Psychology of Music

http://pom.sagepub.com

Performance degradation under pressure in music: an examination of attentional processes

Catherine Y. Wan and Gail F. Huon
Psychology of Music 2005; 33; 155
DOI: 10.1177/0305735605050649

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/33/2/155

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research

Additional services and information for Psychology of Music can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://pom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/33/2/155

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

A RT I C L E 155

Performance degradation Psychology of Music

Psychology of Music
under pressure in music: Copyright © 
Society for Education, Music
an examination of attentional and Psychology Research
vol (): ‒ [-

processes () :; ‒]

.⁄
www.sagepublications.com

C A T H E R I N E Y. WA N
U N I V E R S I T Y O F M E L B O U R N E , AU S T R A L I A
G A I L F. H U O N
U N I V E R S I T Y O F N E W S O U T H WA L E S , AU S T R A L I A

A B S T R A C T An experiment was carried out to investigate the cognitive

mechanisms responsible for performance degradation under pressure in music.
The experiment was designed to compare the predictions of two theories,
distraction and explicit monitoring. Distraction theory (Eysenck, 1992) explains
performance degradation as a result of attentional shifts to task-irrelevant
information. Explicit monitoring theory (Baumeister, 1984; Masters, 1992)
postulates that performance degradation is due to increased attention to step-by-
step control of skill processes. A total of 72 novice musicians were given
individual lessons on basic note and rhythm reading skills. They were then
trained on a keyboard task under one of three conditions (single-task, dual-task,
video-monitoring) before being exposed to either a high-pressure or low-pressure
post-test. Results showed that pressure led to skill failure in the single-task and
dual-task groups, but resulted in improved performance of the video-monitoring
group. These results were consistent with explicit monitoring theory. Furthermore,
video-monitoring training was found to ameliorate the performance deficits
normally caused by high pressure. Finally, the present study found no evidence
that trait anxiety influences the effect of pressure on performance.

K E Y W O R D S : anxiety, attention, novices, performance, skill failure

Many musicians have experienced unexpected performance degradation, or

‘slips’, when performing under pressure. A memory lapse or an incorrect
note can impair the overall quality of a musical performance. In the sporting
context, this phenomenon is commonly known as ‘choking under pressure’.
Pressure has been defined as the presence of situational incentives to perform
well (Hardy et al., 1996). Forms of pressure include the contingency of
rewards or punishments on level of performance, the presence of an evalua-
tive audience or competition, and the presence of ego-relevant threat

sempre :

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

156 Psychology of Music 33(2)

(Baumeister and Showers, 1986). Choking has been defined as the occurrence
of suboptimal performance under pressure conditions (Baumeister, 1984).
To date, no research has directly examined the underlying causes of per-
formance degradation among musicians. Two theoretical frameworks, the
distraction and explicit-monitoring paradigms, have guided researchers in
other domains. Both theories explain unexpected performance degradation
in terms of interference with the performer’s attentional processes.
According to distraction theory (Wine, 1971; Eysenck, 1979, 1992),
performance degradation is a result of attentional shifts to task-irrelevant
information. In music performance, examples of task-irrelevant information
include: fear of forgetting the notes when playing from memory, fear of not
being able to play a difficult passage, or fear of public failure and subsequent
shame. Task-irrelevant information is said to reduce the amount of working
memory available for task performance. Thus, breakdowns under pressure
are most likely in tasks that rely on continuous attentional control during
execution, and are particularly vulnerable to corruption as a result of atten-
tional interference.
Support for distraction theory has been found in studies in which highly
anxious subjects tend to perform worse than low anxious subjects on tasks
that rely on working memory (e.g. Eysenck, 1985; Calvo et al., 1992). These
researchers concluded that anxious individuals become preoccupied with
task-irrelevant thoughts and worry more about their performance, and
consequently have smaller working memory capacity available for task
execution.
According to distraction theory, anxiety results in performance degrada-
tion only in tasks requiring working memory, but not when tasks are well
learned and relatively automatic. Darke (1988) tested this idea by explaining
the performance of high and low anxious individuals on a reasoning task
that contained two components. One part involved the verification of auto-
matic judgments, while the other part required effortful processing. Automatic
judgment performance was uncorrelated with trait anxiety measures. In
contrast, trait anxiety was predictive of performance on an effortful process-
ing task, with high-anxious subjects performing less well than low-anxious
subjects. Given that working memory is required for the first task, but not the
second, the findings suggest that anxiety affects performance by reducing
working memory capacity.
Distraction is certainly implied in self-reports of performance anxiety
among musicians. Tobacyk and Downs (1986) and Steptoe and Fidler (1987)
have found, for example, that performance degradation was correlated with
such thoughts as, ‘I don’t think I will be able to get through to the end with-
out cracking up’ or ‘I’m almost sure to make a dreadful mistake, and that will
ruin everything.’ However, retrospective self-reports may not accurately
reflect people’s thoughts during actual performances (Ericsson and Simon,
1984).

