Music performance anxiety and psychological flourishing in Chinese music students: Mediating and moderating roles of self-efficacy and teacher

Abstract

This study focuses on the mediating role of self-efficacy and the moderating effect of teacher–student relationships in the relationship between music performance anxiety (MPA) and psychological flourishing among Chinese college music students. A total of 685 Chinese undergraduate music majors with a mean age of 19.95 years completed self-report questionnaires regarding psychological flourishing, the teacher–student relationship, self-efficacy, and MPA. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed to ascertain the relationship between MPA and psychological flourishing, as well as to establish a moderated mediation model. The findings indicate that self-efficacy serves as a partial mediator in the relationship between MPA and psychological flourishing. In addition, the teacher–student relationship moderates the effects between MPA and self-efficacy, and between MPA and psychological flourishing. Specifically, stronger teacher–student relationships buffer the negative impact of MPA on self-efficacy and reduce its adverse effects on psychological well-being. These findings highlight the importance of enhancing students’ self-efficacy and fostering strong teacher–student relationships to mitigate the negative effects of MPA on students’ well-being. Future research and educational practices should focus on effectively enhancing self-efficacy and strengthening teacher–student relationships in music education contexts.

Keywords

perceived competence psychological thriving instructor–student connection well-being

Introduction

Music performance anxiety (MPA) is a distinct form of social anxiety (Burin & Osório, 2017; Kenny, 2010). It is influenced by an individual’s cognitive appraisal, subjective sentiments, and behavioral changes (Dobos et al., 2019) and their cultural group (Leech-Wilkinson, 2016). Rink (2002) categorized MPA symptoms into three distinct groups: physiological (high heart rate and cold hands), mental (inattention and panic), and behavioral (tremors and performance disorders). According to Burin and Osório (2017), MPA arises predominantly from the following factors: self-imposed pressure, increased body arousal before and during performance, and adverse past performance encounters. Many performers and musicians experience MPA throughout their professional lives, with over 60% experiencing some form of it (Krawehl & Altenmüller, 2000), although Candia et al. (2023) recently reported that musicians who often engage in stage performances experience less MPA. It has been suggested that severe MPA can affect musicians’ professional trajectories and careers (McGrath et al., 2016; Simoens et al., 2015); quality of life (Kenny, 2014; McGrath et al., 2016); mental health and well-being (Simoens et al., 2015); and increase the likelihood of their experiencing depression (Kenny, 2014). Musicians should therefore employ efficient coping strategies, as proposed by stress-coping and transactional theories that advocate cognitive and behavioral modifications for managing internal and external pressures (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). Previous research has demonstrated the efficacy of numerous approaches, including deep breathing, distraction techniques, self-talk, and relaxation techniques (Huang & Song, 2021).

Psychological flourishing is a state of well-being (Keyes, 2007; Seligman, 2011), both emotional and social (So & Huppert, 2009), described in the literature on positive psychology. Emotional well-being encompasses both pleasant emotions and life satisfaction together with optimal psychological functioning including self-acceptance, personal growth, life purpose, mastery of one’s environment, autonomy, and healthy relationships. Positive social functioning is also crucial as it encompasses social acceptance, realization, contribution, cohesion, and integration (Nelson et al., 2016). Flourishing relates to well-being because it encompasses joy, satisfaction, happiness, and optimal psychological functioning (Sharma-Brymer & Brymer, 2020).

Investigations of the relationship between MPA and psychological well-being are limited although previous studies have consistently demonstrated a negative association between social anxiety and psychological flourishing (Eden et al., 2020; Hoyt et al., 2023). As music researchers have increasingly focused on MPA, they have suggested a strong relationship between MPA, mental health, and overall well-being. Kenny et al. (2014) found associations between indicators of mental health and levels of MPA. Bonneville-Roussy et al. (2020) constructed a model of music students’ well-being to investigate the associations among musicians’ career decisions, MPA levels, and overall well-being.

Research consistently shows that many Chinese music students experience significant levels of MPA, which has a negative impact on both their academic outcomes and early career aspirations (Peng et al., 2024; Wang & Yang, 2024). MPA in Chinese students is influenced by various psychological factors, including perfectionism and self-directedness, which have been identified as key contributors to MPA among students (Yang et al., 2023). Recent studies have also highlighted associations between MPA and other factors such as flow, self-esteem, emotional intelligence, and self-efficacy (Cui et al., 2024; Hu, 2024; Jiang & Tong, 2024). In response to MPA, students often employ coping strategies such as deep breathing, self-talk, and the use of relaxation techniques (Huang & Song, 2021). In addition, self-regulation techniques have been found to improve self-efficacy and reduce performance anxiety in university music students (Huang, 2019). While some research has explored coping strategies, few studies have examined the broader impact of MPA on psychological well-being, particularly its link to psychological flourishing, highlighting the need for further investigations of these mechanisms.

Theories of psychological stress and coping propose that the mediating function of appraisal influences the magnitude of stress reactions (Biggs et al., 2017). According to Lazarus and Folkman (1987), initial evaluations ascribe significance to personal and environmental interactions. When a transaction is stressful, it is necessary for the individual to appraise their coping resources (e.g., self-efficacy), situational variables (e.g., job control), and coping styles (e.g., job control). Coping involves the use of individuals’ cognitive and behavioral strategies to manage the internal and external pressures associated with stressful circumstances. Regulating painful emotions, such as anxiety, can be achieved by synergistically utilizing multiple coping methods. In addition, the teacher–student relationship is valuable. It fosters learning motivation, bolsters self-assurance, and enhances student performance (Wubbels et al., 2016). Hobfoll (1989) suggests that stress can be mitigated if the individual has sufficient resources, and people are more likely to use adaptive coping mechanisms if they have several resources rather than only a few (Holahan & Moos, 1987). These theories have been used as a basis for investigating the relationships among psychological stress, anxiety, and well-being in many studies (Woods et al., 2023; Lau, 2019) and are used as a conceptual framework for present study, in which a mediation model was used to investigate the processes that influence MPA and psychological flourishing.

