Analysis of the Causal Elements in Bandura's Theory of Self Efficacy and an Anxiety Based Model of Avoidance Behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1982, 42_(4) , 764-781.

Foa, E., Jameson, J., Turner, R., & Paynes, L. Massed versus Spaced Exposure Sessions in the Treatment of Agoraphobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1980, 18., 333-338.

,Foa, E., & Steketee, G. Obsessive-Compulsives: Conceptual Issues and Treat• ment Interventions. In M. Hersen, R. Eisler and P. Miller (Eds.) Progress in Behaviour Modification. New York: Academic Press, 1979

Fowles, D., Christie, M., Edelberg, R., Grings, W., Lykken, D., & Venables, P. Publication Recommendations for Electrodermal Measurements. The Society for Psychophysiological Research, 1981, 18.(3), 232-239.

Freedman, A., Dornbush, R., & Shapiro, B. Anxiety: Here Today and Here Tomorrow. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 1981, 2_2 (1) , 44-53.

Galassi, J., Frierson, H., & Sharer, R. Behaviour of High, Moderate and Low Test Anxious Subjects During an Actual Test Situation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1981, 49_(1) , 51-62.

Gauthier, J., & Marshall, W. The Determination of Optimal Exposure to Phobic Stimuli in Flooding Therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1977, 15, 403-410.

Glass, G., & Stanley, J. Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1970

Grey, S., Rachman, S., & Sartory, G. Return of Fear: The Role of Inhib• ition. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1981, _L9, 135-143. 147

Grey, S., Sartory, G., & Rachman, S. Synchronous and Desynchronous Changes during Fear Reduction. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1979, 17, 137-147

Hafner, J., & Marks, I. Exposure in Vivo with Agoraphobics: Contributions of Diazapem, Group Exposure and Anxiety Evocation. Psychological Med• icine, 1976, 6_, 71-88.

Hallam, R., & Rachman, S. Courageous Actos ro Courageous Actors. Personal• ity and Individual Differences, 1980, 1_(14) , 341-346.

Hasset, J. A Primer of Psychophysiology. San Fransisco: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1978

Hersen, M. Self-Assessment of Fear. Behavior Therapy, 1973, _4_, 241-247.

Hersen, M. Complex Problems Require Complex Solutions. Behavior Therapy, 1981, 12, 15-29.

Hicks, D., & Sheinberg, R. Therapeutic Rationale, Monetary Incentive and Fear Behaviour: A Methodological Note on Analogue Research. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1976, _14, 83-84.

Hodgson, R., & Rachman, S. Desynchrony in Measures of Fear. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1974, 12, 319-326.

Hollandsworth, J., Glazeski, R., Kirkland, K., Hones, G., & Van Norman, L. An Analysis of the Nature and Effects of Test Anxiety: Cognitive , Behavioural and Physiological Components. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1979,_3_(2), 165-180.

Holroyd, K., Westbrook, T., Wolf, M., & Badhorn, E. Performance, Cognition, and Physiological Responding in Test Anxiety. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1978, 87(4) , 442-451.

Hugdahl, K. The Three-Systems Model of Fear and Emotion - A Critical Exam• ination. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1981, _19, 75-85.

Hugdahl, K., & Karker, A. Biological versus Experiential Factors in Phobic Conditioning. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1981, 19, 109-115.

Hutchings, D., Denney, D., Basgall, J., & Houston, B. Anxiety Management and Applied Relaxation in Reducing General Anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1980, 18, 181-190.

Kanter, N., & Goldfried, M. Relative Effectiveness of Rational Restructuring and Self Control Desensitization in the Reduction of Interpersonal Anx• iety. Behavior Therapy, 1979, 10, 472-190.

Kaplan, R., & Litrownik, A. Some Statistical Methods for the Assessment of Multiple Outcome in Behavioural Research. Behavior Therapy, 1977, 8_, 383-392.

Kazdin, A. Conceptual and Assessment Issues Raised by Self-Efficacy Theory. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1978, _1, 177-185. 148

Kazdin, A. Evaluating the Generality of Findings in Analogue Therapy Res• earch. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 46(4), 673-686.

Kazdin, A. Research Design in Clinical Psychology. New York: Harper and Row Pub., 1980

Kendrick, M. Reduction of Musical Performance Anxiety by Attentional Train• ing and Behavioural Rehearsal: An Exploration of Cognitive Mediational Processes (Doctoral Dissertation, University of British Columbia, 1979)

Kendrick, M., Craig, K., Lawson, D., & Davidson, P. Cognitive and Behav• ioral Therapy for Musical Performance Anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1982, 50.(3), 333-362.

Kirsch, I. 'Microanalytic' Analyses of Efficacy Expectations as Predictors of Performance. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1980, 4_(2), 259-262.

Kozak, M., & Miller, G. Hypothetical Constructs versus Intervening Variables: A Reappraisal of the Three-Systems Model of Fear. Behavioural Assess• ment, in press.

Lande, S. Physiological and Subjective Measures of Anxiety During Flooding. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1982, 2Q_(1) , 81-88.

Lang, P. The Application of Psychophysiological Methods to the Study of Psychotherapy and Behaviour Modification. In A. Bergin and S. Garfield (Eds.) Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behaviour Change. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1971

Lang, P. Physiological Assessment of Anxiety and Fear. In J. Cone and R. Hawkins (Eds.) Behavioural Assessment: New Directions in Clinical Psychology. New York: Brunner-Mazel Pub., 1977

Lang,P., Kozak, M., Miller, G., Levin, D., & McLean, A. Emotional Imagery: Conceptual Structures and Pattern of Somato-Visceral Response, psycho- physiology, 1980, _17_(2) , 179-192.

Lehrer, P., Schoicket, S., Carrington, P., & Woolfolk, R. Psychophysiological and Cognitive Responses to Stressful Stimuli in Subjects Practicing Progressive Relaxation and Clinically Standardized Meditation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1980, 18, 293-303.

Leitenberg, H., Agras, S., Butz, R., & Wincze, J. Relationships between Heart Rate and Behavioural Change during the Treatment of Phobias. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1971, 78(1) , 59-68.

Levine, B., Gorman, S., & Sherry, G. Reinforcement Expectancy Effects in Phobia Research Volunteers. Psychological Record, 1978, 28, 585-588.

Lick, J. The Effects of Pretreatment Demand Characteristcis on Verbally Reported Fear. Behavior Therapy, 1977, Q_, 727-730.

Lick, J., & Katkin, E. Assessment of Anxiety and Fear. In M. Hersen and A. Bellack (Eds.) Behavioural Assessment: A Practical Handbook. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1976 149

Marks, I. Perspectives on Flooding. Seminars in Psychiatry, 1972, £, 129-138

Marks, I. Exposure: Conceptual Issues. In S. Agras (Ed.) Behaviour Mod• ification: Principles and Clinical Applications. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1978

Marks, I., Marset, P., Boulougouris, J., & Huson, J. Physiological Accomp• animents of Neutral and Phobic Imagery. Psychological Medicine, 1971, 1, 299-307.

Marshall, W., Gauthier, J., Christie, M., Currie, D., Gordon, A. Flooding Therapy: Effectiveness, Stimulus Characteristcis, and the Value of Brief in Vivo Exposure. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1977, .15, 79-87.

