View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Effects of Transitional Elements on Listeners' Aesthetic Responses to a Choral Performance

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Effects of Transitional Elements on Listeners' Aesthetic Responses to a Choral Performance
Language: English
Authors: Adams, Kari (ORCID 0000-0002-5645-8817), Springer, D. Gregory (ORCID 0000-0001-7923-726X), Geringer, John M., Nápoles, Jessica (ORCID 0000-0003-1512-8587), Davis, M. Nicole
Source: Journal of Research in Music Education. Apr 2023 71(1):111-128.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 18
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Singing, Music Activities, Music Education, Comparative Analysis, Aesthetics, Performance, Teaching Methods, Learning Processes, Audio Equipment, Video Technology, Majors (Students), Music Therapy, Graduate Students, Undergraduate Students, Student Attitudes
DOI: 10.1177/00224294221111715
ISSN: 0022-4294
1945-0095
Abstract: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of transitional elements on listeners' aesthetic responses. Participants (N = 81) viewed an excerpt of a choral performance while manipulating a Continuous Response Digital Interface to record their aesthetic responses. Participants in one group viewed the original choral performance, which included two purposeful transitions and no applause between pieces. In the other group, participants viewed the same choral performance but with applause over a black screen added between pieces. Participants then answered two open-ended questions to indicate the features of the performance most salient to their aesthetic responses. Mean aesthetic responses during each transition were higher for the continuous transition group compared to the applause group; however, differences between groups were statistically significant only during the attacca transition between the second and third piece. In response to "What factors contributed the most to your aesthetic response?" participants most commonly cited ensemble musicianship, followed by compositional elements such as harmonic, melodic, or rhythmic material; performer engagement; and song choices. When describing what kept them most engaged, participants mentioned programming most frequently, with the majority of comments referencing variety. We discuss implications for music teaching and learning.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1367074
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHF-We9-Oqb0P3jh_KVkNDqAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLhrrJzg8ONi8DwelwIBEICBm5-EMtu4YsIDPwl41rWaC0eIzTMiTk7tC_YychJWIoJvn8XtwkJFcHB9rUGT3MIvZkVD_fpwrRVr4sGpYT_gU9CnBVGwxrHOUKxLAlUqTWqMyx0I48U4wkKLN28fZ88fNljzdhpiKZ7wn3WcFWzbslXtDFYKLt3dTUlnZvfSuMwaJjLwHoeR5UtQ7T2XtFiGWQu-ZuNVTIJlIlwn
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0161970801;3ug01apr.23;2023Feb21.06:52;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0161970801-1">Effects of Transitional Elements on Listeners' Aesthetic Responses to a Choral Performance </title> <p>The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of transitional elements on listeners' aesthetic responses. Participants (N = 81) viewed an excerpt of a choral performance while manipulating a Continuous Response Digital Interface to record their aesthetic responses. Participants in one group viewed the original choral performance, which included two purposeful transitions and no applause between pieces. In the other group, participants viewed the same choral performance but with applause over a black screen added between pieces. Participants then answered two open-ended questions to indicate the features of the performance most salient to their aesthetic responses. Mean aesthetic responses during each transition were higher for the continuous transition group compared to the applause group; however, differences between groups were statistically significant only during the attacca transition between the second and third piece. In response to "What factors contributed the most to your aesthetic response?" participants most commonly cited ensemble musicianship, followed by compositional elements such as harmonic, melodic, or rhythmic material; performer engagement; and song choices. When describing what kept them most engaged, participants mentioned programming most frequently, with the majority of comments referencing variety. We discuss implications for music teaching and learning.</p> <p>Keywords: aesthetic response; choral; choregie; programming; transitions</p> <p>Aesthetic responses to musical stimuli are nebulous and covert in nature. Given that aesthetic responses are one of the primary reasons why many people engage with music, they have been the subject of many investigations among psychologists, musicians, and educators ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref1">10</reflink>]). Aesthetic experiences are characterized by "psychological <emph>involvement</emph> with the aesthetic stimulus, <emph>perception</emph> of interacting events within the artwork, <emph>cognition</emph> of the interplay among the events within the aesthetic stimulus, and <emph>feelingful</emph> reaction thereto" ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref2">42</reflink>], pp. 354–355). Aesthetic responses to music are governed by a variety of bottom-up and top-down cognitive processes that can be affected by characteristics of the musical stimuli (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref3">21</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref4">38</reflink>]) and individual differences between listeners (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref6">22</reflink>]).</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref7">23</reflink>], in an effort to summarize the various psychological mechanisms that undergird listeners' responses to musical stimuli, proposed a framework referred to as "BRECVEMA." Utilizing this framework, Juslin explained that these responses involve cognitive appraisal, along with other psychological mechanisms: brainstem reflex, rhythmic entrainment, evaluative conditioning, contagion, visual imagery, episodic memory, musical expectancy, and aesthetic judgment. The final mechanism, aesthetic judgment, refers to a listener's emotional reaction to a musical stimulus that results from the music's perceived aesthetic value ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref8">24</reflink>]). Aesthetic judgments are driven by perceptual, cognitive, and emotion inputs, which are filtered according to a set of aesthetic criteria (e.g., beauty, skill, novelty, style, message, expression, and emotion) that are weighted differently among listeners. Resulting aesthetic judgments can be positive or negative, and when those judgments extend beyond an aesthetic threshold, listeners are likely to experience an emotional response ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref9">23</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref10">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]). Understanding the factors—musical and otherwise—that influence listeners' aesthetic responses is important for music educators and performers.</p> <p>Because aesthetic responses to music have temporal significance, much of this research has incorporated the use of continuous measurement tools, such as the Continuous Response Digital Interface (CRDI), to record listeners' responses across time while listening to musical stimuli ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref12">17</reflink>]). Early studies utilizing the CRDI focused on two goals: (a) investigating what listeners considered to be their own aesthetic responses to music and (b) encouraging participants' focus of attention to salient musical elements. In one study, university music faculty and graduate students used the CRDI to rate their aesthetic responses while listening to an excerpt of Puccini's <emph>La Boheme</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]). All participants reported that they had at least one aesthetic experience and that manipulating the CRDI dial approximated that experience. Peak aesthetic responses in that study were characterized by a relatively brief duration (approximately 15 seconds or less), were preceded by a period of concentrated focus of attention, and were often followed by an "afterglow" effect that continued after the peak response. Results of follow-up studies indicated that musicians and nonmusicians reported similar aesthetic responses ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref14">30</reflink>]) and that differences in attentional focus while listening to musical excerpts resulted in different aesthetic responses ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref15">28</reflink>]). Together, these findings helped to operationalize aesthetic responses and explain how listeners may respond differently (or similarly) to musical stimuli.