The mediating role of self-efficacy

Self-efficacy, initially a part of social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), refers to an individual’s capacity to perform at a certain level. It emphasizes the perception and assessment of one’s abilities and effectiveness (Gecas, 1989). Research has demonstrated that self-efficacy is positively related to happiness and good mental health (Karademas, 2006). Insufficient self-efficacy frequently coincides with elevated anxiety and depression (Muris, 2002). In music performance, self-efficacy arises from an individual’s recognition of their musical aptitude (Zarza-Alzugaray et al., 2020). Individuals’ traits and aptitudes play crucial roles in musical success. Self-efficacy profoundly influences thoughts, behaviors, and emotions (Schunk & Mullen, 2012). MPA encompasses first-hand personal experiences and individual traits explicitly defined as early experiences, feelings of helplessness, and cognitive anxiety (Kenny, 2014). Zarza-Alzugaray et al. (2020) employed an enhanced MPA theoretical model to establish that reducing anxiety strengthens self-efficacy. This finding confirmed that there is a direct link between MPA and self-efficacy. Moreover, individuals who experience heightened MPA typically exhibit diminished self-efficacy (Egilmez, 2015). Self-efficacy predicts MPA, which in turn can influence pre-performance behaviors and boost performance (González et al., 2018). Individuals with high levels of MPA frequently experience persistent and incapacitating thoughts characterized by excessive concern and criticism (Petrovich, 2003). In summary, these studies demonstrate a relationship between self-efficacy and MPA.

Self-efficacy and psychological flourishing are therefore interrelated. People with high self-efficacy believe they can accomplish tasks and attain specific accomplishments and job contentment, consequently influencing their psychological flourishing (Balgiu, 2022). When confronted with adversity, they exhibit confidence. They are adept at handling problems, attaining goals, and enhancing their psychological flourishing (Pignault et al., 2023). Hence, the established relationships between MPA and self-efficacy and between self-efficacy and psychological flourishing suggest that self-efficacy mediates MPA and flourishing.

The moderating effect of teacher–student relationships

Lack of self-efficacy may produce a negative association between MPA and psychological flourishing, but this is not the case for all those with high MPA (MacAfee & Comeau, 2020). This suggests that the impact of MPA on psychological well-being, both direct and indirect via self-efficacy, may be influenced by other variables that require investigation, including external factors such as the performance environment, peer competitiveness, and audience characteristics (Carrasco, 2019; Kenny, 2011). In this context, teacher–student dynamics are crucial in music education, with social support offered by teachers supporting students’ long-term coping strategies (Biasutti & Concina, 2014).

Teachers offer emotional support and provide information that can help students manage both psychological and academic challenges (Rubach & Lazarides, 2021; Wentzel, 2017). By serving as a key resource for support, teachers help to reduce students’ stress so that they can improve their learning outcomes (Willis, 2024). In the context of music education, teachers guide and influence students’ performance, providing essential support for their development (Mills, 2004; Swanwick, 2008). They also help students address MPA (Kokotsaki & Davidson, 2003), encourage them to prepare by practising effectively and giving simulated performances, and teach anxiety management techniques such as breathing control (Gill et al., 2022; Moura & Serra, 2021).

Thus, teachers can help to reduce their students’ performance anxiety and enhance their musical self-efficacy (Zarza-Alzugaray et al., 2020). They do this by giving specific feedback on students’ achievements, using encouraging language to promote their well-being (Hendricks, 2016; Tahirbegi, 2021; Zelenak, 2020). Strong teacher–student relationships can mitigate the impact of MPA, enhance psychological flourishing, and reframe mistakes as learning opportunities, thereby boosting self-efficacy and reducing anxiety (MacAfee, 2021; Sieger, 2017). One-to-one instruction has been shown to cultivate positive perceptions, enhancing students’ performance and autonomy (Valenzuela et al., 2018).

Confucianism has influenced Chinese higher music education insofar as the relationship between the teacher and the student mirrors that of the master and student (Huang & Thibodeaux, 2016), and according to Zhao et al. (2010), teaching and learning often take place via non-verbal communication. There are few studies of teacher–student relationships in Chinese music education, let alone studies of students’ MPA. Yet there is evidence that strong teacher–student relationships foster students’ motivation to study, self-perception, and academic performance; they can also influence students’ conduct (Eccles & Roeser, 2015; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Hence, the relationship between the teacher and the student connection may moderate the influence of MPA on both self-efficacy and psychological well-being.

Based on the research and findings reviewed, this study proposed the model in Figure 1 and tested four hypotheses using a sample of music students from three Chinese universities who completed a questionnaire measuring MPA, psychological flourishing, self-efficacy, and the teacher–student relationship:

Hypothesis 1: There would be a negative relationship between MPA and psychological flourishing.

Hypothesis 2: Self-efficacy would mediate the relationship between MPA and psychological well-being.

Hypothesis 3: The teacher–student relationship would moderate the relationship between MPA and psychological flourishing.