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

 Wan and Huon: Performance degradation under pressure 157

In contrast to distraction theory, explicit monitoring (or self-focus) theory

(Baumeister, 1984; Masters 1992) postulates that pressure raises self-
consciousness and increases attention to the skill processes involved in a
performance. The allocation of conscious attention at this step-by-step level
may disrupt a well-learned or proceduralized skill. Explicit monitoring theory
assumes a procedural model of skill acquisition; that is, expert performance
involves the execution of relatively automatic procedures (Fitts and Posner,
1967; Anderson, 1982). Declarative knowledge is necessary at a novice level,
but can become an impediment as the skill becomes well learned. Skilled
pianists ‘automatically’ move their fingers over the keyboard. When they try
to control their movements consciously, however, they often find that they do
not know how to move them, and as a result, ‘slips’ in a performance occur.
Tests of explicit monitoring theory have been confined largely to the
domain of golf putting (e.g. Masters, 1992; Hardy et al., 1996; Lewis and
Linder, 1997; Mullen and Hardy, 2000). More recently, Beilock and Carr (2001)
provided additional evidence from golf putting and the non-proceduralized
skill of alphabet arithmetic. In both tasks, participants were trained to an
asymptotic level of performance under one of three conditions. The first, a
single-task practice condition, involved normal training conditions. A second
condition was labelled ‘distraction’, in which participants learned the task
while simultaneously performing a word generation task. Finally, a ‘self-
consciousness’ group practised golf-putting while being filmed. Following
training, all three groups were given a high-pressure post-test. Results
showed performance degradation in putting, but not in the alphabet arith-
metic task. Furthermore, self-consciousness training helped to inoculate
putters against choking. Beilock and Carr concluded that performance
pressure induces explicit monitoring, which in turn leads to decrements in
the execution of a proceduralized skill.

Experiment overview
The present study was designed to compare the relevance of distraction and
of explicit monitoring theories in the domain of music. To our knowledge, no
research has directly examined the processes underlying music performance
breakdowns, despite being described as a detrimental outcome of perform-
ance anxiety (e.g. Steptoe and Fidler, 1987).
To ensure that our participants had identical music performance experi-
ence, we recruited individuals with no musical knowledge and taught them
basic note and rhythm reading skills. Using a procedure that was analogous
to that of Beilock and Carr (2001), participants were trained on a keyboard
task under one of three conditions (single-task, dual-task, and video-
monitoring) before being exposed to either a high-pressure or low-pressure
post-test. While the single-task condition served as a baseline measure of per-
formance, the dual-task and the video-monitoring conditions were designed

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

158 Psychology of Music 33(2)

to expose participants to the causal mechanisms of performance degradation

as postulated by the two theories. The present study used the methodology
employed by Beilock and Carr (2001) because their study has been one of few
to directly contrast diverging predictions of the two theories.
In the dual-task condition, training took place under a distracting
environment (listening to distracting background music while practising the
keyboard task). This secondary task is more appropriate than word genera-
tion (e.g. Beilock and Carr, 2001) because previous research reported no
distraction effect when individuals were asked to simultaneously shadow
auditory passages while sight-reading piano music (Allport et al., 1972).
However, when both tasks involved musical material, performance on the
primary task was impaired (Martin et al., 1988). It is important to acknowl-
edge that the methodology in the present study differs from that of the tradi-
tional dual-task paradigm in which performance on a secondary task is
assessed. In the present study, pilot testing revealed that the background
music was sufficiently distracting. Dual-task training can also be used to
determine whether performance at post-test is proceduralized or reliant on
working memory. Following Beilock and Carr, this training condition was
implemented to safeguard the possibility that novice performance on the key-
board task might not be proceduralized within the relatively short training
session.
In the video-monitoring condition, participants were trained while being
filmed by a video camera. This placed them in an environment that was
designed to encourage attention to step-by-step skill execution. Exposure to a
video camera has been used to facilitate the focus of correct behaviours or
skill processes (e.g. Duval and Wicklund, 1973; Geller and Shaver, 1976;
Hass, 1984; Duval and Lalwani, 1999).
The overriding purpose of the present study was to explore the attentional
mechanisms responsible for performance degradation in music. According to
distraction theory, pressure should have no effect on performance in a skill
that has become proceduralized, because there should be sufficient working
memory resources to cope with task-irrelevant distraction. Specifically, we
would expect no significant differences between high-pressure and low-
pressure participants across the three training conditions. In contrast, explic-
it monitoring theory predicts that pressure should impair a proceduralized
skill, because attempts to monitor each individual note would disrupt the
automaticity of task performance. Thus, we would expect the single-task
group to perform worse at post-test when under high pressure. Furthermore,
explicit monitoring theory makes differential predictions about the effects of
pressure on the other two training conditions. In the dual-task condition,
high-pressure participants should exhibit more errors than low-pressure
participants at post-test, because they are unaccustomed to explicitly monitor
their skill. In the video-monitoring condition, neither high- nor low-pressure
participants should be negatively affected by pressure, because these

