Page 81 - How to Shine on Stage

Triplett’s study (1898). In contrast, when dominant responses are incor-
rect, as in difficult or poorly learnt tasks, performance in the presence
of an audience will be inferior. Zajonc (1965) established two conclu-
sions from a review of research on social facilitation: the presence of
others hinders the learning of new responses and facilitates the perfor-
mance of well-learned responses, in both cases reinforcing the domi-
nant response. Cottrell (1972, in Bond, 1982), in deviation from Zajonc’s
motivational explanation of social facilitation, drew on the observa-
tion that the presence of social facilitation depends on one’s self-pres- 79
entation. Self-presentation is the process of achieving a desired identity
through public performance (Schlenker, 1982). As the importance of
performance increases, so do the concerns regarding self-presentation
(Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Social facilitation only occurs when there is
a congruence between the perception of the difficulty of the task to be
performed and the perception of one’s own competence to perform that
task. Maintaining self-confidence therefore boosts performance facilita-
tion, while losing self-confidence disrupts the performance. This obser-
vation has also been confirmed by Goffman in his research (1958; 1967,
in Bond, 1982); in the presence of others, one tries to behave in a way Direct Factors of Musical Performance Success
corresponding to one’s public self-image. When appearing in front of an
audience, one wants to portray one’s own ideal self-image. This accept-
able self-image has a normative character and compels them to behave
in accordance with the corresponding social role. In his research, Bond
(1982) found that the presence of an audience interferes with the learn-
ing of simple problems in a complex task and does not interfere with the
learning of complex problems in a simple task, which is in line with the
theory of self-presentation analysis.
Audiences vary. The significance lies primarily in the valence of the
behaviour an audience displays towards a performer. Thus, we can dis-
tinguish between an audience that wants the performer to succeed, en-
courages the performer, and lets the performer know that their success
will be appreciated and rewarded (supportive audience) and an audi-
ence that is not favourably inclined towards the performer (unsupport-
ive audience).
A supportive audience reduces the threat and distress associated
with the evaluative structure of public performance. Performers tend to
worry that if they perform suboptimally they would make a poor im-
pression on a foreign, unfamiliar audience. On the other hand, they are
confident of retaining their friends’ and relatives’ favourable opinion of
them, even if they make a mistake. If a supportive audience genuine-
ly inspires feelings of efficacy and self-worth in the performer (Butler &