</p> <p>Scholars have found that fluctuations in musical elements such as pitch and tempo have affected listeners' aesthetic responses. For example, three groups of musicians listened to the first movement of Haydn's <emph>Symphony No. 104</emph>, one hearing an unaltered version, another hearing a version that gradually increased in tempo by 20%, and another hearing a version that gradually decreased in tempo by 20% ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref16">16</reflink>]). Although response contours were somewhat similar across the three groups, those who listened to the gradually increasing tempo demonstrated slightly higher aesthetic responses. In a related study ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref17">35</reflink>]), listeners' aesthetic responses were also influenced by gradual changes in pitch. Participants who listened to an unaltered recording reported higher aesthetic responses than those who listened to recordings with gradual increases or decreases in pitch. These results highlight both the dynamic and temporal nature of aesthetic responses.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref18">34</reflink>] posited that focus of attention was perhaps the most important attribute of active participation in meaningful music listening. They proposed a model for music listening that combined emotional aspects of music listening with specific discrimination of sound events. This model was predicated on first being attentive. In the original focus of attention study ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref19">32</reflink>]), participants were presented with five color-coded elements distributed across the CRDI dial: melody, timbre, dynamics, rhythm, and everything. Listeners used the dial to signify which elements captured their attention while hearing orchestral excerpts intentionally selected for salience of those elements. Musicians spent most of their time attending to melody, and nonmusicians focused on dynamics. It is possible that other elements impact listeners' attentiveness, and further study could help elucidate which factors contribute to heightened emotional responses.</p> <p>Subsequent researchers ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref21">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref22">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref23">28</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref24">33</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref25">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref26">37</reflink>]) sought to further understand how to keep musicians engaged during their listening experiences. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref27">31</reflink>] discovered that having participants actively do something while listening functioned to keep them attentive. The CRDI provided a physical device with which to interact while attending to a particular musical element. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref28">9</reflink>] extended the concept of engagement to "flow," a term coined by [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref29">7</reflink>] referencing seamless absorption and high-level focus to a task that is neither too difficult nor too easy in relationship to their skills. Diaz reported that a mindfulness meditation induction technique helped increase participants' ability to focus on the music without distraction. Overall, 97% of his participants experienced at least one moment of flow throughout the listening task. It seems a worthwhile goal to continue seeking ways to keep listeners focused while listening to music so that they might experience flow.</p> <p>In an endeavor to keep participants attentively engaged in music listening, researchers have examined several other tools and physical activities. These have included tongs ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref30">41</reflink>]), keys on a computer keyboard ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>]), and a sentograph ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref32">3</reflink>]). Using less advanced technology, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref33">18</reflink>] asked participants to raise a particular finger and keep it elevated for the duration of the experience he defined as thrills. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref34">34</reflink>] suggested that music teachers use simple paper-and-pencil activities with their students (e.g., marking each beat or counting the number of times a specific motif occurs) to keep them engaged. These simple paper-and-pencil measurements elicited overall emotional responses with high school ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref35">39</reflink>]) and university students ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref36">36</reflink>]). Participants approximated the same emotional responses with a drawing when compared to the graphic analysis of the CRDI. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref37">33</reflink>] found similar results when comparing CRDI responses to Likert-type scale responses with musical examples less than 2 minutes in duration. Collectively, it seems that various measurement tools are available that keep listeners on task with varying degrees of sophistication.</p> <p>It seems axiomatic that if the goal is to keep a listener attentive, distractions will interrupt that focus. Stated another way, distractions may serve as a competition for focus of attention. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref38">28</reflink>] observed that the similar methodology of the continuous response measures had the common characteristic of keeping listeners engaged by preventing the drifting of their attention. Even background music served as a competition for focus of attention ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref39">27</reflink>]) in that participants were negotiating between multiple tasks. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref40">34</reflink>] postulated that there was no such thing as simultaneous focus of attention; furthermore, even if people could attend to music in a time-sharing paradigm, "this lack of total involvement will probably not elicit an emotional attachment, which we propose constitutes the <emph>sine qua non</emph> of meaningful listening" (p. 106).</p> <p>Despite admonitions to avoid distractions and multitasking, it may not be possible for all distractions to be removed from music listening environments. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref41">50</reflink>] purposely inserted audio distractors (a telephone busy signal, a telephone ringing sound, or pink noise) into a listening excerpt to determine what effect those distractors would have on the aesthetic experience of undergraduate and graduate music majors. He observed that although engagement and aesthetic response suffered following distractions, almost all participants evidenced a quick recovery following the period of distraction. Thus, Southall's results suggested that it is reasonable to assume that listeners can experience a distraction and resume being engaged relatively soon thereafter.</p> <p>Audience applause is one variable that may be considered a distraction by some given that common practice in many classical concerts is to withhold applause until the end of each musical work ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref42">43</reflink>]). Researchers have noted that audience applause influenced the perceptions of listeners, whose ratings of both choral ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref43">52</reflink>]) and band ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref44">51</reflink>]) performances were affected by the magnitude of audience applause. Moreover, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref45">48</reflink>] reported that listeners' continuous ratings of expressivity were lowest during moments of audience applause while listening to an excerpt from an opera performance. Considering these findings, it seems that audience applause may exert influence on listeners' perceptions. Yet we found no research studies that examined the extent to which listeners' aesthetic responses were impacted by applause.</p> <p>Choral pedagogues have also considered the function of applause. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref47">26</reflink>] argued that applause in a live performance may serve as a distractor that reduces both audience engagement and aesthetic experience. These practitioners advocated for the use of continuous musical transitions (e.g., <emph>attacca</emph> between pieces, vamps, movement, etc.) rather than applause breaks to connect pieces and increase the emotional engagement of listeners. [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref48">6</reflink>] used a style of continuous programming known as <emph>choregie</emph> with her collegiate singers and examined their perceptions of the rehearsal and performance experience. Choregie technique, developed by [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref49">46</reflink>], is a style of choral performance that uses continuous transitions, movement, voice exploration, sculpting, rituals, and imagining to create a theatrical, highly engaging experience. Cruse found that singers were initially apprehensive about this nontraditional format, but through the process, they experienced deeper engagement with the music, audience, self, and fellow ensemble members. Following the performance, singers reported preferring this style of programming over concert experiences with traditional applause breaks between pieces.