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

 Wan and Huon: Performance degradation under pressure 159

individuals are trained under conditions that encourage attention to step-by-

step execution.
Another variable of interest in the present study was trait anxiety. Our
specific research question was whether individuals with a high predisposition
to anxiety would be more prone to performance breakdowns when exposed to
pressure. One of the few studies investigating this issue in music reported that
high anxiety, as measured by Report of Confidence as a Performer Scale and a
modified version of the General Trait Anxiousness Scale, was associated with
poorer quality performance when playing in front of an audience (Craske and
Craig, 1984). The present study administered the more widely used State-
Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger et al, 1983). Consistent with
Craske and Craig’s study, we expected trait anxiety to correlate positively with
performance degradation.
In sum, the primary purpose of the present study was to investigate the
attentional processes governing performance degradation in music. Specifically,
the study sought to examine whether music performance breakdowns are
due to task-irrelevant distraction or to the explicit monitoring of skill processes.
This issue was investigated by comparing the effects of high or low pressure
on performance following one of three different training procedures, namely,
single-task, dual-task, and video-monitoring.

Method
PARTICIPANTS
Psychology undergraduate students from the University of New South Wales
participated in the study. All participants received course credit for their
participation. To ensure that the participants had identical music-related
experience, all were ‘naïve’ musicians. That is, they had little or no musical
knowledge.
Eighteen participants were first used as pilots in the development and
refining of the keyboard task and distractor manipulations. These partici-
pants did not take part in the full experimental procedure.
A total of 78 participants were recruited from the actual experiment. Data
from six of them could not be used, because they failed to complete the key-
board orientation session. Thus, the resulting number of participants was 72.

DESIGN
The experiment had a 3 (single-task vs dual-task vs video-monitoring) × 2
(high-pressure vs low-pressure) × 2 (training vs post-test) mixed design.
There were two phases, training and post-test. In the training phase, partici-
pants were randomly assigned to one of three training conditions: single-
task, dual-task, and video-monitoring. In the post-test phase, half of the
participants were tested under high pressure, while the other half were tested
under low pressure.

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

160 Psychology of Music 33(2)

PROCEDURE
All participants were trained and tested individually. They were informed that
the purpose of the study was to examine skill acquisition on a keyboard task.
After completing the Trait Scale of the STAI (Spielberger et al., 1983), partici-
pants were given an orientation to basic keyboard skills. They then completed
a training session followed by either a high-pressure post-test or a low-
pressure post-test.

Keyboard orientation
The purpose of the pre-training keyboard orientation was to introduce
participants to basic note and rhythmic reading. During this session, all par-
ticipants received instructions concerning pitch, followed by rhythm training.
First, they were instructed on how to identify notes C, D, E, F, G on the staff
and the keyboard, followed by preliminary practice in synchronizing single
notes to the metronome (m.m. = 40 bpm). The musical segments used in Ash
and Holding’s (1990) study were employed to help participants acquire basic
intervallic reading skills. Participants performed these sequences with the
metronome until no errors were made. They were then introduced to various
note durations (crotchets, quavers, and minims) and were required to tap
various rhythms to the metronome beat. Finally, participants were given a
two-bar musical sequence, comprising all pitch and note durations. The
experimenter demonstrated how this sequence should sound. Participants
were then required to identify the notes and to tap the rhythm. Again, partici-
pants performed this sequence with the metronome until no errors were
made. The same set of instructions was used for all participants. Data from
the keyboard orientation were not recorded.

Training
Following the keyboard orientation phase, participants were given a four-bar
keyboard task, where they practised under one of the three training condi-
tions: single-task, dual-task, or video-monitoring. Participants were first
instructed to identify the notes and to tap the rhythm. The experimenter then
demonstrated by playing the melody once. To the same metronome beat,
participants were instructed to perform the sequence from start to finish
without any repeats. Participants completed a total of 15 performance trials,
consisting of three blocks, each of five trials, with each block being separated
by a three-minute rest interval. At the end of each trial, the experimenter
informed the participants of the type(s) of errors made. The experimenter
said ‘note’ if one or more pitch errors occurred, and ‘beat’ if one or more
duration errors occurred. Pilot testing revealed that performance on the
keyboard task was reaching asymptote after 15 trials.
1. Single-task condition: Participants practised under a ‘normal’ training
environment without any experimental manipulation. Upon completion

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

 Wan and Huon: Performance degradation under pressure 161

of the training session, participants completed either a five-trial high-

pressure or a five-trial low-pressure post-test.
2. Dual-task condition: While performing the practice trials, participants
listened to J.S. Bach’s Fugue No. 20 in A minor, BWV 865 over a head-
phone. This recording was selected because it had a different tempo from
the keyboard task. Pilot testing revealed that this piece was rated as the
most distracting compared with three other classical piano pieces. Follow-
ing the training session, the recording was turned off, and participants
then took part in a five-trial (high- or low-pressure) post-test identical to
that of the single-task group. It is worth noting that when asked, no
participant reported familiarity with the distraction piece.
3. Video-monitoring condition: The distinguishing feature of this condition
was that participants were filmed by a video camera while practising the
keyboard task. The video camera was set up on a tripod directly in front of
participants, approximately 60 cm away. Participants were instructed to
‘pay close attention to what you are doing’. They were also told that
experienced musicians would review the tape in order to gain a better
understanding of how individuals learn a keyboard skill. Following the
training session, the video camera was turned off and faced away.
Participants then took part in a five-trial (high- or low-pressure) post-
test, identical to that for the single-task and the dual-task groups.