Marzillier, J. Cognitive Therapy and Behavioural Practice. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1980, 18, 249-258.

Marzillier, J., Carroll, D., & Newland, J. Self-Report and Physiological Changes Accompanying Repeated Imagining of a Phobic Scene. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1979, 17_, 71-77.

Mathews, A. Fear Reduction Research and Clinical Phobias. Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 85(2), 390-404.

Mathews, A., & Shaw, P. Emotional Arousal and Persuasion Effects in Flooding. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1973, 11, 587-598.

Mathews, A., & Shaw, P. Cognitions Related to Anxiety: A Pilot Study of Treatment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1977, 15_, 503-505.

Mavissakalin, M., & Barlow, D. Phobia: An Overview. In M. Mavissakalin and D. Barlow (Eds.) Phobia: Psychological and Pharmacological Treat• ment. New York: Guilford Press, 1981

Meichenbaum, D. Cognitive Behaviour Modification: An Integrative Approach New York: Plexium Press, 1978

Meyer, V., & Reich, B. Anxiety Management - The Marriage of Physiological and Cognitive Variables. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1978, 16, 177-182.

Newman, A., & Brand, E. Coping Response Training versus in Vivo Desensitizat• ion in Fear Reduction. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1980, _4_(4) , 397- 407.

Nunes, J., & Marks, I. Feedback of True Heart Rate during Exposure in Vivo. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1975, 32, 933-936.

Ollendick, T., & Murphy, M. Differential Effectiveness of Muscular and Cog• nitive Relaxation as a Function of Locus of Control. Journal of Beh• aviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1977, 8, 223-228.

Ost, L., Jerremalm, A., & Johansson, J. Individual Response Patterns and the Effects of Different Behavioural Methods in the Treatment of Social Phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1981, .19, 1-16. 150

Paul, G. Insight versus Desensitization in Psychotherapy. California: Stanford University press?, 1966

Popler, K. Agoraphobia: Indications for the Application of the Multimodal Behavioural Conceptualisation. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1977, 64(2), 97-101.

Poser, E. The Self Efficacy Concept: Some Theoretical, Procedural and Clinical Implications. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1978, 1., 193-202.

Rabavalis, A., Boulougouris, J., & Stefanis, C. Synchrony and Concordance on Subjective and Psychophysiological Measures after Beta Blockade and Flooding in Obsessive-Compulsive Patients. In J. Boulougouris and A. Rabavalis (Eds.) The Treatment of Phobic and Obsessive Compulsive Disorders. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1976

Rachman, S. The Passing of the Two-Stage Theory of Fear and Avoidance: Fresh Possibilities. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1976(a), 14, 125-131.

Rachman, S. Courage, Fearlessness and Fear. New Scientist, 1976(b), 271-273.

Rachman, S. Fear and Courage. San Fransisco: W. Freeman & Co., 1978

Rachman, S. The Concept of Required Helpfulness. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1979 (b), 17., 1-6.

Rachman, S. The Return of Fear. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1979(a), .17, 164-166.

Rachman, S. Emotional Processing. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1980, 18, 51-60.

Rachman, S., & Hodgson, R. Synchrony and Desynchrony in Fear and Avoidance. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1974, 12, 311-318.

Rachman, S., & Seligman, P. Unprepared Phobias: 'Be Prepared'. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1976, .14, 333-338.

Reinking, R., & Kohl, M. Effects of Various Forms of Relaxation Training on Physiological and Self Report Measures of Relaxation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1975, 43.(5) , 595-600.

Rickles, W., & Day, J. Electrodermal Activity in Nonpalmar Skin Sites. Psychophysiology, 1968, 4_(4) , 321-345.

Rosenthal, T. Bandura's Self Efficacy Theory: Thought is Father to the Deed. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1978, 1, 203-209.

Sallis, J., Lichstein, K., & McGlynn, F. Anxiety Response Patterns: A Comparison of Clinical and Analogue Populations. Journal of Behaviour Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1980, 11 (3), 179-183.

Sartory, G., Rachman, S., & Grey, S. An Investigation of the Relation between Reported Fear and Heart Rate. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1977, 15, 151

435-438.

Schwartz, G. Psychphysiological Foundations of Psychotherapy and Behaviour Change. In S. Garfield and A. Bergin (Eds.) .Handbook of.Psychotherapy and Behaviour Change. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, 1978

Schwartz, G., Davidson, R., & Goleman, D. Patterning of Cognitive and Somatic Processes in the Self Regulation of Anxiety: Effects of Meditation versus Exercise. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1978, __0 (4) , 321-328.

Shahar, A., & Merbaum, M. The Interaction between Subject Characteristics and Self Control Procedures in the Treatment of Interpersonal Anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1981,_5_(2), 221-224.

Sherry, G., & Levine, B. An Examination of Procedural Variables in Flooding Therapy. Behavior Therapy, 1980, 11, 148-155.

Siddle, D., & Turpin, G. Measurement, Quantification and Analysis of Cardiac Activity. In I. Martin and P. Venables (Eds.) Techniques in Psycho- physiology. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, 1980

Smith, R., Diener, E., & Beaman, A. Demand Characteristics and the Behaviour• al Measure of Fear in Behaviour Therapy Analogue Research. Behavior Therapy, 1974, 5_, 172-182.

Spielberger, C, Gorsuch, R., & Lushene, R. State-Trait Anxiety Inventory Manual. California: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc., 1970

Stern, R., & Marks, I. Brief and Prolonged Flooding: A Comparison in Agora• phobic Patients. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1973, 28_, 270-276.

Sutton-Simon, K., & Goldfried, M. Faulty Thinking Patterns in Two Types of Anxiety. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1979, 3.(2), 193-203.

Thomas, M., & Rapp, N. Physiological, Behavioural and Cognitive Changes Resulting from Flooding in a Monosymptomatic Phobia. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1977, 15., 304-306.

Trudel, G. The Effects of Instructions, Level of Fear, Duration of Exposure and Repeated Measures on the Behavioural Avoidance Test. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1979, 17, 113-118.

Venables, P., & Christie, M. Electrodermal Activity. In I. Martin and P. Venables (Eds.) Techniques in Psychophysiology. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons, 1980

Watson, J., Gaind, R., & Marks, I. Physiological Habituation to Continuous Phobic Stimulation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1972, 10, 269-278.

Watson, J., & Marks, I. Relevant and Irrelevant Fear in Flooding - A Cross• over Study of Phobic Patients. Behavior Therapy, 1971, 2_, 275-293.

Wiggins, J. Personality and Prediction: Principles of Personality Assess• ment. California: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1973

Wilson, G. The Importance of Being Theoretical: A Commentary of Bandura's 152

'Self Efficacy: Towards a Unifying Theory of Behavioural Change'. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1978, 1, 217-230.

Wilson, G., & O'Leary, K. Principles of Behaviour Therapy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc., 1980

Wolpe, J. Self Efficacy Theory and Psychotherapeutic Change: A Square Peg for a Round Hole. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1978, 1, 231-236.

Woodward, R., & Jones, R. Cognitive Restructuring Treatment: A Controlled Trial with Anxious Patients. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1980, 18, 401-407.

