The Three-Systems Model and Self Efficacy Theory Have Been Examined in the Context of Musical Performance Anxiety in Pianists
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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