</p> <p>Although [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref50">6</reflink>] choral singers expressed increased engagement and satisfaction with the use of continuous transitions, audience perceptions were not considered. Practitioners posited that replacing applause breaks with continuous transitions would improve listeners' engagement and aesthetic response, but researchers have yet to examine these claims. Understanding how these concert programming decisions may affect listeners' aesthetic responses is important for music educators because these decisions have implications for audience engagement during music performances. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of transitional elements on listeners' aesthetic responses. The following research questions guided this study: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>) What is the effect of transitional elements (applause or continuous transitions) on listeners' aesthetic responses to a choral performance? and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>) What factors are most salient in listeners' aesthetic responses to a choral performance?</p> <hd id="AN0161970801-2">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161970801-3">Audiovisual Stimuli</hd> <p>We used an audiovisual recording of an existing performance by a choral ensemble from a large southwestern university to create our stimulus recordings. The performance employed a mixture of transitional elements (applause and continuous transitions). From the performance, we selected a segment that included two continuous musical transitions between three pieces of music. The excerpt began with the Bach chorale, <emph>Es ist genug, O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort, BWV 60</emph>, a homophonic a cappella piece with a moderate tempo. In the transition between the first and second pieces, singers hummed the chorale a second time while moving into an inverted double-V position. The second piece, <emph>Fire</emph> by Katerina Gimon, was a high-energy polyphonic piece with percussion accompaniment, body percussion, and vocalizations in a fast tempo. The third piece, <emph>Bright Morning Stars</emph>, arranged by Anders Paulsson, followed in an attacca transition (i.e., without pause). This arrangement of the traditional Appalachian folk song was homophonic, in a slow tempo, and included vocal soloists, organ, and soprano saxophone accompaniment. The complete recording was 11.5 minutes in length and served as the experimental stimulus. For the control condition, we used iMovie to remove the continuous musical transitions and replaced them with an audio recording of applause taken from another portion of the same concert.</p> <p>Initially, we attempted to lay the audio recording of applause over the moving transition or with the accompanying video from an applause portion of the concert. However, visual cues made both edits highly distracting—applause over the moving transition while the conductor continued conducting was jarring, as was an abrupt change in standing formation from the end of one piece to the beginning of the applause video. Rather than introducing these additional distractions, we opted to fade to black at the end of each piece (similar to [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref53">44</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref54">49</reflink>]). The screen remained black for approximately 30 seconds of audio-only applause.</p> <hd id="AN0161970801-4">Participants</hd> <p>Prior to recruiting participants, we used G*Power 3.1.9.2 software ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref55">11</reflink>]) to calculate the sample size necessary to reach a statistical power of.80 ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref56">5</reflink>]). Given the planned use of a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a within-between interaction, an α level of.05, and an effect size of <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.075, we calculated a minimum sample size of 64. Our sample of participants (<emph>N</emph> = 81) were undergraduate or graduate students (49 female, 28 male, and four who identified as nonbinary) drawn from those currently enrolled in choral ensembles at a large Southeastern university. Participants' majors included music education (<emph>n</emph> = 56), music therapy (<emph>n</emph> = 4), or a field outside of music (<emph>n</emph> = 21). Participants had an average of 8.34 years of experience singing in a choral ensemble (range = 0–26, <emph>SD</emph> = 5.69). Participants were randomly assigned to either the applause (<emph>n</emph> = 41) or continuous transitions (<emph>n</emph> = 40) condition.</p> <hd id="AN0161970801-5">Procedures</hd> <p>To measure aesthetic response, participants manipulated a CRDI dial. Use of this measurement tool allowed participants' aesthetic responses to be captured across time while observing the varied elements of the previously recorded live performance described previously. The CRDI has been found to be a reliable and valid instrument ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref57">17</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref58">19</reflink>]) and has been used in multiple studies to investigate such varied phenomena as aesthetic response ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref59">16</reflink>]), musical tension ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref60">13</reflink>]), focus of attention ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref61">34</reflink>]), flow ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref62">9</reflink>]), teacher effectiveness ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref63">8</reflink>]), and pacing ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref64">40</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref65">47</reflink>]), among others.</p> <p>We asked participants to move the CRDI dial while observing the choral performance video "in accordance with what you define as an aesthetic response" (similar to [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref66">29</reflink>]). The CRDI dials had an overlay for aesthetic response anchored with the words "low" and "high" on the left and right side, respectively (range = 0°–255°). All dials began in approximate center, and participants were divided by partitions to prevent them from viewing each other's dials. Consistent with previous CRDI studies, participants' responses were sampled every 0.5 seconds ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref67">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref68">35</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref69">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0161970801-6">Limitations</hd> <p>Participants from this study were drawn from a single university. They all viewed a choral performance of a single choir. Additionally, in an endeavor to maintain ecological validity, we selected an intact performance. We did not control for style, tempo, or complexity of the repertoire. Similar to the early CRDI studies ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref70">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref71">30</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref72">37</reflink>]), we intentionally did not define aesthetic response, allowing participants to utilize their own paradigms for the term.</p> <hd id="AN0161970801-7">Questionnaire</hd> <p>At the end of the stimulus video, participants completed a brief questionnaire and responded to two open-ended response items: "What factors contributed the most to your aesthetic response?" and "What factors contributed the most to your engagement?" They also provided demographic information, including gender, year in school, major, and number of years of choral ensemble experience.</p> <hd id="AN0161970801-8">Results</hd> <p>We first analyzed participants' responses descriptively through a visual examination of aesthetic response ratings, which we mapped in aggregate form for both the continuous transitions group and the applause group (see Figure 1). Mean ratings in both groups generally increased throughout the first musical selection (<emph>Es ist genug, O Ewigkeit, du Donnerwort</emph>), although there were small peaks and nadirs evident in both groups' responses. There was a notable drop in magnitude between the ending of the first piece and the beginning of the second piece, during which time the continuous transition group viewed the choir moving to a new stage placement while humming the same Bach chorale just sung. Mean responses in both groups increased in magnitude quickly during the second piece (<emph>Fire</emph>), particularly during the portions of the work that featured body percussion, vocalizations, loud dynamics, and dense textures. The highest magnitude ratings for the applause group occurred at the climax of this work, which is visible as the highest peak in Figure 1</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. Composite graph of Continuous Response Digital Interface responses.