Post-test
Post-test involved an additional five performance trials on the keyboard task.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: high pressure
or low pressure. In the low-pressure condition, participants were not told
when the practice trials ended and when the testing session began. The
post-test was simply presented as another series of practice trials. In the high-
pressure condition, however, participants were given a scenario designed to
increase pressure. This scenario was a replication of Beilock and Carr
(2001)’s methodology, and involved the manipulation of reward contingency
and the presence of ego-relevant threat. Specifically, participants were told
that if they improved their accuracy, they would receive $5. Participants were
also informed that this award was a ‘team effort’ and that they had been ran-
domly paired with another participant, who had already received a ‘good’ rating.
Therefore, if the present participant did not perform well, neither participant
would receive $5. Following the post-test, all participants in the high-pressure
condition were given the monetary reward, regardless of their performance.

MATERIALS
The keyboard task
During training and post-test, the same four-bar melody was employed. This
melody consisted of the notes and rhythm learned in the initial keyboard
orientation (see Figure 1).

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

162 Psychology of Music 33(2)

FIGURE 1 The keyboard task used in the experiment.

Equipment
A computer-monitored MIDI keyboard was used to collect the data. The com-
puter program (Melody Assistant 2.0 from Myriad) allowed the recording and
playback of each performance trial, and also provided the metronome beat.
The materials used for the training sessions included a video camera for the
video-monitoring group, and a personal stereo, headphone, and a CD for the
dual-task group.

Self-report questionnaire
The Trait Scale of the STAI (Spielberger et al., 1983) was used as a measure
of participants’ predisposition to anxiety.

ERROR SCORING
Performance accuracy was measured by counting the total number of pitch,
duration and correction errors within each trial block. Figure 2 illustrates
some examples of the error coding system, adapted from Palmer and Drake
(1997). An event was labelled as ‘pitch error’ when the performed pitch com-
ponent(s) differed from the notated pitch information. The term ‘duration
error’ was used to refer to errors where the performed note duration differed
from the duration notated in the musical sequence. A ‘correction error’
occurred when the participant played a sequence incorrectly, followed by a

Pitch errors: when the performed pitch component(s) differed from the
notated pitch information

FIGURE 2 Examples of the error scoring system.

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

 Wan and Huon: Performance degradation under pressure 163

pause, and then a correct restart. Any errors made after the correct restart
were coded in the usual manner. Errors arising from the omission or addition
of notes, or from mis-struck notes (i.e. adjacent notes being played simulta-
neously), were all counted as pitch errors.
The number of possible errors per bar was set at a maximum of one error
per category (pitch, duration, and correction). Errors of a continuous nature
(e.g. adding a rapid string of notes in between two correct notes) were coded
as a discrete event (i.e. one error), because it was otherwise impossible to con-
sistently quantify such errors. This measure appeared sufficiently sensitive to
diagnose differences in performances.
Each performance trial was coded twice, once by the experimenter, and a
second time by an experienced musician who was blind to the purpose of the
study. Both noted each incidence of error type for every bar interval as it
occurred. The interrater reliability was 0.96, as measured by the Pearson
product–moment correlation. This indicates that there was a high degree of
consistency between the two raters. The error scores reported in the Results
section represent the ratings made by the experimenter.

Results
PERFORMANCE ACCURACY
The error scores were compared in analyses of variance (ANOVA), followed
by analyses of simple effects tests, where appropriate. First, the training phase
was examined to determine whether practice led to improvement in perform-
ance. Performance changes from the final training to the post-test blocks
were then analysed. The mean error scores and their standard errors are in
Table 1.
The effectiveness of the training phase was analysed using a 3 (single-task,
dual-task, video-monitoring) × 2 (first training block, final training block)

TA B L E1 Mean number of errors across training (first and final) and post-test blocks for the
three training groups under high and low pressure (standard errors in parentheses)

First training Final training Post-test

Condition block block block

Single-task low-pressure 9.08 (0.72) 1.83 (0.37) 1.17 (0.37)

Single-task high-pressure 9.58 (0.59) 1.75 (0.36) 3.08 (0.55)

Dual-task low-pressure 11.00 (0.91) 2.92 (0.45) 1.33 (0.38)

Dual-task high-pressure 11.08 (0.74) 3.08 (0.29) 3.33 (0.57)

Video-monitoring low-pressure 9.33 (1.01) 2.67 (0.36) 2.00 (0.58)

Video-monitoring high-pressure 8.67 (0.81) 2.50 (0.47) 0.42 (0.23)