Hypothesis 4: The teacher–student relationship would moderate the relationship between MPA and self-efficacy.

Figure 1.

The proposed moderated mediation model.

Method

Participants

Six hundred and eighty-five music performance students enrolled at three universities in eastern China were recruited to take part in the study. They gave their consent before completing and submitting an anonymous questionnaire online, designed to gather data on MPA, self-efficacy, teacher–student relationships, and psychological flourishing. The sample comprised 285 males and 400 females with a mean age of 19.95 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.23, range = 18–22 years). Of the total, 46.7% were vocal music majors, and 53.3% were instrumental music majors. The instrumental music major programs included students specializing in piano (33.4%), orchestral instruments (11.6%), and Chinese folk musical instruments (8.3%). Slightly less than half the sample (42.4%) intended to pursue a career as a performer in the future.

Materials

Music performance anxiety

MPA was assessed using the K-MPAI scale (Kenny et al., 2004), based on the anxiety theory of emotion proposed by Barlow (2000). It was translated into Chinese by the researcher. The inventory comprises 26 items, such as “I frequently experience a sense of personal insignificance.” Each item was rated on a 7-point scale from 0 (strong disagreement) to 6 (strong agreement). A higher overall score reflected a higher level of MPA. The sample yielded a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .845 and an average variance extracted (AVE) of .53 for this scale.

Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy was assessed using the Music Self-Efficacy Scale (Ritchie & Williamon, 2011), derived from two music self-efficacy questionnaires based on the self-efficacy scale developed by Sherer et al. (1982). Again, it was translated into Chinese by the researcher. The scale comprises two components: self-efficacy for music learning and self-efficacy for music performance. It comprises 20 items, each assigned a rating on a 7-point scale from 1 (not at all sure) to 7 (completely sure). Higher scores indicate greater self-efficacy. The sample yielded a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .80 and an AVE of .506 for this scale.

Psychological flourishing

Psychological flourishing was assessed using the Chinese version (Tang et al., 2016) of the Psychological Flourishing Scale (Diener et al., 2010). It has eight items rated on a 7-point scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of psychological flourishing. The sample yielded a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .90 and an AVE of .533 for this scale.

Teacher–student relationships

Teacher–student relationships were assessed using the Student–Instructor Relationship Scale (Creasey et al., 2009), translated into Chinese by the researcher. It comprises 36 items on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The sample yielded a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .88 an AVE of .505 for this scale.

Statistical analyses

All variables were standardized before analysis. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS and Mplus 7.0. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) via structural equation modeling (SEM) with maximum likelihood estimation was performed. Model fit was evaluated using standard indices: CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR. Descriptive statistics and Pearson’s correlations were used to assess variable distributions and relationships, and Harman’s single-factor test checked for common method bias.

Item parceling was used to simplify the measurement model by combining dimensional variables with subdimensions into single items. Data inspection revealed no outliers or missing data in the database, ensuring the completeness of the dataset for analysis (Little & Rubin, 2019). For the psychological flourishing variable, which does not have subdimensions, item parceling was not necessary. Instead, the eight items from the flourishing scale were treated as observed variables (Little et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2010). Psychological flourishing was represented as a latent dependent variable composed of these eight observed indicators, which helped to provide a comprehensive representation of the construct and control for measurement error in the SEM.

Mediation analysis tested the role of self-efficacy in the relationship between MPA and psychological flourishing using bias-corrected bootstrap resampling (5,000 samples) with a 95% confidence interval. A moderated mediation analysis examined whether the teacher–student relationship moderated this effect. Interaction terms between MPA and the teacher–student relationship assessed the impact of varying degrees of relationship (low, moderate, high) on pathways from MPA to self-efficacy and flourishing. Bias-corrected bootstrap analysis was used to estimate confidence intervals for these effects, exploring how different degrees of relationship influenced the direct and indirect effects of MPA on self-efficacy and flourishing.

Results

Data screening and descriptive analysis

Table 1 displays the outcomes of the checks for data normality and the distribution of variables. Data screening indicated no outliers or missing values. The SD of the structure is below 2, within an acceptable range. The acceptable range for skewness is ±2, whereas the acceptable range for kurtosis is ±3. All fell within acceptable levels, and the data were normal.

Table 1.

The distribution of the variables.

Variables	Min.	Max.	Mean	SD	Skewness		Kurtosis
Variables	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error
MPA	1.38	6.73	4.00	1.00	.355	.093	−.235	.187
Self-efficacy	1.45	6.75	4.15	1.05	.243	.093	−.264	.187
Psychological flourishing	1.25	6.88	4.54	1.23	−.4	.093	−.349	.187
Teacher–student relationship	1.53	6.69	3.88	1.12	−.109	.093	−.961	.187

MPA: music performance anxiety.

Preliminary analysis

The CFA model was used to evaluate the fit of the measurement model, ensuring the structural validity and reliability of the scales. The model fit results indicate that our CFA model has a good fit. Specifically, the CFA results show $\frac{x^{2}}{d f}$ = 1.379, CFI = .979, TLI = .978, SRMR = .027, RMSEA (90% CI) = .024, indicating that the measurement model meets all the fit criteria. In addition, Harman’s single-factor test showed no significant common method bias, with eight factors explaining a total variance of 21.984%, which is below the 40% threshold. No significant outliers or missing data were detected, ensuring robust analysis. Table 2 presents the means and Pearson’s correlations between the study variables. Based on the ratings obtained for each item on each scale, the mean values for MPA, self-efficacy, psychological flourishing, and teacher–student relationships were 4.00, 4.15, 4.54, and 3.88, respectively. The analysis revealed a negative correlation between MPA and psychological flourishing (r = –.378, p < .01), as predicted by Hypothesis 1. In addition, MPA was negatively correlated with self-efficacy (r = –.305, p < .01) and teacher–student relationships (r = –.128, p < .01). By contrast, self-efficacy was positively associated with both teacher–student relationships (r = .123, p < .01) and psychological flourishing (r = .326, p < .01).