</p> <p>The group that viewed continuous transitions experienced no break between the second and third pieces because the choir began the third piece immediately after ending the second piece (within 1 second). The applause group heard audience applause after the second piece with the video fading to black. During the third piece (<emph>Bright Morning Stars</emph>), participants' responses generally increased throughout the performance. However, participants in the continuous transitions group provided consistently higher ratings throughout most of the work. The highest peak responses of the continuous transitions group occurred near the end of the work when the soprano saxophone soloist performed with the choir (see highest peak in Figure 1, which occurred near the end of the third piece). Although we noted similar response patterns throughout the performance, as evidenced by the graph contours, there appeared to be differences between the two groups during peak responses and following transitions. Therefore, we conducted inferential analyses to further examine these differences between groups.</p> <p>We analyzed possible differences between the listening groups in two ways. First, we compared areas of peak aesthetic response for the three pieces, and second, we viewed the transitions between pieces and the applause following the third piece. To determine the peak responses, we averaged the 10 samples (a time span of 5 seconds) that represented the maximum aesthetic responses for each piece. This duration was consistent with previous research indicating that listeners' peak aesthetic responses were typically 15 seconds or less ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref73">29</reflink>]). Similarly, for the transition data, we averaged the last five samples immediately prior to the beginning of the subsequent piece with the first five samples of that piece. To compare the applause after the third piece, we used the average of the first 10 samples following the end of the piece. We used an α level of.05 for all statistical comparisons.</p> <p>Table 1 in the online supplement shows the means and standard deviations of the peaks of the three pieces for the two groups. Peak means were similar for the first two pieces, while the third piece means were higher for the continuous transitions group (<emph>M</emph> = 216.94, <emph>SD</emph> = 26.46) compared to the applause group (<emph>M</emph> = 191.66, <emph>SD</emph> = 38.87). To compare peak aesthetic responses statistically, we used a two-way ANOVA with one between-subjects factor (group) and one within-subjects factor, the average peaks of the three pieces. We verified that assumptions of ANOVA were met: Levene's tests of homogeneity of variance across groups, Box's test of equality of covariance, and deviations from normality were not significant (<emph>p</emph> >.4). Furthermore, Mauchly's test of sphericity was not significant (<emph>p</emph> >.3). There was a significant difference between the peaks for the three pieces, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>, 158) = 48.16, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.379. Pairwise comparisons with the Bonferroni adjustment showed differences between peaks of piece one and the other two pieces, which were not different from each other. There were no significant differences between groups, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>, 79) = 2.27, <emph>p</emph> =.14, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.028, or in the interaction between groups and peaks, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref76">2</reflink>, 158) = 2.60, <emph>p</emph> =.078, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.032.</p> <p>Descriptive data for the transitions between pieces can be found in the online supplement in Table 2. Examination of means shows that responses appeared higher for the continuous transitions group in the transition from Piece 1 to Piece 2 and from Piece 2 to Piece 3. Levene's test, Box's test, and tests of normality showed no violations, although Mauchly's test revealed a violation of sphericity (<emph>p</emph> <.01). We therefore used the Greenhouse-Geisser adjustment to degrees of freedom for tests of significance comparing the transitions. The two-way ANOVA revealed differences between the transitions, <emph>F</emph>(1.78, 140.61) = 28.15, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.263, and between groups, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>, 79) = 7.40, <emph>p</emph> <.01, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.086. Additionally, there was a significant interaction between transitions and groups, <emph>F</emph>(1.78, 140.61) = 4.24, <emph>p</emph> =.02, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.051. Figure 2 displays the interaction of the two factors. The continuous transitions group response means increased from the first to the second transition and to the applause following Piece 3. The aesthetic response means of the applause group did not change following Pieces 1 and 2 but did increase after Piece 3.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Interaction of group and transitions.</p> <p>We conducted tests of simple effects to isolate differences and further explore the interaction. There was no significant difference between the applause and continuous transitions groups for the transition between the first and second pieces, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref78">1</reflink>, 79) = 1.82, <emph>p</emph> =.18, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.02, or in the final applause, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>, 79) <.01, <emph>p</emph> =.96, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> <.01. However, we found a significant difference for the transition between the second and third pieces, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>, 79) = 20.76, <emph>p</emph> <.001, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.208. The continuous transitions group maintained a higher mean aesthetic response (<emph>M</emph> = 170.16) during that transition than did the applause group (<emph>M</emph> = 128.89).</p> <hd id="AN0161970801-9">Open-Ended Responses</hd> <p>For our second research question, participants responded to two open-ended questions: "What factors contributed the most to your aesthetic response?" and "What factors contributed the most to your engagement?" We analyzed responses to these items using descriptive coding ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref81">45</reflink>]). Two researchers coded 20% of responses independently and then met to discuss and create a code book, which consisted of eight codes (see Table 5 in the online supplement). Using this code book, we recoded these responses, coded an additional 20%, and then calculated intercoder reliability. We divided the number of agreements by total responses and found an acceptable reliability rate of 83.3% ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref82">12</reflink>]); we then coded the remainder of responses.</p> <p>We analyzed the frequency of codes for both open-ended response items. In their descriptions of salient factors impacting their aesthetic response, participants most commonly cited ensemble musicianship (<emph>musicality</emph>, <emph>n</emph> = 37; e.g., "power of soloists' voices, blended choral sound"), followed by compositional elements such as harmonic, melodic, or rhythmic material (<emph>compositional elements</emph>, <emph>n</emph> = 36; e.g., "harmonic complexities, dynamics"); performer engagement (<emph>engagement</emph>, <emph>n</emph> = 34; e.g., "the engagement between the members of the choir and the music, you could tell they were engaged with each other"); and variety (<emph>variety</emph>, <emph>n</emph> = 27; e.g., "contrast of pieces, unpredictability"). In response to the engagement item, participants mentioned programming most frequently (<emph>programming</emph>, <emph>n</emph> = 47; e.g., "the pieces of music chosen"), followed by variety (<emph>variety</emph>, <emph>n</emph> = 33; e.g., "how quickly they changed styles"), the use of instruments (<emph>instrumentation</emph>, <emph>n</emph> = 29; e.g., "yay sax solo!"), compositional elements (<emph>compositional elements</emph>, <emph>n</emph> = 29; e.g., "dissonance and harmonic progressions"), and ensemble musicianship (<emph>musicality</emph>, <emph>n</emph> = 28; e.g., "the tone of the choir was incredible"). See Table 6 in the online supplemental materials for frequency of responses aligning with each code.