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

164 Psychology of Music 33(2)

ANOVA with mean number of errors as the dependent variable. All groups
showed significant improvement in performance from the first to the final
training blocks, as evidenced by a main effect of practice (F1,66 = 643.438,
p < 0.0001) However, this effect did not interact with group (all Fs < 3.2,
p > 0.07).
Within the final training block, performance was similar across groups
(F < 3.4, p > 0.07). However, at post-test, significant differences emerged
between the dual-task and single-task groups (F1,66 = 8.989, p < 0.004) and
between the video-monitoring and single-task groups (F1,66 = 15.746,
p < 0.0001).
To examine the effect of pressure on performance, a 3 (single-task, dual-
task, video-monitoring) × 2 (high pressure, low pressure) × 2 (final training
block, post-test block) ANOVA was carried out on the mean error scores. As a
factor in the analysis, block refers to the comparison between the final train-
ing block and the post-test block. There was a significant main effect of block
(F1,66 = 8.413, p < 0.05), and a pressure by block interaction effect (F1,66 =
9.275, p < 0.003). This indicates that there was an overall change in
performance at post-test when the pressure manipulation was introduced.
All three three-way interactions (involving group, pressure, and block)
were tested. Two of them reached significance. Figures 3(a) and 3(c) show
the results of the first significant three-way interaction, involving the differ-
ence between single-task and video-monitoring, pressure, and block (F1,66 =
6.184, p < 0.015). For the single-task group, high-pressure participants per-
formed worse from the final training block to the post-test block, while their
low-pressure counterparts improved. For the video-monitoring group,
however, both the high- and low-pressure participants improved from final
training block to post-test block. A simple effects test showed that the
improvement was significantly greater for high- than for low-pressure
participants (F1,22 = 5.812, p < 0.03).
Figures 3(b) and 3(c) show the results of the second significant three-
way interaction, involving the difference between dual-task and video-
monitoring, pressure, and block (F1,66 = 17.423, p < 0.001). Under high
pressure, performance of the dual-task participants’ performance was worse
at post-test compared to the final training block. The reverse was true, how-
ever, when under low pressure. This pattern of results differed from that
shown by the video-monitoring group, where both the high- and low-pressure
participants improved from final training block to post-test block. As men-
tioned earlier, simple effects showed that high-pressure participants in the
video-monitoring group improved more than low-pressure participants.
The third three-way interaction, involving the difference between single-
task and dual-task, pressure, and block, was not significant (F1,66 = 2.847,
p > 0.09). As illustrated in Figures 3(a) and (b), both single-task and dual-
task groups made more errors at post-test when under high pressure, but
showed improvement in performance when under low pressure. In the

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

 Wan and Huon: Performance degradation under pressure 165

(a) Control goup a) Control group

3.50
Mean number of errors

3.00
2.50 Low -pressure
2.00 High-pressure
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Final training Posttest
Post-test
Block

(b) Dual-task group

b) Dual-task group
3.50
Mean number of errors

3.00
2.50
Low -pressure
2.00
High-pressure
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Final training Posttest
Post-test

Block

c) Video-monitoring
(c) Video-monitoring group group
3.50
Mean number of errors

3.00
2.50
Low -pressure
2.00
High-pressure
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Final training Posttest
Post-test

Block

FIGURE 3 Mean number of errors for the three groups (single-task, dual-task, video-
monitoring) across the final training block and post-test block.

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

166 Psychology of Music 33(2)

high-pressure condition, simple effects comparing performance change from

final training block to post-test block revealed that the decline in performance
was significant for the single-task group (F1,44 = 8.23, p < 0.01) but not for
the dual-task group (F1,44 = 0.256, p > 0.6).
Although these analyses were based on the finding of no differences
between groups at final training, it is possible that these differences could
reach significance if a larger sample had been used. To test whether pressure
had an effect beyond any pre-existing performance differences at final-
training, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted in which post-
test was entered as the dependent variable, and final training as the covariate.
The analysis revealed that performance at final training did not predict
performance at post-test (F2,32 = 1.129, p > 2.9). When the effect of final
training is removed, the effect of training group reaches significance (F2,32 =
11.139, p > 0.05). This indicates that group membership, rather than
performance at final training, accounts for the performance differences at
post-test.

TRAIT ANXIETY
Table 2 presents the mean trait anxiety scores for all six conditions. ANOVA
yielded no significant differences between the conditions (F1,66 = 0.102,
p < 0.05). To determine whether the STAI would predict the tendency to
breakdown under pressure, a regression analysis was conducted between
trait anxiety scores and the change in performance within the single-task-
stressed group. As recommended by Aiken and West (1991), trait anxiety
scores were centred prior to analysis. The single-task-stressed subgroup was
selected because we were interested in whether trait anxiety predicted
performance degradation under normal, as opposed to artificial, training
environments. The result was not significant (r = 0.043, F = 1.72, p > 0.8),
indicating that trait anxiety scores as measured by the STAI did not predict
the direction of performance change when participants in the single-task
condition were exposed to high pressure.