Woolfolk, R., & Lazarus, A. Between Laboratory and Clinic: Paving the Two Way Street. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1979, 3.(3) , 239-244. Appendix 1

Initial Contact

My name is Michelle Craske and I am a Masters student in Clinical

Psychology. For my Masters thesis, I am researching musical performance anxiety. I am interested in the various thoughts and feelings people experience during solo piano performances. It is sometimes found that

the peculiar thoughts and feelings experienced do not correspond. I want to examine that relationship more precisely. The questionnaire that

I'll ask you to fill in will provide me with some information regarding

these issues. Also, this information may lead on to an empirical study, and in the event that I need to contact volunteers for participation in

that study, it would be extremely useful to me if, in addition to your name, you would also write your phone number in the top right hand corner. 154

Appendix 2

Report of Confidence As a Performer

Name: Phone:

This questionnaire is composed of 30 items regarding your feelings of cofidence as a solo performer on the piano. Try to decide whether "True" or "False" most represents your feelings as associated with your most recent solo performance, and circle the appropriate letter. This infor• mation is completely confidential. Work quickly - first impressions are most appropriate. Please respond to every statement.

1. I look forward to an opportunity to perform in public. T F 2. My legs tremble when I reach for the pedal. T F 3. I am in constant fear of forgetting the music. T F 4. Audiences seem friendly when I come on stage. T F 5. When preparing a solo performance I am in a constant state of anxiety. T F 6. At the conclusion of a performance I feel that I have had a pleasant experience. T F 7. I dislike to use my body expressively. T F 8. My thoughts become jumbled and confused when I perform before an audience. T F 9. I have no fear of facing an audience. T F 10. Although I am nervous just before getting up I soon forget my fears and enjoy the experience. T F 11. I face the prospect of performing with complete confidence T F 12. I feel that I am in complete possession of myself when performing. T F 13. I prefer to have the notes on the piano in case I forget the music. T F 14. I like to observe the reactions of the audience to my performance. T F

15. Although I perform well before my friends I freeze on stage. T F

16. I feel relaxed and comfortable while performing. T F 17. Although I do not enjoy performing in public I do not particularly dread it. T F 18. I always avoid playing solos in public if possible. T F 19. The faces of the audience are blurred when I look at them. T F 155

20. I feel disgusted with myself after performing before an audience. T F 21. I enjoy preparing for a solo performance. T F 22. My mind is clear when I face an audience. T F 23. My hands feel cold and weak before performing. T F 24. I perspire and tremble just before performing. T F 25. My posture feels strained and unnatural. T F 26. I am fearful and tense all the while I am performing

before an audience. T F

27. I find the prospect of performing mildly pleasant. T F

28. At the conclusion of my performance I feel that I would like to continue performing. T F 29. I am terrified at the thought of performing before a group of people. T F 30. I have a feeling of alertness in facing an audience. T F

In addition please answer the following question:

During any situation that requires you to perform solo before an audience, do you experience anxiety which is of sufficient intensity to be a source of concern for you? That is, do you worry about feelings of anxiety before or during performance?

Yes No 156

Appendix 3

Subject Data Relatively Anxious RCP Age Sex Grade Level 1 11 20 M 8-9 2 11 18 F ARCT 3 12 18 F ARCT 4 12 21 F ARCT 5 12 17 F ARCT 6 12 19 F ARCT 7 13 23 F ARCT 8 14 19 M ARCT 9 14 18 M ARCT 10 14 21 F ARCT 11 14 30 F 10-11 12 14 21 M ARCT 13 14 20 F 10-11 14 16 16 F 8-9 15 17 22 F ARCT 16 19 21 F ARCT 17 19 22 F ARCT 18 22 24 F 10-11 19 23 33 F ARCT 20 27 18 F ARCT x = 15.5 x = 21.05 M = 4, F = 16 8-9 = 2 10-11 = 3 ARCT =15

Relatively Nonanxious RCP Age Sex Grade Level 1 1 22 M ARCT 2 2 18 M ARCT 3 3 19 F ARCT 4 4 23 F ARCT 5 4 18 M 10-11 6 5 19 F ARCT 7 6 20 F ARCT 8 6 20 M ARCT 9 6 25 M 10-11 10 6 20 F 10-11 11 7 18 M ARCT 12 7 18 F ARCT 13 8 18 F ARCT 14 8 21 M ARCT 15 9 19 M 8-9 16 9 23 F ARCT 17 9 18 M ARCT 18 10 18 M ARCT 19 10 26 M ARCT 20 10 20 M ARCT x = 6.5 x = 20.6 M = 12, F = 8 8-9 = 2 10-11 = 3 ARCT =15 157

Appendix 4

"You Are In Situations Involving Solo Piano Performances"

(We are primarily interested in your reactions in general to those situat• ions that involve solo piano performances before an audience)

Mark one of the five alternative degrees of reaction or attitude by

circling the appropriate number for each of the following nine items.

1. Seek experiences like this 12 3 4 5 Very much Not at all

2. Perspire 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Perspire much

3. Having an "uneasy feeling" 12 3 4 5 Not at all Very much

4. Feel exhilerated and thrilled 12 3 4 5 Very much Not at all

5. Get fluttering feeling in stomach 12 3 4 5 Not at all Very much

6. Feel tense 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Very much

7. Enjoy these conditions 12 3 4 5 Very much Not at all

8. Heart beats faster 12 3 4 5 Not at all Much faster

9. Feel anxious 12 3 4 5 Not at all Very anxious 158

Appendix 5A SELF-EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE Developed by C. D. Spielberger, R. L. Gorsuch and R. Lushene STAI FORM X-1 NAME : DATE

DIRECTIONS: A number of statements which people have used to describe themselves are given below. Read each state• ment and then blacken in the appropriate circle to the right of o z o the statement to indicate how you feel right now, that is, at o o s H 3 > s this moment. There are no right or wrong answers. Do not m H c > B o spend too much time on any one statement but give the answer X r > > which seems to describe your present feelings best. cr

1. I feel calm ® ® ® ©

2. I feel secure © ® ® ©

3. I am tense © ® ® ©

4. I am regretful © ® ® ©

5. I feel at ease © ® ® ©

6. I feel upset © ® ® ©

7. I am presently worrying over possible misfortunes © ® ® ®

8. I feel rested © ® ® ©

9. I feel anxious © ® ® ©

10. I feel comfortable © ® ® ©

11. I feel self-confident © ® ® ©

12. I feel nervous © ® © ©

13. I am jittery © ® ® ©

14. I feel "high strung" ® © ® ©

15. I am relaxed © ® ® ©

16. I feel content © ® ® ©

17. I am worried © ® ® ©

18. I feel over-excited and "rattled" © ® ® ©

19. I feel joyful © ® ® ©

20. I feel pleasant © ® ® © 159

Appendix 5B

SUDS Scale

Name:

Please indicate the degree of anxiety that you are currently experiencing on a xcale of 0 to 100 where 0 represents NO ANXIETY and 100 represents MAXIMUM ANXIETY. Circle the appropriate number:

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Appendix 5C

Retrospective SUDS Scale

Name:

Please indicate the degree of anxiety you were/are experiencing at the following periods on a scale of 0 to 100 where 0 represents NO ANXIETY and 100 represents MAXIMUM ANXIETY:

(1) Immediately after you played the first note

(2) Midway through your performance

(3) Immediately prior to completing your performance

(4) Now 161

Appendix 5D

Expectations of Personal Efficacy Scale

Name: Date:

Part A How certain are you that you could now perform the following tasks with your anxiety under control? For each task, please circle the appropriate number:

(1) Playing your favourite piece for family members very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(2) Playing a piece of music for a small group of friends very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(3) Playing three pieces in an exam with one examiner present very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(4) Playing a single piece of music in competition for a scholarship in a music festival very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(5) Performing five pieces of music from memory in a one-person recital to a full house. This recital is to be reviewed in the local newspapers. very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

Part B How certain are you that you could not perform the following tasks before an audience with your anxiety under control? On the first four tasks, assume you have learned the music. For each task, please circle the appropriate number:

(1) Playing in a piano duet very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(2) Accompanying a small choir of twenty members very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain 162

(3) Playing in a chamber group of three: violin, cello, and yourself at the piano

very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(4) Playing a piece of music from a different period (for example, Baroque, Romantic, Modern) from that which you have chosen to play today

very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(5) Sightreading a piece of music

very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain 163

Appendix 5E

Self-Efficacy Scale

Name:

How certain are you that you could now perform the following tasks in a situation in which you are playing a solo musical piece with no one else present with your anxiety under control? For each task, please circle the appropriate number:

(1) Playing a piece that you have practiced and have mastered well with the written music before you

very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(2) Playing a piece that you have practiced and have mastered well without the written music

very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(3) Playing a piece of music that you have practiced very little and have mastered to some extent with the music before you

very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(4) Playing a piece of music that you have practiced very little and have only mastered to some extent without the written music

very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(5) Playing a piece of music that you have not practiced and have not mastered with the written music before you

very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain 164

Appendix 5F

Self-Efficacy Scale

Name:

How certain are you that you could perform the following tasks in a situation in which you are playing a solo musical piece before an audience who are evaluating your performance with your anxiety under control? For each task, please circle the appropriate number:

(1) Playing a piece that you have practiced and have mastered well with the written music before you

very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(2) Playing a piece that you have practiced and have mastered well without the written music

very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(3) Playing a piece of music that you have practiced very little and have mastered to some extent with the music before you

very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(4) Playing a piece of music that you have practiced very little and have only mastered to some extent without the written music

very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain

(5) Playing a piece of music that you have not practiced and have not mastered with the written music before you

very 0 12 3 4 5 6 completely uncertain certain 165

Appendix 5G

Performance Anxiety Self-Statement Scale

Name:

On the following pages are a number of thoughts which you may have had before, during or after your performance you just gave. Read each item carefully and decide how frequently you were thinking that particular thought.

For example:

I was afraid I was going to make a lot of before during mistakes. ( ) ( )

Please follow these instructions very carefully:

1. First read the statement.

2. Next decide on how frequently the thought occurred during each of the periods of time, and provide that information by entering one of the numbers from the following scale:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

never almost continuously

If the thought did not occur to you at any time, place zero in all the parentheses as follows:

I was afraid I was going to make a lot of before during mistakes. ( 0 ) ( 0 )

The following example provides an illustration of a thought that occurred quite frequently both before and during a performance but more frequently during. It did not occur after.

I noticed that my knees were shaking. before during after ( 4 ) ( 5 ) ( 0 )

Please try to answer as accurately as possible. 166

12 3 4

never almost continuously

1. I was reasoning that I was well prepared, before 1 my fingers were in good shape, and I was ( ) going to do the best I could.

2. I was confident I would play well. before ( )

3. I lost interest in what I was doing. before ( )

4. I had a feeling that I wasn't going before during to play well. ( ) ( )

5. I was thinking that I could hardly before during wait till it was over. ( ) ( )

6. I was thinking about the music I was before during going to play - its mood, tempo and ( ) ( ) feeling.

7. I was thinking that I was crazy to before during be there. I was wishing I hadn't come. ( ) ( )

8. I was panicking and feeling completely before during out of control. ( ) ( )

9. I wished this performance were taking before during place at another time. ( ) ( )

10. I was thinking that I was in control before during and could meet this challenge. ( ) ( )

11. I was not thinking of the past or too during far ahead, but was focusing on what I ( ) was playing at the moment.

12. I felt as if everything were unreal - during as if I were in a dream. ( )

13. I was feeling as if I'd like to get up during and leave. ( )

14. I felt I was playing well. during ( )

15. I was really enjoying myself - thinking before during after I was glad to have the chance to play ( ) ( ) ( ) this music. 167

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

never almost continuously

16. I was aware that I felt relaxed and before during after comfortable. ( ) ( ) ( )

17. I was worried about disappointing my before during after teacher or my relatives. ( ) ( ) ( )

18. I was feeling happy. before during after ( ) ( ) ( )

19. I was thinking how much I liked the before during after piece of music I had chosen to play. ( ) ( ) ( )

20. I was concerned that the other performers before during after would play much better than I. ( ) ( ) ( )

21. I felt that I had been in control of during after things throughout the performance. ( ) ( )

22. I was thinking that the whole things during after was a complete disaster. ( ) ( )

23. I felt that I never again wanted to during after play in front of other people. ( ) ( )

24. I knew that my mistakes were only a during after small part of the whole performance. ( ) ( )

25. I felt like a complete failure. during after ( ) ( )

26. I couldn't believe that I was making during after mistakes. I was so embarrassed. ( ) ( )

27. I felt that I'd tried to communicate during after something and wasn't just concerned with ( ) ( ) playing correctly.

28. I felt that an audience would have during after enjoyed my playing. ( ) ( )

29. I felt I had let myself down. after ( )

30. I was feeling pleased with the way I'd played. after ( )

31. I was ashamed of myself and didn't want to after face anyone. ( )

32. I really enjoyed performing and was kind after of sorry it was over. ( ) 168

Appendix 5H

Performance Anxiety Self-Statement Scale

Name:

On the following pages are a number of thoughts which you may have had before, during or after your performance you just gave. Read each item carefully and decide how frequently you were thinking that particular thought.

For example;

I was afraid I was going to make a lot of before during mistakes. ( ) ( )

Please follow these instructions very carefully:

1. First read the statement.

2. Next decide on how frequently the thought occurred during each of the periods of time, and provide that information by entering one of the numbers from the following scale:

never almost continuously

If the thought did not occur to you at any time, place a zero in all the parantheses as follows:

I was afraid I was going to make a lot of before during mistakes. *( 0 ) ( 0 )

The following example provides an illustration of a thought that occurred quite frequently both before and during a performance but more frequently during. It did not occur after.

I noticed that my knees were shaking. before during after ( 4 ) ( 5 ) ( 0 )

Please try to answer as accurately as possible. 169

0 12 3 4

never almost continuously

I was reasoning that I was well before prepared, my fingers were in good ( ) shape, and I was going to do the best I could.

I was confident I would play well. before ( )

3. I lost interest in what I was doing. before ( )

4. I had a feeling that I wasn't going before during to play well. ( ) ( )

5. I was thinking that I could hardly before during wait till it was over. ( ) ( )

6. I was thinking about the music I was before during going to play - its mood, tempo and ( ) ( ) feeling.

I was thinking that I was crazy to be before during up there in front of those people. I ( ) ( ) was wishing I hadn't come.