</p> <p>We also examined code frequency by condition. Participants in both conditions mentioned programming most frequently in their level of engagement (applause, <emph>n</emph> = 18; continuous transitions, <emph>n</emph> = 29). Participants in the continuous transitions condition mentioned variety (<emph>n</emph> = 23) at more than double the rate of those in the applause condition (<emph>n</emph> = 10). Only four participants in the continuous transitions condition made comments about the continuous transitions and lack of applause between pieces as positively impacting their aesthetic response. When describing their aesthetic response, participants in the applause condition mentioned ensemble musicianship the most frequently (<emph>n</emph> = 19), and those in the continuous transitions condition mentioned compositional elements most frequently (<emph>n</emph> = 20). Variety ranked second in the responses of participants in the continuous transitions condition (<emph>n</emph> = 19), again at more than double the rate of those in the applause condition (<emph>n</emph> = 9).</p> <hd id="AN0161970801-10">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to explore the effect of transitional elements on listeners' aesthetic responses. We were specifically interested in learning more about how listeners experienced choral performances that included continuous transitions—compared to applause breaks—between pieces, examining [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref83">2</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref84">26</reflink>] pedagogical claim that continuous transitions increased emotional engagement of the listeners. Our data support this premise to some extent. As can be seen in Figure 2, participants in the continuous transition group provided higher mean responses than the applause group participants during each transition, although we found significant differences between groups only during the transition between Pieces 2 and 3. It is possible that higher mean responses in the continuous transition group was due to a novelty effect. Although many pedagogues have begun to use continuous transitions, traditional applause breaks are still used more commonly in programs. Our data also suggest the possibility that certain continuous transitions, such as attacca transitions, allow for continual emotional engagement more than others.</p> <p>Considering the various psychological mechanisms involved in aesthetic responses ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref85">23</reflink>]), responses could be due to a number of factors. However, according to [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref86">23</reflink>] BRECVEMA framework, the aesthetic judgment mechanism is likely the most salient describing listeners' responses to the stimuli in our study. It could be that listeners' aesthetic judgments exceeded their aesthetic thresholds ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref87">24</reflink>]) due to the novelty or surprise associated with attacca transition ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref88">21</reflink>]). Future studies isolating the effects of attacca transitions on listeners' aesthetic responses and aesthetic liking are needed to understand this phenomenon more closely.</p> <p>Participants in the applause group experienced a decline in aesthetic responses each time there was applause, and their responses rose thereafter. This finding is congruent with [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref89">50</reflink>] observation that aesthetic responses suffered following purposeful distractions but subsequently recovered. It is also similar to [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref90">48</reflink>] results, that ratings (of expressivity, in their study) were suppressed during applause. Researchers have also noted that applause impacts listeners in various ways, depending on the magnitude of the applause ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref91">52</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref92">51</reflink>]). Because applause breaks between works are commonly used in large ensemble performances ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref93">43</reflink>]), it is the expectation of most listeners. Therefore, it is unsurprising that their aesthetic response ratings were lower during moments of audience applause. When listeners encounter alternate concert programming formats, such as the continuous transitions used in the current study, their expectations are likely disrupted ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref94">38</reflink>]), which may be why participants in the continuous transitions group responded differently than those in the applause group. We are curious about how repetition/expectations might affect listeners' aesthetic responses to continuous transitions. That is, do listeners who are regularly exposed to this style of programming respond differently from those who are exposed only to continuous transitions at one instance? Future investigations will be helpful in understanding how repeated exposure to this form of programming may influence listeners' aesthetic responses.</p> <p>Looking carefully at the composite graphs by group (Figure 1), it is also evident that participants from the two groups rated the transition between Pieces 2 and 3 differently. At this point, the continuous transitions group viewed a seamless performance of one piece ending and the next piece immediately beginning (attacca). The applause group heard applause during that transition. This marked difference in mean ratings for the groups was significant. There were no significant differences, however, between groups during the transition between the first and second pieces, although the applause group's mean ratings were lower overall. Participants in the continuous transition group viewed and heard the choir hum the Bach chorale they had just sung before beginning the second piece, and those in the audience group heard applause only. Thus, it appears that listeners responded to transitional elements differentially. Applause seemed to yield the lowest aesthetic responses, and attacca<emph>-</emph>style transitions with no break between pieces yielded the highest aesthetic responses.</p> <p>The interaction between group and transition (graphed in Figure 2) is somewhat expected. The mean responses of the continuous transitions group increased at each transition in a linear trend. The aesthetic response means of the applause group, by contrast, did not change at the first two transitions but did increase at the third transition point. This dissimilarity is not surprising when one considers that the applause group had the same experience for both transitions but the continuous transitions group viewed and heard different musical information at each of those points. However, when considering the larger goal of audience engagement across the entirety of a musical performance, this disparity becomes worthy of greater attention.</p> <hd id="AN0161970801-11">Peak Responses</hd> <p>In answer to our first research question, peak aesthetic responses were not significantly different between groups. However, we did note significant differences between pieces: Peak responses to Piece 1 (the Bach chorale) were significantly different from peak responses to both other pieces (<emph>Fire</emph> and <emph>Bright Morning Stars</emph>). Piece 2 yielded the highest peak aesthetic response for participants in the applause group, whereas Piece 3 yielded the highest peak responses for participants in the continuous transitions group. Both groups evidenced a peak at the climax of the second piece, <emph>Fire</emph>. Based on these results, it seems that participants in the continuous transitions group experienced continued heightening of their aesthetic responses, viewing the program as one event, while participants in the applause group reacted to the performance on a piece-by-piece basis.</p> <hd id="AN0161970801-12">Open-Ended Responses</hd> <p>When addressing factors that impacted their engagement, our participants made the most comments about programming irrespective of their group/condition. Programming was clearly important, especially the juxtaposition of styles and timbres. Upon closer inspection, the element of variety surfaced across multiple categories. When writing about programming, participants commented how much they enjoyed the variety of pieces. Staging and lighting comments centered around the variety of staging positions and lighting contrasts. Similarly, in the instrumentation category, we noticed numerous observations about the varied use of instruments, including percussion, body percussion, no instruments/a cappella, and use of organ and saxophone. Therefore, we posit that variety in all aspects of programming is critical to keeping audience members engaged.</p> <p>Interestingly, participants in the continuous transitions condition commented on the value of variety at more than double the rate of those in the applause condition in response to both the engagement and aesthetic response questions. In our coding process, we noticed that comments from many participants in the applause condition were segmented as if they were evaluating each piece individually, whereas participants in the continuous transitions condition commented more holistically. This finding mirrors our quantitative results for peak responses. For example, one participant in the applause condition wrote "the music was mostly interesting. 