TA B L E2 Mean trait anxiety scores and their standard errors (in parentheses) across the six
conditions (n = 12)

Condition STAI scores

Single-task low-pressure 42.3 (2.59)

Single-task high-pressure 42.8 (2.06)

Dual-task low-pressure 43.6 (1.88)

Dual-task high-pressure 43.8 (2.62)

Video-monitoring low-pressure 42.8 (2.72)

Video-monitoring high-pressure 43.4 (1.95)

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

 Wan and Huon: Performance degradation under pressure 167

Additional regression analyses were performed to assess whether trait

anxiety moderated the relationship between training group and performance
change among the high-pressure participants. In the first analysis, trait
anxiety scores, the difference between single-task and video-monitoring
groups, and their interaction, were regressed against performance change
from final training block to post-test block. Trait anxiety scores did not signifi-
cantly predict performance change (β = 0.55, p > 0.7), but the difference
between single-task and video-monitoring group did (β = 0.695, p < 0.05).
However, the interaction between these two variables was not significant
(β = –0.182, p > 0.2).
In the second analysis, trait anxiety scores, the difference between dual-
task and video-monitoring groups, and their interaction, were entered as
predictors of performance change from final training block to post-test
block. Again, trait anxiety scores did not significantly predict performance
change (β = 0.07, p > 0.7), but the difference between dual-task and video-
monitoring group did (β = –0.59, p < 0.05). Furthermore, the interaction
between these two variables did not contribute significantly to the prediction
of performance change (β =0.22, p > 0.2). Taken together, our findings
suggest that trait anxiety did not moderate the relationship between training
conditions and the direction of performance change when exposed to
pressure.

Discussion
The primary aim of this research was to examine the attentional processes
underlying performance degradation under pressure in music. The relevance
of two theoretical perspectives, distraction and explicit monitoring, was
investigated. According to distraction theory (Wine, 1971; Eysenck, 1979,
1992), there should be no difference between high-pressure and low-
pressure participants across three training conditions, single-task, dual-task,
and video-montoring. In contrast, explicit monitoring theory (Baumeister,
1984; Masters, 1992) would predict that while the single-task and dual-task
groups should make more errors at post-test when under high pressure, the
performance of the video-monitoring group should not be negatively affected
by pressure.
Our results were consistent with the predictions of explicit monitoring
theory. For the single-task group participants, those in the high-pressure con-
dition performed worse at post-test than those in the low-pressure condition.
This suggests that when one attends to a proceduralized skill, pressure to
perform well leads to more errors. In the dual-task condition, high-pressure
participants also made more errors than low-pressure participants at post-
test. In contrast, the performance of video-monitoring participants actually
improved when exposed to high pressure. The video-monitoring training was
deliberately designed to raise the participants’ self-consciousness during

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

168 Psychology of Music 33(2)

practice (Beilock and Carr, 2001). Participants appeared to have been inocu-
lated against performance degradation under pressure by the condition of
their training.
Explicit monitoring theory postulates that with pressure, the performer
focuses attention on the step-by-step processes in an attempt to execute the
task correctly (Baumeister, 1984; Masters, 1992). While such explicit focus
of attention is necessary in the initial stages of learning (Anderson, 1982),
once the skill becomes proceduralized, a musician cannot consciously attend
to all notes and finger positions when performing in real time. Attempts to
monitor these processes may disrupt the automaticity of task performance.
Explicit monitoring theory can account for why participants trained under
the video-monitoring condition were immune to the detrimental effects of
performance pressure. Training familiarized them with performance under
conditions that encourage conscious monitoring of task processes. They
were, therefore, less likely to fail under pressure.
The present findings are also consistent with previous research supporting
explicit monitoring theory. Lewis and Linder (1997) found, for example, that
pressure resulted in poorer performances in golf when participants had not
been trained under the presence of a video camera. More recently, Beilock
and Carr (2001) found evidence of performance degradation in the procedu-
ralized skill of golf putting but not in a declaratively based alphabet arith-
metic task, suggesting that proceduralization determines susceptibility to skill
failure. Consistent with the present study, they found that video training
could ameliorate the performance deficits normally caused by high pressure
within the golf-putting task.
The level of proceduralization we achieved might be questioned. Pro-
ceduralization implies that attention to step-by-step processes is a decreasing
function of skill level, so that skilled performances are thought to operate
largely outside of working memory (Anderson, 1982). If the participants had
continued to rely on working memory for effective execution, there should be
no signs of performance degradation across the three training groups,
because information on the skill processes would remain declaratively acces-
sible. Moreover, the dual-task group should perform significantly worse than
the single-task and video-monitoring groups during training, because the
distraction task interferes with the attentional demands of skill execution. An
important finding was, therefore, that neither of these predictions was con-
firmed in the present study. Clearly, the keyboard skill had become sufficiently
proceduralized within the short time-frame of training, and therefore
required little working memory.
An alternative method to test explicit monitoring theory is to manipulate
the level of explicit knowledge available during skill acquisition (e.g. Masters,
1992; Hardy et al., 1996; Bright and Freedman, 1998). For example, Liao
and Masters (2001) used analogy learning in order to reduce the amount of
explicit knowledge in a table tennis task. The function of an analogy is to