I was panicking and feeling completely before during out of control. ( ) ( )

9. I wished this performance were taking before during place at another time. ( ) ( )

10. I was thinking that I was in control before during and could meet this challenge. ( ) ( )

11. I was not thinking of the past or too during far ahead, but was focusing on what I ( ) was playing at the moment.

12. I felt as if everything were unreal - during as if I were in a dream. ( )

13. I was feeling as if I'd like to get up during and leave. ( )

14. I felt I was playing well. during ( ) 15. I was really enjoying myself - thinking I before during after was glad to have the chance to share this ( ) ( ) ( ) music with those listening. 170

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

never almost continuously

16. I was aware that I felt relaxed and before during after comfortable. ( ) ( ) ( )

17. I was worried about disappointing my before during after relatives or my teacher. ( ) ( ) ( )

18. I was feeling happy. before during after ( ) ( ) ( )

19. I was thinking how much I liked the before during after piece of music I had chosen to play. ( ) ( ) ( )

20. I was concerned that the other performers before during after would play much better than I. ( ) ( ) ( )

21. I felt that I had been in control of before during after things throughout the performance ( ) ( ) ( )

22. I was thinking that the whole thing during after was a complete disaster. ( ) ( )

23. I felt that I never again wanted to during after play in front of other people. ( ) ( )

24. I knew that my mistakes were only a during after small part of the whole performance. ( ) ( )

25. I felt like a complete failure. during after ( ) ( )

26. I couldn't believe that I was making mistakes during after in front of those people. I was so embarrassed ( ) ( ) and was wondering what people would think of me.

27. I felt that I'd tried to communicate something during after and wasn't just concerned with playing correctly. ( ) ( )

28. I felt that the people in the audience enjoyed during after my playing. ( ) ( )

29. I felt I had let myself down. after ( )

30. I was feeling pleased with the way I'd played. after ( )

31. I was ashamed of muself and didn't want to after face anyone. ( )

32. I really enjoyed performing and was kind of after sorry it was over. ( ) 171

Appendix 6

Definitions of Performance Quality Dimensions

(1) Touch - technical efficiency of the performer to achieve clarity and sound quality (slurs, staccatos, legato lines and accents, and pedalling).

(2) Phrasing - clarity, subtlety, control, length, originality and variety of phrasing; degree to which the performer is aware of and shapes phrases - expressiveness.

(3) Pitch and Omission - incorrect, omitted or blurred notes or chords (taking into account the relative technical difficulty of the piece and the importance of the incorrect note to the presentations).

(4) Rythym - time value of note or rest; clarity with which the indicated metrical rhythm is rendered (misplaced barlines or stresses); clarity of the rhythmic harmonic progression; rubato; overall rhythmic timing of sections (placements and arrivals of phrases); coordination of attack.

(5) Tempo - steadiness of tempo; stylistic appropriateness of tempos; consistency and appropriateness of speeds of passages.

(6) Dynamics - relative effectiveness of dynamics choses (timing, variety, stylistic appropriateness and dynamic range); balancing of chords and lines; interpretation of indicated (in score) dynamics or accents.

(7) Memory - ability to remember the piece, and to recover from a memory slip (taking into account the importance of the slip to the passage).

(8) Overall Quality - the extent to which the performance is convincing in its technical, stylistic and musical qualities; the emotional conviction of the performer. Appendix 7

Performance Quality Rating

Rater:

Subject Number:

Rate each dimension on the following scale:

123456789 10

Totally Average Excellent Unacceptable

1. Pitch and Omission

2. Rhythm

3. Tempo

4. Dynamics

5. Touch

6. Phrasing

7. Memory

8. Overall Quality

Grand Total

Rate the vigour with which the piece is played on a a 1 to 10 point scale, where 1 represents VERY LITTLE VIGOUR and 10 represents VERY MUCH VIGOUR by circling the appropriate number:

123456789 10

Very Average Very Little Much 173

Appendix 8

Timed Behavioural Checklist

Definitions of Items

(1) Face Deadpan - expressionless face; lips are not curled up and are in their usual position; brow is not furrowed; eyes are not squinted; face is not distorted; eyebrows are not raised. Deadpan face should persist through• out the entire interval.

(2) Moistens Lips - lips are parted, tongue protrudes and rests on or runs along either top or bottom lips. This is rated if it occurs at any time during interval.

(3) Lifts Shoulders - shoulders are lifted at least one inch in an upward direction. Shoulders may be lifted from a drooping or semi-lifted position. This is rated if it occurs at any time during interval.

(4) Siff Back and Neck - back and neck are inflexible and rigid, though this does not require an upright position. Back does not sway from side to side, or back and forth. Neck does not jerk back and forth or from side to side. This is rated if it persists throughout the entire interval.

(5) Stiff Arms - arms are rigid and inflexible, though this does not include gross movements to reach the keys. Arms are not flaccid. This is rated if it persists throughout the entire interval.

Rating Sheet

Rater:

Subject Number:

Interval 1 Interval 2 Interval 3 Lifts Shoulders

Stiff Back and Neck

Stiff Arms

Dace Deadpan

Moistens Lips Appendix 9

Audience Checklist

Rater:

Subject:

Tick those behaviours which were present at any time during the performance

Knees Tremble

Lifts Shoulders

Stiff Back and Neck

Hands Tremble

Stiff Arms

Pace Deadpan

Moistens Lips 175

Appendix 10

Phone Contact Instructions

Hello, my name is . I am calling in relation to the study on musical performance which is a followup on the questionnaire that you recently filled in. Do you remember? This study might be of some interest to you as a performer. We are particularly interested in the specific thoughts that people have during their performances, and how they relate to the types of feelings experienced. So, the study would provide you with some interesting personal feedback on you own reactions during performances, and it might lead to our being able to help those with serious problems. I'll just briefly describe the study; it would involve coming to the music department at U.B.C. on two occasions, each lasting approximately 40 minutes (during the weekends of February 27th to 28th and March 6th to 7th). You will be asked to play the same musical piece - of your own choice - on both occasions. The first occasion will be a practice session for you to become familiar with the procedures, and will just involve performing on your own. On the second occasion you will be asked to play before a small group of people. Also, there will be several questionnaires to fill in on both occasions. Once the study is finished we can tell you what we're interested in and how it relates to your performance. Also, we are offering a payment of $5.00 per session. Would you be interested in participating?

(If the answer is "YES") Good. Firstly, then, I need to obtain some information - mainly for the purposes of experimental design. (ask the subject details for the following. NB: "grade level" refers to the grade of music that they are now mastering)

Age: Grade Level: Postal Address:

Teachers Name:

Between now and the next time I contact you to schedule dates and times could you please choose a piano piece that you have mastered and are famil• iar with to the extent that you feel comfortable playing it from memory. It must only be 3 to 5 minutes in length. We will be contacting you within the next 2 weeks. Thankyou.

(If the answer is "NO") Well, if you do change your mind, please feel free to contact us by ringing the Clinical Psychology Department of U.B.C. 228 5581 and asking for Michelle. Thankyou. Appendix 11

Subject Data Sheet

Subject Number: __ . _

Name: — — •

Sex: . !