Table 2.

Correlations among variables (N = 685).

	1	2	3	4
1. MPA	1
2. Self-efficacy	−.305**	1
3. Psychological flourishing	−.378**	.326**	1
4. Teacher–student relationship	−.128**	.123**	.177**	1
Mean	4.00	4.15	4.54	3.88
Standard deviation	1.00	1.05	1.23	1.12

MPA: music performance anxiety.

p < .01.

Mediation effects analysis

In both the mediation and moderation models (Figures 2 and 3), psychological flourishing was treated as a latent dependent variable with eight observed items. These items accounted for measurement error and provided a comprehensive representation of the construct in SEM. While parceling was used for variables with subdimensions, the eight items for psychological flourishing were treated as separate observed variables due to its unidimensional structure, ensuring consistency throughout the analysis and results sections. An analysis of the relationship between MPA and psychological well-being using the direct mediation effect model revealed that psychological flourishing decreased significantly as the severity of MPA increased (–.456, $p$ < .001). Using the direct correspondence model, we used an indirect effect model to examine the mediating influence of self-efficacy on the association between MPA and psychological flourishing (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Result of the mediating effects analysis.

Figure 3.

Moderated mediating effect analysis of teacher–student relationship.

We found that the mediating effect model was a satisfactory fit for the data: $\frac{x^{2}}{d f}$ = 4.621 < 5, CFI = .958, TLI = .945, SRMR = .026, RMSEA (90% CI) = .073. MPA had a substantial detrimental effect on self-efficacy ( $β$ = –.305, $p$ < .001, R² = .093) and psychological flourishing ( $β$ = –.324, S.E. = .050, $p$ < .001). Self-efficacy exerts a strong beneficial effect on psychological flourishing ( $β$ = .242 > 0, $p$ < .001, R² = .212). Furthermore, we verified the validity of the indirect route by performing a bias-guided bootstrap correction test. As shown in Table 3, the indirect path has a high level of significance because the 95% confidence interval for the indirect effect does not encompass a value of 0. The direct effect that persists after accounting for the indirect effect is still statistically significant ( $β$ = –.129, $p$ < .001). Hypothesis 2, predicting that self-efficacy would mediate the relationship between MPA and psychological well-being, was therefore upheld.

Table 3.

Bias-corrected bootstrap test on mediating effects.

Paths	Standardized	95% CI
Paths	Standardized	Low	High
MPA→Self-efficacy→Psychological flourishing	−.085***	−.129	−.052
Total	−.456***	−.554	−.365

CI: confidence interval.

***

p < .001.

Moderated mediating effects analysis

Utilizing the mediation effect model depicted above, we employed the teacher–student relationship as a moderating variable to perform a model analysis of the mediation effect (see Figure 3). We found that the moderated mediation model was a satisfactory fit for the data: $\frac{x^{2}}{d f}$ = 3.628 < 5, CFI = .958, TLI = .945, SRMR = .026, RMSEA (90% CI) = .062. The association between the teacher and student relationship and MPA exerts a strong predictive impact on self-efficacy ( $β$ = .145, $p$ < .001, R² = .118) and psychological flourishing ( $β$ = .116, $p$ = .007, R² = .237). Hence, the influence of the teacher–student relationship on MPA via its two regulatory pathways of psychological flourishing and self-confidence was verified.

Furthermore, we performed a bias-corrected bootstrap analysis of the mediation model to validate the influence of the teacher–student relationship on the relationships between MPA, self-efficacy, and psychological flourishing (see Table 4). The findings indicate that when the teacher–student relationship is strong (M + 1SD), MPA has a statistically significant negative impact on psychological flourishing. This is supported by the fact that the 95% confidence interval for this effect does not include zero, with a path coefficient of $β$ = –.203 (p = .004). In other words, the negative impact of MPA on psychological flourishing is reliable under these conditions. Although the influence is negative, the strength of the path coefficient significantly decreases as the teacher–student relationship improves from lower to higher levels. Specifically, MPA has a significant negative impact on self-efficacy, as indicated by the 95% confidence interval not including zero (β = –.13, p < .037). The negative effect of MPA on self-efficacy is stronger with weak teacher–student relationships and diminishes as these relationships improve, indicating that establishing strong relationships can mitigate the negative effects of MPA. Overall, the data confirm Hypothesis 3, which predicted that the teacher–student relationship would moderate the relationship between MPA and psychological flourishing, and Hypothesis 4, which predicted that it would moderate the relationship between MPA and self-efficacy.

Table 4.

Bias-corrected bootstrap test.

MPA→Psychological flourishing			95% CI
MPA→Psychological flourishing			Low	High
Teacher–student relationship	M − 1SD	−.441***	−.563	−.319
	M	−.322***	−.418	−.225
	M + 1SD	−.203*	−.340	−.065
MPA→Self-efficacy			95% CI
MPA→Self-efficacy			Low	High
Teacher–student relationship	M − 1SD	−.399***	−.493	−.305
	M	−.262***	−.340	−.184
	M + 1SD	−.125**	−.243	−.007

CI: confidence interval.