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

 Wan and Huon: Performance degradation under pressure 169

ensure that the underlying mechanisms of the skill are inaccessible to

consciousness, thus alleviating degradation under pressure. In table tennis,
the coach may ask the learner to imagine a right-angled triangle and swing
the bat up along its hypotenuse. The essential rules needed to acquire topspin
are disguised in the analogy. Consistent with explicit monitoring theory, Liao
and Masters found that analogy learners did not suffer performance impair-
ment under pressure. Thus, future research in the musical domain can utilize
analogy learning to test explicit monitoring theory. Developing analogies that
integrate the technical components required to perform a musical skill is a
challenge for future researchers.
The secondary aim of this study was to examine the relationship between
trait anxiety and performance degradation under pressure. Our rationale was
based on Craske and Craig’s (1984) findings that more anxious pianists pro-
duced poorer quality performances when playing in front of an audience.
Contrary to expectation, however, trait anxiety appeared to have no system-
atic effect on performance in the present study. Specifically, there was no
evidence that a greater predisposition to anxiety increases vulnerability to
skill failure under pressure. Furthermore, trait anxiety did not moderate the
relationship between training conditions and the direction of performance
change under pressure. Together, our findings did not support the proposition
that trait anxiety influences the effect of pressure on performance in music.
At first glance, our non-significant results seem inconsistent with previous
research reporting strong correlations between performance anxiety and the
fear of making mistakes (Steptoe and Fidler, 1987). It is likely, however, that
while highly anxious performers exhibit greater levels of fear, those reactions
do not necessarily manifest into skill failure during musical performances.
That is, the anticipation of failure may not be correlated with actual failure
when performing under pressure.
Given the support for explicit monitoring theory in the present experi-
ment, it is important for future studies to measure the predisposition to
engage in step-by-step focus. For example, Masters, Polman, and Hammond
(1993) devised a 20-item Reinvestment Scale, administered to participants
who subsequently performed golf-putting, squash, and tennis. Compared to
low scorers, high scorers on the Reinvestment Scale tend to fail under
pressure. According to Masters et al. (1993), high reinvesters are more prone
to skill failure because they are more likely to monitor their processes while
executing a proceduralized skill. Thus, future research in the musical domain
should consider using the Reinvestment Scale, to investigate skill failure
under stressful situations.
In conclusion, the study reported here provides preliminary findings
concerning the attentional processes governing performance degradation in
music. Our results provide indications that skill failure in music is due to
explicit monitoring and that video-monitoring training may ameliorate the
detrimental effects of performance pressure. As one of the reviewers noted,

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

170 Psychology of Music 33(2)

many musicians engage in mock performances during practice. That is, they
instinctively implement strategies that might reduce skill failure under pres-
sure. More empirical evidence is required, however, before strong recommen-
dations can be made to teachers and expert performers. The next step should
be to extend the present study by using a larger sample, more accomplished
musicians, and a more realistic performance setting. Given that expert musi-
cians need to execute complex motor and expressive components during any
performance, one would expect their skill to have a greater scope for disrup-
tion. The role of trait anxiety on the pressure–performance relationship also
requires further research. Our results suggest high levels of trait anxiety
are not necessarily translated into skill failure during performances. Other
measures such as the Reinvestment Scale may be promising candidates for
further investigation. Clarifying the relationship between personality and
performance degradation may help identify musicians most likely to fail
under pressure, and may potentially inform the development of specialized
training programmes.

AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S

This research was presented at the 30th Australasian Experimental Psychology

Conference, Sydney, on 26 April, 2003. Special thanks are extended to Dr. William
von Hippel and the two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. The study
was partially funded by the School of Psychology, University of New South Wales.

REFERENCES

Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting
Interaction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Allport, A.D., Antonis, B. and Reynolds, R. (1972) ‘On the Division of Attention: A
Disproof of the Single Channel Hypothesis’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology 24(2): 225–35.
Anderson, J.R. (1982) ‘Acquisition of Cognitive Skill’ Psychological Review 89(4):
369–406.
Ash, D.W. and Holding, D. (1990) ‘Backward versus Forward Chaining in the
Acquisition of a Keyboard Skill’, Human Factors 32(2): 139–46.
Baumeister, R.F. (1984) ‘Choking under Pressure: Self-consciousness and Paradoxical
Effects of Incentives on Skillful Performance’, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 46(3): 610–20.
Baumeister, R.F. and Showers, C.J. (1986) ‘A Review of Paradoxical Performance
Effects: Choking under Pressure in Sports and Mental Tests’, European Journal of
Social Psychology 16(4): 361–83.
Beilock, S.L. and Carr, T.H. (2001) ‘On the Fragility of Skilled Performances: What
Governs Choking under Pressure?’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
130(4): 701–25.
Bright, J.E.H. and Freedman, O. (1998) ‘Differences between Implicit and Explicit
Acquisition of a Complex Skill under Pressure: An Examination of Some
Evidence’, British Journal of Psychology 89(2): 249–63.
Calvo, M.G., Ramos, P.M. and Estevez, A. (1992) ‘Test Anxiety and Comprehension