2nd piece was fascinating. The 3rd went on a little long." Another commented, "I was very much a fan of the style of each piece (the second above all, then the final piece, then the first)." In the continuous transitions condition, participant comments more frequently mentioned variety and placed that variety in context of the program as a whole. For example, one participant noted "the constant movement of the piece be it the physical movement of the singers or the constant change in mood and melody in the song." Another stated, "I loved how the music kept taking you to places you weren't expecting." It may be the case that using continuous transitions allows audience members to experience the program more holistically, whereas applause invites listeners to divide and conceptualize pieces individually.</p> <p>In response to salient factors impacting aesthetic response, participants as a whole referenced ensemble musicianship most frequently. When disaggregated by group, musicianship was either the first (applause condition) or second (continuous transitions condition) most frequent response. It appears, then, that ensemble musicianship is a critically important contributor to aesthetic experiences. We cannot assume that excellent programming and variety alone will yield positive audience responses.</p> <hd id="AN0161970801-13">Implications for Music Education</hd> <p>Results of this study offer various implications for music educators. First, these results highlight the influential role that concert programming decisions can make on listeners' aesthetic responses—not only regarding the selection of pieces but also how those pieces are sequenced and presented to listeners within the program. In the current study, the use of continuous transitions (i.e., a choregie style) resulted in differences in aesthetic response compared to the use of traditional applause breaks between pieces. Most notably, listeners who observed continuous transitions reported higher aesthetic responses following the attacca transition between Pieces 2 and 3. Conductors might consider incorporating this specific style of continuous transitions into their performances to encourage greater aesthetic responses among their audience members. The element of surprise and deviating from what is expected (a break between selections) is impactful and merits exploration for directors on a practical level. For example, do back-to-back pieces need to be in the same key to avoid the pause for a starting pitch? Given that choristers have previously reported greater engagement and satisfaction with a choregie style ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref95">6</reflink>]), it seems that both performers and listeners may benefit from this approach to programming. In future studies, it would be beneficial to determine how this type of programming would affect the perceptions of performers and audience members in instrumental settings as well.</p> <p>Because the element of variety surfaced so frequently in the open-ended responses, we also conclude that listeners' engagement and aesthetic responses are impacted greatly by variety in instrumentation, style, staging, and lighting. This particular choral ensemble broke from the tradition of standing on risers for every piece, and participants noticed and appreciated those transitions. We believe there is utility in questioning such long-held traditions and encourage choral directors to consider how they might incorporate varied formations in their performances. Future researchers may also choose to further investigate this element of riser formation specifically. With all other elements of programming constant, how would the same choir be perceived on risers compared to with varied formations?</p> <p>Continued study regarding aesthetic response is warranted in all elements of music performance. Knowing that aesthetic responses are a function of various psychological mechanisms ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref96">24</reflink>]), future research isolating the various mechanisms—for example, exploring the role of surprise in emotional responses (i.e., brainstem reflexes from the BRECVEMA framework; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref97">23</reflink>])—would provide important information that music educators and conductors could use when making programming decisions. Providing novel stimuli intended to introduce an element of surprise (e.g., an added distraction or a portion of the performance without a conductor) would allow researchers to investigate how these expectancy violations ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref98">38</reflink>]) might influence listeners' aesthetic response. Keeping listeners attentive, engaged, and mindful is an important goal in music education. We encourage future researchers to utilize a variety of methodologies to investigate the phenomenon of meaningful listening.</p> <hd id="AN0161970801-14">Supplemental Material</hd> <p>Graph: Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jrm-10.1177_00224294221111715 for Effects of Transitional Elements on Listeners' Aesthetic Responses to a Choral Performance by Kari Adams, D. Gregory Springer, John M. Geringer, Jessica Nápoles and M. Nicole Davis in Journal of Research in Music Education</p> <hd id="AN0161970801-15">Author Biographies</hd> <p> <bold>Kari Adams</bold> is assistant professor of choral music education at Florida State University. Her research interests include music teacher education, music teacher identity development, and music perception.</p> <p> <bold>D. Gregory Springer</bold> is assistant professor of music education at Florida State University. His research interests are music perception, music performance evaluation, and music teacher education.</p> <p> <bold>Jessica Nápoles</bold> is professor of music education at the University of North Texas. Her research interests include expressive conducting, perceptions of performance, and testing pedagogical claims empirically.</p> <p> <bold>John M. Geringer</bold> is Lewis V. Pankaskie Professor of Music and director of the Center for Music Research at Florida State University. His research interests are in perception and cognition, particularly in relation to acoustical changes in a variety of musical contexts.</p> <p> <bold>M. Nicole Davis</bold> is PhD student at Florida State University. Her research interests are related to the inclusion of marginalized people in choral music education and performance.</p> <ref id="AN0161970801-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Barradas G. T., Juslin P. N., i Badia S. B. (2021). Emotional reactions to music in dementia patients and healthy controls: Differential responding depends on the mechanism. Music & Science, 4, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/20592043211010152</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref46" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bjella R. (2017). The art of successful programming. In Abrahams F., Head P. D. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of choral pedagogy (pp. 281–301). Oxford.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref32" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Clynes M. (1977). Sentics: The touch of emotions. Doubleday/Anchor.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref20" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Coggiola J. (1996). The effect of physically manipulating a CRDI dial on the focus of attention of nonmusicians/musicians and perceived aesthetic response [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Florida State University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref56" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref48" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Cruse C. (2018, September 14-15). Choral singers' perceptions of rehearsing and performing in the Choregie genre [Conference presentation]. Symposium on Research in Choral Singing, Evanston, IL, United States.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref29" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Csikszentmihalyi M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper and Row.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref63" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Davis A. P. (1998). Performance achievement and analysis of teaching during choral rehearsals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46(4), 496–509. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345346</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref28" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Diaz F. M. (2011). Mindfulness, attention, and flow during music listening: An empirical investigation. Psychology of Music, 41(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735611415144</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diaz F. M., Silveira J. M. (2014). Music and affective phenomena: A 20-year content and bibliometric analysis of research in three eminent journals. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(1), 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429413519269</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faul F., Erdfelder E., Lang A.-G., Buchner A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fraenkel J. R., Wallen N. E., Hyun H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredrickson W. E. (1995). A comparison of perceived musical tension and aesthetic response. Psychology of Music, 23(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735695231006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frega A. L. (2000/2001). Aesthetic response to music as measured by the CRDI: A cross-cultural replication. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 147, 61–65. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319388">www.jstor.org/stable/40319388</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geringer J. M., Madsen C. K. (1995/1996). Focus of attention to elements: Listening patterns of musicians and nonmusicians. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 127, 80–87. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318770">www.jstor.org/stable/40318770</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geringer J. M., Madsen C. K. (2003). Gradual tempo change and aesthetic responses of music majors. International Journal of Music Education, 40(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/025576140304000102</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geringer J. M., Madsen C. K., Gregory D. (2004). A fifteen-year history of the Continuous Response Digital Interface: Issues relating to validity and reliability. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 160, 1–15. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319214">www.jstor.org/stable/40319214</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein A. (1980). Thrills in response to music and other stimuli. Physiological Psychology, 8(1), 126–129. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03326460</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gregory D. (1989). Using computers to measure continuous music responses. Psychomusicology: A Journal of Research in Music Cognition, 8(2), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0094244</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hatoh T., Kato M., Kuwano S., Namba S. (1989, October). Assessment of musical performance using the method of continuous judgment of selected description. In Ohgushi K. (Ed.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (pp. 33–36). City University of Arts.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huron D. (2019). Musical aesthetics: Uncertainty and surprise enhance our enjoyment of music. Current Biology, 29, R1238–R1240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.10.021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huron D., Vuoskoski J. K. (2020). On the enjoyment of sad music: Pleasurable compassion theory and the role of trait empathy. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1060. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01060</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juslin P. N. (2013). From everyday emotions to aesthetic emotions: Towards a unified theory of musical emotions. Physics of Life Reviews, 10(3), 235–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.05.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juslin P. N. (2016). Emotional reactions to music. In Hallam S., Cross I., Thaut M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of music psychology (2nd ed., pp. 197–213). Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juslin P. N., Sakka L. S., Barradas G. T., Liljeström S. (2016). No accounting for taste? Idiographic models of aesthetic judgment in music. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacMullen K. (2021). Intentional in-between: The art of seamless performance transitions [Conference presentation]. ACDA National Convention, Dallas, TX, United States.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen C. K. (1987). Background music: Competition for focus of attention. In Madsen C. K., Prickett C. A. (Eds.), Applications of research in music behavior (pp. 315–325). University of Alabama Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen C. K. (1997). Focus of attention and aesthetic response. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(1), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345467</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen C. K., Brittin R. V., Capperella-Sheldon D. A. (1993). An empirical method for measuring the aesthetic experience to music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.2307/3345480</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen C. K., Byrnes S. R., Capperella-Sheldon D. A., Brittin R. V. (1993). Aesthetic response to music: Musicians versus nonmusicians. Journal of Music Therapy, 30(3), 174–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmt/30.3.174</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen C. K., Coggiola J. C. (2001). The effect of manipulating a CRDI dial on the focus of attention of musicians/nonmusicians and perceived aesthetic response. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 105, 13–22. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319085">www.jstor.org/stable/40319085</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen C. K., Geringer J. M. (1990). Differential patterns of music listening. Focus of attention of musicians versus nonmusicians. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 105, 45–47. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318390">www.jstor.org/stable/40318390</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen C. K., Geringer J. M. (1999). Comparisons of good versus bad tone quality/intonation of vocal and string performances: Issues concerning measurement and reliability of the Continuous Response Digital Interface. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 141, 86–92. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318990">www.jstor.org/stable/40318990</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen C. K., Geringer J. M. (2000/2001). A focus of attention model for meaningful listening. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 147, 103–108. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319396">www.jstor.org/stable/40319396</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen C. K., Geringer J. M. (2004). Gradual pitch change and aesthetic responses of music majors. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 161/162, 135–143. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319247">www.jstor.org/stable/40319247</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen C. K., Geringer J. M. (2008). Reflections on Puccini's La Boheme : Investigating a model for listening. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56(1), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429408323072</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Madsen C. K., Geringer J. M., Fredrickson W. E. (1997). Focus of attention to musical elements in Haydn's Symphony #104. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 133, 57–63. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318840">www.jstor.org/stable/40318840</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nápoles J., Madsen C. K. (2008). Measuring emotional responses to music within a classroom setting. International Journal of Music Education, 26(1), 63–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761407085650</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nápoles J., Silveira J. M. (2020). Preservice and inservice teachers' perceptions of pacing. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 29(2), 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1057083719882702</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nielsen F. V. (1983). Oplevelse af musikalsk spaending [The experience of musical tension]. Akademisk Forlag.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Radocy R. E., Boyle J. D. (2012). Psychological foundations of musical behavior (5th ed.). Charles C. Thomas.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross A. (2010, March 8). Hold your applause: Inventing and reinventing the classical concert [Lecture at the Royal Philharmonic Society]. https://<ulink href="http://www.therestisnoise.com/2005/02/applause%5fa%5frest.html">www.therestisnoise.com/2005/02/applause%5fa%5frest.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryan C., Wapnick J., Lacaille N., Darrow A.