***

p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

Discussion

This study advances the understanding of MPA and psychological flourishing by offering new insights into the mechanisms underlying their relationship. According to Kenny’s (2011) multidimensional theory, MPA is influenced by individual, social, and situational factors. Our findings confirm a negative association between MPA and psychological flourishing (Hypothesis 1), consistent with research by Patston and Osborne (2016). In addition, the mediating role of self-efficacy and the moderating effect of teacher–student relationships were highlighted, with strong, socially supportive teacher–student bonds mitigating the negative impact of MPA on students’ self-efficacy and mental health. The findings extend the work of Huawei and Jenatabadi (2024), further demonstrating the crucial roles of self-efficacy and social support in alleviating music performance anxiety. The study also deepens our understanding of psychological flourishing by examining the impact of MPA on the fulfillment of key needs such as relationships and competence (Diener et al., 2010; Ho & Chan, 2022). This addresses a gap in understanding the well-being outcomes of MPA.

Hypothesis 2 was supported, confirming that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between MPA and psychological flourishing among Chinese music students. Lower self-efficacy contributes to negative psychological outcomes, as suggested by stress management theories linking coping and self-efficacy (Lazarus & Folkman, 1987). A strong belief in one’s abilities mitigates stress and enhances well-being (Asl Dehghan et al., 2021; Zhou & Huo, 2022). Previous research also shows a negative association between MPA and self-efficacy, with lower self-efficacy increasing MPA (Bersh, 2022; MacAfee & Comeau, 2020; Zarza-Alzugaray et al., 2020). The positive association between self-efficacy and flourishing in the present study further underscores its mediating role (Balgiu, 2022; Zhu et al., 2019).

This study proposed two hypotheses on the moderating role of teacher–student relationships (Hypotheses 3 and 4), both supported by the findings. These results extend prior research on the effects of teacher–student relationships on academic achievement and well-being (Beggs & Olson, 2020). Hypothesis 3 was supported, confirming that strong teacher–student connections reduce the negative impact of MPA on self-efficacy, consistent with stress transaction theory (Lazarus, 2000). Emotion-focused coping strategies such as seeking emotional support and positive refocusing help reduce stress (Jennings et al., 2019). Teachers can address stressors proactively and provide relaxation techniques, improving students’ self-efficacy and performance (Hendricks, 2016). While specific interventions for managing MPA with the support of teachers require further exploration (Mazzarolo et al., 2023), the present study reinforces the role of teachers in helping manage students’ anxiety. These findings align with attachment theory, showing that positive teacher–student relationships reduce negative emotions and boost students’ confidence and achievement (Mahfud & Riniati, 2023; Pimpalkhute et al., 2023). A strong teacher–student bond moderates the relationship between MPA and self-efficacy, enhancing psychological flourishing. The results also support Hypothesis 4, demonstrating that positive teacher–student relationships reduce the negative impact of MPA on well-being. This is consistent with MacDonald et al. (2002) who found that strong teacher–student ties help alleviate stress and anxiety. Similarly, Bonneville-Roussy et al. (2020) linked autonomy-supportive teaching to improved student well-being.

The findings of the study have implications for practice, emphasizing the importance of strengthening teacher–student relationships to mitigate the negative effects of MPA on self-efficacy and psychological flourishing. Teachers play a key role by providing emotional support, promoting autonomy, and fostering positive connections, all of which reduce stress and enhance well-being (Luo et al., 2020). In addition, our path analysis shows that self-efficacy partially mediates the link between MPA and flourishing, suggesting that factors such as self-esteem and perfectionism may also influence these outcomes (Sinden, 1999). Future researchers should examine these factors, particularly in educational settings, to develop more targeted interventions for improving student well-being.

Limitations and future research

This study has several limitations. First, we used a cross-sectional design, which means that we cannot produce evidence for a causal relationship between MPA and psychological well-being. While our findings are consistent with previous empirical research, future longitudinal studies are needed to provide more robust insights into the processes underlying these relationships. Second, the data collected in this study were based on self-reports, which may introduce method bias and social desirability bias (Caputo, 2017). Future studies should incorporate qualitative approaches and methods such as interviews to improve the validity of the findings. Lastly, the study focused on undergraduate music majors in eastern China. Broader geographic sampling and larger studies are needed for more comprehensive results.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-msx-10.1177_10298649261419792 – Supplemental material for Music performance anxiety and psychological flourishing in Chinese music students: Mediating and moderating roles of self-efficacy and teacher–student relationships

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-msx-10.1177_10298649261419792 for Music performance anxiety and psychological flourishing in Chinese music students: Mediating and moderating roles of self-efficacy and teacher–student relationships by Xin Jiang in Musicae Scientiae

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Xin Jiang

Ethical Considerations

All procedures conducted in this study involving human participants comply with the ethical standards of institutions and/or national research committees, as well as the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and subsequent amendments or similar ethical standards.

Consent to Participate

Consent was obtained from all participants included in this study.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data availability statement

The author confirmed that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Asl Dehghan

Pourshahriari

Mehrandish

. (2021). Develop a model of flourishing based on self-efficacy mediated by hope in counselors and psychologists. Counseling Culture and Psychotherapy, 12(46), 81–108.

Balgiu

B. A

. (2022). Teachers’ self-efficacy as a mediator between job satisfaction and flourishing. In Albulescu

Stan

(Eds.), Education, Reflection, Development – ERD 2021 (Vol. 2, pp. 93–104). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epes.22032.8

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Prentice-Hall.