Age:

Grade Level: —

Score on RCP: —

Name of Piece: , _ •

Teacher's Name: _____ —

Postal Address: . ———

Schedule: Session 1 Date __

Session 2 Date Time 177

Appendix 12

Performance Schedule

Subject RA, Researcher RA2

1 9.40 9.55 9.55 - 10.10 10.10 - 10.20 2 9.55 10.10 10.10 - 10.25 10.25 - 10.35 3 10.10 10.25 10.25 - 10.40 10.40 - 10.50 4 10.25 10.40 10.40 - 10.55 10.55 - 11.05 5 10.40 10.55 10.55 - 11.10 11.10 - 11.20 6 10.55 11.10 11.10 - 11.25 11.25 - 11.35 7 11.10 11.25 11.25. - 11.40 11.40 - 11.50 8 11.25 11.40 11.40 - 11.55 11.55 - 12.05 9 11.40 11.55 11.55 - 12.10 12.10 - 12.20 10 11.55 12.10 12.10 - 12.25 12.25 - 12.35

11 1.10 1.25 1.25 1.40 1.40 1.50 12 1.25 1.40 1.40 1.55 1.55 2.05 13 1.40 1.55 1.55 2.10 2.10 2.20 14 1.55 2.10 2.10 2.25 2.25 2.35 15 2.10 2.25 2.25 2.40 2.40 2.50 16 2.25 2.40 2.40 2.55 2.55 3.05 17 2.40 2.55 2.55 3.10 3.10 3.20 18 2.55 3.10 3.10 3.25 3.25 3.35 19 3.10 3.25 3.25 3.40 3.40 3.50 20 3.25 3.40 3.40 3.55 3.55 4.05 178

Appendix 13

First Set of Subject Instructions - Alone Condition

The purpose of today's session is essentially to allow you to become used to the situation and the procedures that will be involved in your performance next time. So, we will be going through exactly the same procedures, even though we will not be evaluating the data that we obtain. To gain maximum benefit from this practice session you should try to perf• orm as if you were at home alone. Firstly, I will attach some electrodes which provide measures of heart rate and so on. For today, this is to ensure that the instruments are operating as they should and to prepare you for the next time, rather than for actual measurement. Then, I'll give you some questionnaires to fill in - any information that you provide will remain confidential. Then you'll be taken to the studio, and when you are seated at the piano alone announce your name and the title of the piece as if there were an audience present. You will then hear one tone, followed by another tone. Commence playing when you hear the second tone, before which time you should remain as still as possible. Also, during the per• formance there will be another tone which is a necessary design factor for the measures we are taking, but just continue playing. When you finish, Michelle will bring you back here to complete some more questionn• aires. Are there any questions? 179

Appendix 14

Consent Form 1

I, , voluntarily give my consent to participate in the research project examining musical performance to be conducted at the University of British Columbia during the period January to May 1982. The procedures to be followed and their purposes have been explained to me and I understand them. I have, made a commit• ment to attend two sessions, each approximately 40 minutes in length.

I know that I will be required to play a solo musical piece on both occasions and will have electrodes attached for the purposes of adaptation in the first session and for physiological data collection in the second session and will complete various self-report measures on both occasions. I also know that on the second occasion I will be performing before an audience who will be evaluating my playing and that my performance will be audiotaped and videotaped. I know that any information gathered from me during this study will remain confidential.

If I wish to terminate participation in the study, I know that I am free to do so.

Signature

Date Appendix 15

Debriefing Instructions in Alone Condition

In order to make you feel as much at ease as possible, we had to ensure that this situation was in no way stressful for you. So, we previously told you that we would not be evaluating the data obtained. It is very necessary that we obtain a baseline of your reactions without any stress, which is used in analysing the data from your next performance. So, we are interested in your responses during today's session, and for that reason your performance was videotaped. The only people who will be viewing the videotape are the principle researchers in order to make

some objective ratings. Do you have any objections to us using that information? If so, we can erase the tape. (If the answer is "NO") It is very important that you keep this confidential, so could you please not mention the videorecording to anyone. 181

Appendix 16

Consent Form 2

I, , voluntarily give my consent to allow the video and audio recording and physiological data taken from my performance on the to be retained for analysis. I am aware that, had I wished, the data could have been deleted. I know that I was not previously informed of these measures in order to minimize the anxiety I might experience.

I know that in my next performance I will play before an audience who will evaluate my playing while physiological data is being collected and that my performance will be audio and video taped. I also know that any infor• mation gathered from me during this study will remain confidential.

If I wish to terminate participation in this study, I know that I am free to do so.

Signature

Date Appendix 17

First Set of Subject Instructions - Audience Condition

Today you will be performing before a small audience of people who are accomplished pianists and experts in behavioural assessment. They have copies of your music and will be evaluating your performance. In addition, your performance will be videotaped - this time you will be able to see the camera. Otherwise, we will be following exactly the same procedures as last time; firstly you will fill in some questionnaires and I'll attach the electrodes, and then Michelle will take you into the studio. As before, begin when you hear the second tone before which time you should have already announced your name and the title of your piece. Also, there will be another tone during the performance for reasons to do with physiological measurement, but just continue playing. The audience have been instructed not to applaud for standardization purposes, so do not take the absence of applause as a reflection oh your performance in any way. When you finish, Michelle will return to unhook you. Are there any questions? Appendix 18

Video-Camera Questionnaire

Were you aware that your first performance was videotaped before being informed by the research assistant upon completion of that performance

Aware

Suspicious

Unaware 184

Appendix 19

Second Set of Subject Instructions - Audience Condition

We would like to thank you for spending time and effort to participate in this study. We hope that it has not been too stressful for you, but instead has been an interesting experience. Michelle will be contacting you as soon as all of the results have been analysed to discuss with you the findings overall and to give you some feedback on your own resp• onses. It may take some time, but she will definitely contact you as soon as possible. Thankyou again. 185

Appendix 20

Debriefing Letter

Dear ,

I must first apologise for the long delay in contacting you, but there was a great deal of data to analyse . I should begin by explaining more fully the nature of my research project. Essentially, I am interested in the manner in which the three different ways of manif• esting anxiety are related to each other, to the.degree of anxiety experien• ced while performing, and to one's confidence in one's ability to perform. The three major ways are:

(1) Physiological e.g. sweating, increased heart rate (2) Cognitive/self reported e.g. stating to oneself (by private thoughts) how anxious one feels (3) Behavioural e.g. stiff posture, shaking

As you are aware, I took measures in each of these areas in the study: (1) heart rate, skin resistance and respiration were measured while you were playing (2) you completed many questionnaires before and after playing (3) and from the videos, objective ratings were made of your appear• ance and playing. I remind you that all of this information has been and will be kept conf• idential . The degree of anxiety in this study was contrasted in two conditions - as you remember - once alone, and once with an audience. It was assumed that for some of you the audience would be more stressful than for others - and it was. The audience, although all interested in piano and all of whom enjoyed the performances very much, were not all accomplished pianists, as that was not possible for me to arrange. However, as one of the measures your performances were rated on very objective ratings by two very accomp• lished pianists who listened to the audiotapes. The confidence aspect was measured by several of the questionnaires that you completed. One hypothesis that I'm testing is that self confidence predicts the level of anxiety experienced in each of those three ways. That is, low confidence would predict a lot of anxiety. The contrasting hypothesis is that, because those three aspects of anxiety can change quite independently 186 of each other,.confidence can not always predict all of them. The results suggest that the latter is more often the case than the former. That is, while confidence may predict the way one appears (i.e. relaxed or tense), it may not predict the amount of physiological arousal experienced or subjective distress reported.