-A. (2006). The effects of various physical characteristics of high-level performers on adjudicators' performance ratings. Psychology of Music, 34(4), 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735606068106</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Saldaña J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Šilec K. (n.d.). Choregie technique. https://karminasilec.com/choregie-technique/</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silveira J. M. (2014). The perception of pacing in a music appreciation class and its relationship to teacher effectiveness and teacher intensity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 62(3), 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429414542978</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silveira J. M., Diaz F. M. (2014). The effect of subtitles on listeners' perceptions of expressivity. Psychology of Music, 42(2), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735612463951</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silveira J. M., Silvey B. A. (2020). Effects of ensemble size and repertoire difficulty on ratings of concert band performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 68(2), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429420908280</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Southall J. (2003). The effect of purposeful distractors places in an excerpt of Puccini's La Boheme to ascertain their influence on the listening experience (Publication No. 3109311) [Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Springer D. G., Schlegel A. L. (2016). Effects of applause magnitude and musical style on listeners' evaluations of wind band performances. Psychology of Music, 44(4), 742–756. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735615591307</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Springer D. G., Schlegel A. L., Nápoles J. (2018). Effects of applause magnitude and musical style on listeners' evaluations of choral performances. International Journal of Music Education, 36(3), 418–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761418771985</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0161970801-17"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> ORCID iDs Kari Adams</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5645-8817 D. Gregory Springer</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7923-726X Jessica Nápoles</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1512-8587</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Supplemental Material Tables 1 through 6 are available in the online version of the article at https://doi.org/10.1177/00224294221111715</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Kari Adams; D. Gregory Springer; John M. Geringer; Jessica Nápoles and M. Nicole Davis</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Kari Adams is assistant professor of choral music education at Florida State University. Her research interests include music teacher education, music teacher identity development, and music perception.</p> <p>D. Gregory Springer is assistant professor of music education at Florida State University. His research interests are music perception, music performance evaluation, and music teacher education.</p> <p>John M. Geringer is Lewis V. Pankaskie Professor of Music and director of the Center for Music Research at Florida State University. His research interests are in perception and cognition, particularly in relation to acoustical changes in a variety of musical contexts.</p> <p>Jessica Nápoles is professor of music education at the University of North Texas. Her research interests include expressive conducting, perceptions of performance, and testing pedagogical claims empirically.</p> <p>M. Nicole Davis is PhD student at Florida State University. Her research interests are related to the inclusion of marginalized people in choral music education and performance.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref82"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1367074
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Effects of Transitional Elements on Listeners' Aesthetic Responses to a Choral Performance
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Adams%2C+Kari%22">Adams, Kari</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5645-8817">0000-0002-5645-8817</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Springer%2C+D%2E+Gregory%22">Springer, D. Gregory</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7923-726X">0000-0001-7923-726X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Geringer%2C+John+M%2E%22">Geringer, John M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nápoles%2C+Jessica%22">Nápoles, Jessica</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1512-8587">0000-0003-1512-8587</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Davis%2C+M%2E+Nicole%22">Davis, M. Nicole</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Research+in+Music+Education%22"><i>Journal of Research in Music Education</i></searchLink>. Apr 2023 71(1):111-128.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 18
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Singing%22">Singing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Music+Activities%22">Music Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Music+Education%22">Music Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Comparative+Analysis%22">Comparative Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Aesthetics%22">Aesthetics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Performance%22">Performance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Processes%22">Learning Processes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Audio+Equipment%22">Audio Equipment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Majors+%28Students%29%22">Majors (Students)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Music+Therapy%22">Music Therapy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Graduate+Students%22">Graduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/00224294221111715
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-4294<br />1945-0095
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of transitional elements on listeners' aesthetic responses. Participants (N = 81) viewed an excerpt of a choral performance while manipulating a Continuous Response Digital Interface to record their aesthetic responses. Participants in one group viewed the original choral performance, which included two purposeful transitions and no applause between pieces. In the other group, participants viewed the same choral performance but with applause over a black screen added between pieces. Participants then answered two open-ended questions to indicate the features of the performance most salient to their aesthetic responses. Mean aesthetic responses during each transition were higher for the continuous transition group compared to the applause group; however, differences between groups were statistically significant only during the attacca transition between the second and third piece. In response to "What factors contributed the most to your aesthetic response?" participants most commonly cited ensemble musicianship, followed by compositional elements such as harmonic, melodic, or rhythmic material; performer engagement; and song choices. When describing what kept them most engaged, participants mentioned programming most frequently, with the majority of comments referencing variety. We discuss implications for music teaching and learning.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1367074
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1367074
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/00224294221111715
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 18
        StartPage: 111
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Singing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Music Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Music Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Comparative Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Aesthetics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Performance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Processes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Audio Equipment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Video Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Majors (Students)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Music Therapy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Graduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Effects of Transitional Elements on Listeners' Aesthetic Responses to a Choral Performance
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Adams, Kari
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Springer, D. Gregory
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Geringer, John M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nápoles, Jessica
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Davis, M. Nicole
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-4294
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1945-0095
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 71
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Research in Music Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1