Barlow

D. H.

(2000). Unraveling the mysteries of anxiety and its disorders from the perspective of emotion theory. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1247–1263. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1247

Beggs

Olson

(2020). The effects of social-emotional learning and teacher relationships on middle school student well-being. Sophia, St. Catherine University. https://sophia.stkate.edu/maed/376

Bersh

(2022). The relationship between music performance anxiety and self-efficacy in sixth- to eighth-grade instrumental students. Psychology of Music, 50(5), 1477–1493. https://doi.org/10.1177/03057356211050667

Biasutti

Concina

(2014). The role of coping strategy and experience in predicting music performance anxiety. Musicae Scientiae, 18(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864914523282

Biggs

Brough

Drummond

(2017). Lazarus and Folkman’s psychological stress and coping theory. In Cooper

C. L.

Quick

J. C.

(Eds.), The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice (pp. 349–364). Wiley-Blackwell.

Bonneville-Roussy

Hruska

Trower

(2020). Teaching music to support students: How autonomy-supportive music teachers increase students’ well-being. Journal of Research in Music Education, 68(1), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022429419897611

10.

Burin

A. B.

Osório

F. L.

(2017). Music performance anxiety: A critical review of etiological aspects, perceived causes, coping strategies and treatment. Archives of Clinical Psychiatry, 44(5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-60830000000136

11.

Candia

Kusserow

Margulies

Hildebrandt

(2023). Repeated stage exposure reduces music performance anxiety. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1146405. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1146405

12.

Caputo

(2017). Social desirability bias in self-reported well-being measures: Evidence from an online survey. Universitas Psychologica, 16(2), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy16-2.sdsw

13.

Carrasco

G. E.

(2019). Perceived extrinsic factors affecting music performance anxiety in undergraduate musicians (Honors thesis). Southeastern University. https://firescholars.seu.edu/honors/124/

14.

Creasey

Jarvis

Knapcik

(2009). A measure to assess student-instructor relationships. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 14. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030214

15.

Cui

Xie

Yin

(2024). Exploring the relationships among music performance anxiety, teaching anxiety, and self-efficacy of Chinese preservice music teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1373454. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1373454

16.

Diener

Wirtz

Tov

Kim-Prieto

Choi

Oishi

Biswas-Diener

(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

17.

Dobos

Piko

B. F.

Kenny

D. T.

(2019). Music performance anxiety and its relationship with social phobia and dimensions of perfectionism. Research Studies in Music Education, 41(3), 310–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X18804295

18.

Eccles

J. S.

Roeser

R. W.

(2015). School and community influences on human development. In Bornstein

M. H.

Lamb

M. E.

(Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook 1999 (4th ed,. pp. 571–643). Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Eden

A. L.

Johnson

B. K.

Reinecke

Grady

S. M.

(2020). Media for coping during COVID-19 social distancing: Stress, anxiety, and psychological well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 577639. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577639

20.

Egilmez

H. O.

(2015). Pre-service music teachers’ piano performance self-efficacy belief inversely related to musical performance anxiety levels. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(18), 2558–2567. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2439

21.

Gecas

(1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 15(1), 291–316. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.15.080189.001451

22.

Gill

Osborne

McPherson

(2022). Sources of self-efficacy in class and studio music lessons. Research Studies in Music Education, 46, 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1321103X221123234

23.

González

Blanco-Piñeiro

Díaz-Pereira

M. P.

(2018). Music performance anxiety: Exploring structural relations with self-efficacy, boost, and self-rated performance. Psychology of Music, 46(6), 831–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735617727822

24.

Hendricks

K. S.

(2016). The sources of self-efficacy: Educational research and implications for music. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 35(1), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/8755123315576535

25.

H. C. Y.

Chan

Y. C.

(2022). Flourishing in the workplace: A one-year prospective study on the effects of perceived organizational support and psychological capital. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19020922

26.

Hobfoll

S. E.

(1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44(3), Article 513. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

27.

Holahan

C. J.

Moos

R. H.

(1987). Personal and contextual determinants of coping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), Article 946. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.946

28.

Hoyt

C. L.

Burnette

J. L.

Nash

Becker

Billingsley

(2023). Growth mindsets of anxiety: Do the benefits to individual flourishing come with societal costs? The Journal of Positive Psychology, 18(3), 370–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2021.2006762

29.

(2024). Delving into the structural model of students’ music performance anxiety, self-efficacy, and motivation based on self-determination theory. Learning and Motivation, 87, Article 102011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2024.102011

30.

Huang

Thibodeaux

(2016). Teaching piano in China: Building transcultural and transhistorical bridges through music education. International Research in Higher Education, 1(2), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.5430/irhe.v1n2p25

31.

Huang

W.-L

. (2019). An investigation into Taiwanese music college students’ self-management of musical performance anxiety (Doctoral thesis). Royal College of Music.

32.

Huang

W.-L.

Song

(2021). How do college musicians self-manage musical performance anxiety: Strategies through time periods and types of performance. International Journal of Music Education, 39(2), 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761421990800

33.

Huawei

Jenatabadi

H. S.

(2024). Effects of social support on music performance anxiety among university music students: Chain mediation of emotional intelligence and self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1389681. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1389681

34.

Jennings

P. A.

DeMauro

A. A.

Mischenko

. (2019). Cultivating awareness and resilience in education. In Ivtzan

(Ed.), Handbook of mindfulness-based programmes: Mindfulness interventions from education to health and therapy (pp. 219–230). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315265438-18

35.