This research has implications for treatment for people experiencing extremely disabling anxiety. That is, to find the method most suitable for treating a particular person, one must first find how the person man• ifests their anxiety. If they mostly become physically aroused when anxious, then a treatment focusing upon muscle tension may produce the best results. If their anxiety is most obvious in their behaviour, then a behavioually oriented treatment method may be best, and so on.

Though your levels of anxiety may not be extremely disabling, it is of interest to know more about our own reactions. So, here is some personal feedback about your reactions when you played in front of the audience:

(1) Your hear rate at resting level was beats per minute, averaged at beats per minute during playing and peaked at beats per minute. Most of the 40 people who participated in the study experienced heart rate increases while playing, and much of that is due to the amount of physical energy involved. (2) Your respiration rate (breaths per minute) changed from (while resting) to (while playing). Again, nearly everyone's breathing became much faster and more shallow when they began playing. (3) Your skin resistance (a measure of sweating) was % of the average. Your physiological results suggest that

(4) The rating of your appearance while playing (i.e. the degree to which you ilooked relaxed) was , and the average was . That is, . (5) Your self reported level of anxiety was % of the aver• age. That is, . (6) Your self reported level of self confidence was % of the average. That is, . It therefore appears that 187

I would like to thank you once again for helping me in my research. I hope this information has been of some interest to you. If you would like to arrange some time to view your own videotapes, or to talk further about the research, don't hesitate to call me at 733 9071 (evenings).

Sincerely,

Michelle Craske 188

Appendix 21

Absolute Values of Heart Rate and Skin Conductance Level

Relatively Anxious Relatively Nonanxious

Variable M SD M SD

SCL1 (/.mhos) Alone 6.64 2.78 ' 6.14 3.46 Audience 6.52 3.60 8.03 5.76 SCL3 (/ttmhos) Alone 8.10 3.53 8.62 5.75 Audience 7.91 4.91 12.53 10.64

SCLE (/tmhos) Alone 7.52 3.40 9.34 10.10 Audience 7.66 4.12 12.82 11.92

HR-pre Alone 96.54 17.51 89.90 12.29 Audience 108.81 17.67 101.56 23.37 HR-during Alone 103.57 16.71 103.69 19.56 Audience 125.08 16.85 121.21 26.62

Most Anxious Least Anxious

M SD M SD

SCL1 C«mhos) Alone 7.39 3.06 4.06 1.34 Audience 6.79 3.31 5.28 2.69 SCL3 yianhos) Alone 7.85 3.26 7.98 6.17 Audience 7.41 2.72 8.73 7.90

SCLE (/mhos) Alone 7.21 3.12 9.45 13.98 Audience 7.05 2.74 9.53 11.97 HR-pre Alone 92.33 14.84 87.64 10.31 Audience 106.38 19.84 98.90 26.30 HR-during Alone 98.14 14.41 103.21 19.81 Audience 120.98 14.02 120.13 26.69 189

Appendix 22

Summary of Repeated Measures Univariate Analyses of Variance

Error Variable SS MS SS MS F jp (df=l,38)

PQ Group 809.63 809.63 13889.54 365.51 2.22 ns Condition 0.08 0.08 0.00 ns Group x Condition 102.38 102.38 838.67 22.07 4.64 <.04

TC Group 0.1125 0.1125 98.38 2.59 0.04 ns Condition 1.51 1.51 - - 0.37 ns Group x Condition 3.61 3.61 157.38 4.14 0.87 ns

State Group 1665.31 1665.31 5971.88 157.16 10.06 <.01 Condition 324.01 324.01 6.87 <.02 Group x Condition 148.51 148.51 1792.98 47.18 3.15 <.084

Level Mean Group 8.02 8.02 15.07 0.40 20.23 <.001 Condition 0.006 0.006 0.06 ns Group x Condition 0.05 0.05 3.72 0.10 0.51 ns

Strength Mean Group 1102.61 1102.61 1154.83 30.39 36.28 <.001 Condition 5.71 5.71 1.50 ns Group x Condition 32.51 32.51 131.26 3.45 9.41 <.01

SUDS Group 1361.25 1361.25 37287.50 981.25 1.39 ns Condition 2311.25 2311.25 10.01 <.01 Group x Condition 361.25 361.25 8777.50 230.99 1.56 ns

RSUDS Group 9439.51 9439.51 496366.98 13062.29 0.72 ns Condition 14661.10 14661.10 6.14 <.02 Group x Condition 8466.61 8466.61 90694.78 2386.71 3.55 ns

SUDS Total Group 17970.00 17970.00 689707.48 18150.197 0.99 ns Condition 28614.60 28614.60 9.78 <.04 Group x Condition 12325.60 12325.60 111162.27 2925.32 4.21 <.05

SS Group 58644.40 58644.40 196840.35 5180.01 11.32 <.01 Condition 832.05 832.05 0.57 ns Group x Condition 320.00 320.00 55026.95 1448.08 0.22 ns

RSCL1 Group 0.62 0.62 3.06 0.08 0.77 ns Condition 0.07 0.07 0.73 ns Group x Condition 0.01 0.01 3.63 0.10 0.11 ns 190

Error Variable SS MS SS MS

RSCL3 Group 0.06 0.06 2.17 0.06 1.13 ns Condition 0.01 0.01 - - 0.03 ns Group x Condition 0.01 0.01 7.23 0.19 0.05 ns

RSCLE Group 0.11 . 0.11 2.92 0.08 1.42 ns Condition 0.13 0.13 - - 1.41 ns Group x Condition 0.14 0.14 3.54 0.09 1.53 ns

RSCLE Mean Group 0.08 0.08 0.93 0.02 3.16 ns Condition 0.06 0.06 - - 0.57 ns Group x Condition 0.04 0.04 3.66 0.10 0.38 ns

Amplitudel Group 0.37 0.37 115.91 3.05 0.12 ns Condition 5.48 5.48 - - 2.44 ns Group x Condition 0.41 0.41 85.36 2.25 0.18 ns

Amplitude3 Group 0.05 0.05 64.23 1.69 0.03 ns Condition 1.80 1.80 - - 2.32 ns Group x Condition 2.94 2.94 29.40 0.77 3.80 ns

Latencyl Group 0.21 0.21 102.45 2.70 0.08 ns Condition 5.95 5.95 - - 3.16 ns Group x Condition 1.62 1.62 71.41 1.88 0.86 ns

Latency3 Group 1.21 1.21 51.22 1.35 0.89 ns Condition 0.29 0.29 - - 0.29 ns Group x Condition 1.33 1.33 38.54 1.01 1.32 ns

Risetimel Group 1.14 1.14 119.01 3.13 0.36 ns Condition 2.49 2.49 - - 1.23 ns Group x Condition 0.14 0.14 77.05 2.03 0.07 ns

Risetime3 Group 3.41 3.41 73.03 1.92 1.78 ns Condition 3.60 3.60 - - 1.68 ns Group x Condition • 0.22 0.22 81.48 2.14 0.10 ns

Resp-pre Group 0.42 0.42 304.12 8.00 0.05 ns Condition 5.34 5.34 - - 1.02 ns Group x Condition 0.93 0.93 198.78 5.23 0.18 ns

Resp-during Group 33.37 33.37 645.19 16.98 2.14 ns Condition 16.45 16.45 - - 1.86 ns Group x Condition 16.25 16.25 335.49 8.83 1.84 ns 191

Error Variable SS MS SS MS F jo

Respiration Mean Group 7.25 7.25 257.13 6.77 1.07 ns Condition 10.14 10.14 - - 2.70 ns Group x Condition 2.36 2.36 142.55 3.75 0.63 ns

RHR-pre Group 0.03 0.03 1.79 0.05 0.53 ns Condition 0.76 0.76 - - 17.45 <.001 Group x Condition 0.00 0.00 1.65 0.04 0.05 ns

RHR-during Group 0.04 0.04 0.97 0.03 1.58 ns Condition 2.60 2.60 - - 63.19 <.001 Group x Condition 0.10 0.10 1.56 0.04 2.35 ns

RHR Mean Group 0.01 0.01 0.56 0.02 0.03 ns Condition 1.54 1.54 - - 43.73 <.001 Group x Condition 0.03 0.03 1.34 0.04 2.30 ns 192

Appendix 23

Summary of Group x Condition x Time of Measurement Analyses of Variance

Error Variable SS MS SS MS F P

RSCL Group 0.23 0.23 2.79 0.07 3.16 ns Condition 0.16 0.16 - - 0.57 ns Group x Condition 0.11 0.11 10.99 0.29 0.38 ns Time 3.09 1.54 - - 21.87 ns Group x Time 0.01 0.01 5.36 0.07 0.03 ns Condition x Time 0.04 0.02 - - 0.48 ns Group x Cond. x Time 0.05 0.03 3.41 0.05 0.58 ns

Amplitude Group 0.35 0.35 147.64 3.89 0.09 ns Condition 0.50 0.50 - - 0.24 ns Group x Condition 0.58 0.58 78.68 2.07 0.28 ns Time 19.82 19.82 - - 23.17 ns Group x Time 0.07 0.07 32.50 0.86 0.08 ns Condition x Time 6.78 6.78 - - 7.14 <.02 Group x Cond. x Time 2.76 2.76 36.08 0.95 2.91 ns

Latency Group 0.21 0.21 79.14 2.08 0.10 ns Condition 4.43 4.43 - - 2.48 ns Group x Condition 0.01 0.01 67.88 1.79 0.00 ns Time 40.48 40.48 - - 20.64 <.001 Group x Time 1.21 1.21 74.53 1.96 0.62 ns Condition x Time 1.81 1.81 - - 1.63 ns Group x Cond. x Time 2.94 2.94 42.06 1.11 2.66 ns

Risetime Group 4.25 4.25 106.47 2.80 1.52 ns Condition 6.03 6.03 - - 2.17 ns Group x Condition 0.01 0.01 .84.56 2.23 0.00 ns Time 27.66 27.66 - - 12.28 <.01 Group x Time 0.30 0.30 85.57 2.25 0.13 ns Condition x Time 0.05 0.05 - - 0.03 ns Group x Cond. x Time 0.36 0.36 73.97 1.95 0.18 ns

Respiration Group 14.49 14.49 514.27 13.53 1.07 ns Condition 20.27 20.27 - - 2.70 ns Group x Condition 4.71 4.71 285.10 7.50 0.63 ns Time 1264.11 1264.11 - - 110.42 <.001 Group x Time 22.30 22.30 435.04 11.45 1.95 ns Condition x Time 1.52 1.52 - - 0.23 ns Group x Cond. x Time 12.47 12.47 249.17 6.56 1.90 ns

RHR Group 0.00 0.00 1.12 0.03 0.03 ns Condition 3.08 3.08 - - 43.73 <.001 Group x Condition 0.06 0.06 2.68 0.07 0.91 ns 193

Error Variable SS MS SS MS J? p

Time 3.04 3.04 - - 70.29 <.001 Group x Time 0.06 0.06 1.65 0.04 1.49 ns Condition x Time 0.28 0.28 - - 19.51 <.001 Group x Cond. x Time 0.04 0.04 0.54 0.01 2.45 ns 194

Appendix 24

Summary of Significant Univariate Analyses of

Variance for Most Anxious and Least Anxious Pianists

.erroErrorr Variable SS MS SS MS F P.

PQ Group 1282.56 1282.56 4408.01 244.89 5.24 <.04 Condition 0.01 0.01 - - 0.00 ns Group x Condition 182.76 182.76 298.61 16.59 11.02 < .01

State Group 2030.63 2030.63 1823.85 101.23 20.04 <.001 Condition 429.03 429.03 - - 14.32 < .01 Group x Condition 87.03 87.03 539.45 29.97 2.90 ns

Level Group 11.03 11.03 21.45 1.19 9.25 < .01 Condition 0.03 0.03 - - 0.03 ns Group x Condition 0.23 0.23 14.25 0.79 0.28 ns

Strength Group 600.63 600.63 835.65 46.43 12.94 < .01 Condition 24.03 24.03 - - 1.81 ns Group x Condition 65.03 65.03 239.45 13.31 4.89 < .05

Mean Level Group 11.74 11.74 5.98. 0.33 35.31 <.001 Condition 0.03 0.03 - — 0.18 ns Group x Condition 0.07 0.07 2.52 0.14 0.50 ns

Mean Strength Group 1127.14 1127.14 499.67 27.60 40.60 <.001 Condition 12.47 12.47 - - 3.20 ns Group x Condition 20.07 20.07 70.18 3.90 5.15 < .04

RSUDS Group 46991.00 46991.00 279794.45 15544.14 3.02 ns Condition 16362.00 16362.00 - - 7.92 < .02 Group x Condition 3222.03 3222.03 37171.45 2065.08 1.56 ns

SUDS Total Group 75777.00 75777.00 387230.45 21512.80 3.52 ns Condition 28037.00 28037.00 - - 12.45 < .01 Group x Condition 6477.03 6477.03 40551.45 2252.86 2.88 ns

SS Group 70644.00 70644.00 85252.25 4736.24 14.92 < .01 Condition 2265.02 2265.02 - - 1.46 ns Group x Condition 46.23 46.23 27942.25 1552.35 0.03 ns 195

Error Variable SS MS SS MS F _p

SCL1 Group 0.63 0.63 1.53 0.09 7.38 <.02 Condition 0.02 0.02 - - 0.17 ns Group x Condition 0.02 0.02 2.17 0.12 0.15 ns

Amplitudel Group 0.10 0.10 17.61 0.98 0.10 ns Condition 2.78 2.78 - - 4.51 <.05 Group x Condition 1.47 1.47 11.12 0.62 2.38 ns

RHR-pre Group 0.06 0.06 0.86 0.05 1.26 ns Condition 0.35 0.35 - - 5.86 <.03 Group x Condition 0.01 0.01 1.08 0.06 0.08 ns

RHR-during Group 0.03 0.03 0.53 0.03 1.11 ns Condition 1.35 1.35 - - 30.13 <.001 Group x Condition 0.07 0.07 0.81 0.05 1.48 ns