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

 Wan and Huon: Performance degradation under pressure 171

Efficiency: The Role of Prior Knowledge and Working Memory Deficits’, Anxiety,
Stress, & Coping 5(2): 125–38.
Craske, M.G. and Craig, K.D. (1984) ‘Musical Performance Anxiety: The Three-
systems Model and Self-efficacy Theory’, Behaviour Research and Therapy 22(3):
267–80.
Darke, S. (1988) ‘Effects of Anxiety on Inferential Reasoning Task Performance’,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55(3): 399–505.
Duval, T.D. and Lalwani, N. (1999) ‘Objective Self-awareness and Causal Attributions
for Self-standard Discrepancies: Changing Self or Changing Standards of
Correctness’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25(10): 1220–9.
Duval, T.D. and Wicklund, R.A. (1973) ‘Effects of Objective Self-awareness on
Attribution of Causality’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9(1): 17–31.
Ericsson, K.A. and Simon, H.A. (1984) Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eysenck, M.W. (1979) ‘Anxiety Learning and Memory: A Reconceptualization’,
Journal of Research in Personality 13(4): 363–85.
Eysenck, M.W. (1985) ‘Anxiety and Cognitive Task Performance’, Personality and
Individual Differences 6(5): 579–86.
Eysenck, M.W. (1992) Anxiety: The Cognitive Perspective. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fitts, P.M. and Posner, M.I. (1967) Human Performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Geller, V. and Shaver, P. (1976) ‘Cognitive Consequences of Self-awareness’, Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 12(1): 99–108.
Hardy, L., Mullen, R. and Jones, G. (1996) ‘Knowledge and Conscious Control of
Motor Actions under Stress’, British Journal of Psychology 87(4): 621–36.
Hass, R.G. (1984) ‘Perspective Taking and Self-awareness: Drawing an E on your
Forehead’, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 46(4): 788–98.
Lewis, B. and Linder, D. (1997) ‘Thinking about Choking? Attentional Processes and
Paradoxical Performance’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23(9):
937–44.
Liao, C-M. and Masters, R.S.W. (2001) ‘Analogy Learning: A Means to Implicit Motor
Learning’, Journal of Sports Sciences 19(5): 307–19.
Martin, R.C., Wogalter, M.S. and Forlano, J.G. (1988) ‘Reading Comprehension in the
Presence of Unattended Speech and Music’, Journal of Memory and Language 27(4):
382–98.
Masters, R.S. (1992) ‘Knowledge, Nerves and Know-how: The Role of Explicit versus
Implicit Knowledge in the Breakdown of a Complex Motor Skill under Pressure’,
British Journal of Psychology 83: 343–58.
Masters, R.S.W., Polman, C.J. and Hammond, N.V. (1993) ‘“Reinvestment”: A
Dimension of Personality Implicated in Skill Breakdown under Pressure’,
Personality and Individual Differences 14(5): 655–66.
Mullen, R. and Hardy, L. (2000) ‘State Anxiety and Motor Performance: Testing the
Conscious Processing Hypothesis’, Journal of Sports Sciences 18(10): 785–99.
Palmer, C. and Drake, C. (1997) ‘Monitoring and Planning Capacities in the
Acquisition of Music Performance Skills’, Canadian Journal of Experimental
Psychology 51(4): 369–84.
Spielberger, C., Gorsuch, R.L., Lushen, R., Vagg, P.R. and Jacobs, G. (1983) State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Steptoe, A. and Fidler, H. (1987) ‘Stage Fright in Orchestral Musicians: A Study of
Cognitive and Behavioral Strategies in Performance Anxiety’, British Journal of
Psychology 78(2): 241–9.

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010

172 Psychology of Music 33(2)

Tobacyk, J.J. and Downs, A. (1986) ‘Personal Construct Threat and Irrational Beliefs
as Cognitive Predictors of Increases in Musical Performance Anxiety’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51(4): 779–82.
Wine, J. (1971) ‘Test Anxiety and Direction of Attention’, Psychological Bulletin 76(2):
92–104.

GAIL HUON is a Professor at the School of Psychology, University of New South Wales
(UNSW). She has a PhD in Psychology (1986; UNSW) and a Master of Music (1996;
UNSW). Her research areas include learning and teaching, and topics within the
broad area of psychology of music.
Address: School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052,
Australia. [email: ghuon@psy.unsw.edu.au]
C AT H E R I N E Y. WA N is currently a PhD student in Neuropsychology at the University
of Melbourne. The present study formed part of her Masters of Psychology degree,
which she completed at UNSW in 2002. Her research interests include music cogni-
tion, performance anxiety, neural correlates of auditory abilities, and brain plasticity
following intensive skill training.
Address: Department of Psychology, School of Behavioural Sciences, University of
Melbourne, Parkville, Australia, VIC 3010. [email: wanc@unimelb.edu.au]

Downloaded from http://pom.sagepub.com at University of Melbourne Library on March 17, 2010