Jennings

P. A.

Greenberg

M. T

. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693

36.

Jiang

Tong

(2024). Psychological capital and music performance anxiety: The mediating role of self-esteem and flow experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1461235. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1461235

37.

Karademas

E. C.

(2006). Self-efficacy, social support and well-being: The mediating role of optimism. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(6), 1281–1290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.10.019

38.

Kenny

(2014). Practice through partnership: Examining the theoretical framework and development of a “community of musical practice.” International Journal of Music Education, 32(4), 396–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0255761413515802

39.

Kenny

(2011). The psychology of music performance anxiety. Oxford University Press.

40.

Kenny

D. T.

(2010). The role of negative emotions in performance anxiety. In Juslin

P. N.

Sloboda

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of music and emotion: Theory, research, applications (pp. 425–451). Oxford University Press.

41.

Kenny

D. T.

Driscoll

T. R.

Ackermann

B. J

. (2014). Psychological well-being in professional orchestral musicians in Australia: A descriptive population study. Psychology of Music, 42(2), 210–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735612463950

42.

Kenny

D. T.

Davis

Oates

(2004). Music performance anxiety and occupational stress amongst opera chorus artists and their relationship with state and trait anxiety and perfectionism. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 18(6), 757–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2003.09.004

43.

Keyes

C. L.

(2007). Promoting and protecting mental health as flourishing: A complementary strategy for improving national mental health. American Psychologist, 62(2), Article 95. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.95

44.

Kokotsaki

Davidson

J. W.

(2003). Investigating musical performance anxiety among music college singing students: A quantitative analysis. Music Education Research, 5(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800307103

45.

Krawehl

Altenmüller

(2000). Lampenfieber unter musikstudenten: Häufigkeit, ausprägung und heimliche theorien. Musikphysiologie und Musikermedizin, 7(4), 173–178.

46.

Lau

R. W. K.

(2019). You are not your PhD: Managing stress during doctoral candidature. In Pretorius

Macaulay

Cahusac De Caux

(Eds.), Wellbeing in doctoral education (pp. 47–58). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9302-0_6

47.

Lazarus

R. S.

(2000). Toward better research on stress and coping. American Psychologist, 55, 665–673. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.6.665

48.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. European Journal of Personality, 1(3), 141–169. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410010304

49.

Leech-Wilkinson

(2016). Classical music as enforced Utopia. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 15(3–4), 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474022216647706

50.

Little

R. J. A.

Rubin

D. B.

(2019). Statistical analysis with missing data. John Wiley & Sons.

51.

Little

T. D.

Rhemtulla

Gibson

Schoemann

A. M.

(2013). Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one. Psychological Methods, 18(3), 285–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033266

52.

Luo

Deng

Zhang

(2020). The influences of parental emotional warmth on the association between perceived teacher–student relationships and academic stress among middle school students in China. Children and Youth Services Review, 114, Article 105014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105014

53.

MacAfee

(2021). Music performance anxiety, self-efficacy, and the effects of self-modeling on young musicians [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Ottawa. https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/41875

54.

MacAfee

Comeau

(2020). Exploring music performance anxiety, self-efficacy, performance quality, and behavioural anxiety within a self-modelling intervention for young musicians. Music Education Research, 22(4), 457–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2020.1781074

55.

MacDonald

R. A.

Hargreaves

D. J.

Miell

(2002). Musical identities. Oxford University Press.

56.

Mahfud

Riniati

W. O.

(2023). Exploring the role of teacher-student relationships in academic achievement: A qualitative study in primary schools. The Eastasouth Journal of Learning and Educations, 1(2), 76–83. https://doi.org/10.58812/esle.v1i02.111

57.

Mazzarolo

Burwell

Schubert

(2023). Teachers’ approaches to music performance anxiety management: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1205150. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1205150

58.

McGrath

Hendricks

K. S.

Smith

T. D.

(2016). Performance anxiety strategies: A musician’s guide to managing stage fright. Rowman & Littlefield.

59.

Mills

(2004). Working in music: Becoming a performer-teacher. Music Education Research, 6(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461380042000281712

60.

Moura

Serra

(2021). Listening to teachers’ voices: Constructs on music performance anxiety in artistic education. Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts, 13(2), 99–117.

61.

Muris

(2002). Relationships between self-efficacy and symptoms of anxiety disorders and depression in a normal adolescent sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 32(2), 337–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00027-7

62.

Nelson

S. K.

Layous

Cole

S. W.

Lyubomirsky

(2016). Do unto others or treat yourself? The effects of prosocial and self-focused behavior on psychological flourishing. Emotion, 16(6), 850–861. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000178

63.

Patston

Osborne

M. S.

(2016). The developmental features of music performance anxiety and perfectionism in school age music students. Performance Enhancement & Health, 4(1), 42–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2015.09.003

64.

Peng

Fang

Guo

(2024). Investigating the impact of music performance anxiety (MPA) on academic performance in music education: A nonlinear data fusion model approach. Preprints. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202405.1014.v1

65.

Petrovich

(2003). How teachers can help. The American Music Teacher, 53(3), Article 24.

66.

Pignault

Rastoder

Houssemand

(2023). The relationship between self-esteem, self-efficacy, and career decision-making difficulties: Psychological flourishing as a mediator. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(9), Article 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13090113

67.

Pimpalkhute

Pooley

Wilkins

Varjas

Perkins

Meyers

(2023). Educators’ perceptions of the costs and benefits of pursuing positive teacher-student relationships in middle schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 135, Article 104347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104347

68.

Rink

(2002). Musical performance: A guide to understanding. Cambridge University Press.

69.

Ritchie

Williamon

(2011). Measuring distinct types of musical self-efficacy. Psychology of Music, 39(3), 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735610374895

70.

Rubach

Lazarides

(2021). Emotionen in Schule und Unterricht: Bedingungen und Auswirkungen von Emotionen bei Lehrkräften und Lernenden [Emotions in school and teaching: Conditions and effects of emotions among teachers and learners]. Verlag Barbara Budrich.

71.

Schotanus-Dijkstra

Ten Klooster

P. M.

Drossaert

C. H. C.

Pieterse

M. E.

Bolier

Walburg

J. A.

Bohlmeijer

E. T.

(2016). Validation of the Flourishing Scale in a sample of people with suboptimal levels of mental well-being. BMC Psychology, 4(1), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0116-5

72.

Schunk

D. H.

Mullen

C. A.

(2012). Self-efficacy as an engaged learner. In Christenson

S. L.

Reschly

A. L.

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 219–235). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_10

73.

Seligman

M. E.

(2011). Flourish: The new positive psychology and the search for well-being. Free Press.

74.

Sharma-Brymer

Brymer

(2020). Flourishing and Eudaimonic well-being. In Leal Filho

Wall

Azul

A. M.

Brandli

Özuyar

P. G.

(Eds.), Good health and well-being (pp. 205–214). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95681-7_4

75.

Sherer

Maddux

J. E.

Mercandante

Prentice-Dunn

Jacobs

Rogers

R. W.

(1982). The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51(2), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663

76.

Sieger

(2017). Music performance anxiety in instrumental music students: A multiple case study of teacher perspectives. Contributions to Music Education, 42, 35–52.

77.

Simoens

V. L.

Puttonen

Tervaniemi

(2015). Are music performance anxiety and performance boost perceived as extremes of the same continuum? Psychology of Music, 43(2), 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735613499200

78.

Sinden

L. M.

(1999). Music performance anxiety: Contributions of perfectionism, coping style, self-efficacy, and self-esteem. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 60(3–A), Article 0590.

79.

Huppert

(2009). What percentage of people in Europe are flourishing and what characterizes them? The Well-Being Institute, University of Cambridge.

80.

Swanwick

(2008). The “good-enough” music teacher. British Journal of Music Education, 25(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265051707007693

81.

Tahirbegi

(2021). Higher music education students’ experiences and management of performance anxiety: A qualitative study. Psychology of Music, 50, 1184–1196. https://doi.org/10.1177/03057356211034573

82.

Tang

Duan

Wang

Liu

(2016). Psychometric evaluation of the simplified Chinese version of Flourishing Scale. Research on Social Work Practice, 26(5), 591–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731514557832

83.

Valenzuela

Codina

Pestana

J. V.

(2018). Self-determination theory applied to flow in conservatoire music practice: The roles of perceived autonomy and competence, and autonomous and controlled motivation. Psychology of Music, 46(1), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735617694502

84.

Wang

Yang

(2024). The influence of music performance anxiety on career expectations of early musical career students: Self-efficacy as a moderator. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1411944.

85.

Wentzel

K. R.

(2017). Peer relationships, motivation, and academic performance at school. In Elliot

A. J.

Dweck

C. S.

Yeager

D. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation: Theory and application (2nd ed., pp. 586–603). Guilford Press.

86.

Willis

(2024). Teachers prioritise relationships over curriculum for student well-being. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 32, 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2022.2055116

87.

Woods

Sebastian

Herman

K. C.

Huang

F.-L.

Reinke

W. M.

Thompson

A. M

. (2023). The relationship between teacher stress and job satisfaction as moderated by coping. Psychology in the Schools, 60(7), 2237–2256. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22857

88.

Wubbels

Brekelmans

Mainhard

den Brok

van Tartwijk

(2016). Teacher–student relationships and student achievement. In Wentzel

Ramani

(Eds.), Handbook of social influences in school contexts (pp. 127–142). Routledge.

89.

Yang

Nay

Hoyle

R. H.

(2010). Three approaches to using lengthy ordinal scales in structural equation models: Parceling, latent scoring, and shortening scales. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34(2), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146621609338592

90.

Yang

Schroeder

Rodger

(2023). The role of perfectionism in music performance anxiety within university piano majors in China. In Raposo

Neves

Silva

Correia Castilho

Dias

(Eds.), Advances in design, music and arts II (pp. 674–689). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09659-4_48

91.

Zarza-Alzugaray

F. J.

Casanova

McPherson

G. E.

Orejudo

(2020). Music self-efficacy for performance: An explanatory model based on social support. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article e01249. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01249

92.

Zelenak

M. S.

(2020). Developing self-efficacy to improve music achievement. Music Educators Journal, 107(2), 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432120950812

93.

Zhao

Xie

Liu

(2010). The analysis of mood taxonomy comparison between Chinese and Western music. In 2010 2nd international conference on signal processing systems (pp. 1V1–606). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICSPS.2010.5555502

94.

Zhou

Huo

(2022). Chinese youths’ physical activity and flourishing during COVID-19: The mediating role of meaning in life and self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 867599.

95.

Zhu

Law

K. S.

Sun

Yang

(2019). Thriving of employees with disabilities: The roles of job self-efficacy, inclusion, and team-learning climate. Human Resource Management, 58(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21920

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB