What determines whether a musical performance is considered successful? What role do visual effects, the sequence of performers, and frequency of occurrence play? The majority of processes in our brain occur unconsciously and subjectively. This provides the breeding ground for psychological effects in the assessment of musical performance: human perception and evaluation biases.
Last year (2022), I read somewhere on the internet—probably on social media—that the Queen Elizabeth Competition for cellists was taking place. I have never participated in a competition myself, not even as a child. Even before my psychology studies, I couldn't understand why artistic performances were compared as if it were a 100-meter race. Consequently, the name of the competition meant nothing to me, but it turned out to be one of the most renowned and challenging competitions in the world. Out of curiosity, I decided to examine my prejudices and, at the same time, learn something from the cellists. I wouldn't be myself if I didn't turn it into a small scientific experiment.:-)
Studies about the Queen Elisabeth Competition
A good scientist, of course, does not go into an experiment unprepared but conducts thorough literature research beforehand. In addition to classical studies on judgment biases and psychological bias, I discovered that a scientific investigation on this competition in Belgium had already been published in 1996. Titled 'The Queen Elisabeth Musical Competition - How fair is the final ranking,' authors R. Flores and V. Ginsburgh summarize their mathematical - more precisely, statistical - investigations.
What many may not know is that psychologists, like myself, are tormented (or, in my case, fascinated) with statistics and probability calculations from high school level to advanced university mathematics during their studies. So, I delved into the analyses right away.
In brief, the authors used mathematical methods to examine 21 past editions of the competition. They questioned whether objectively measurable factors, such as the order of the musicians' performances, had an impact on the ranking. The analyses revealed that the final result of the competition is not statistically independent of the order. Simply put, this means that with certain "starting numbers," one has significantly better chances of success in this competition. The best chances are with a starting number on Day 5, and the worst with a starting number on Day 1. These improved chances could not be mathematically explained by randomness but rather by psychology :-), as explained below.
[By the way, the starting numbers are traditionally drawn, so one cannot accuse the competition of arbitrary influence. It seems more like my analogy with ski jumping - if the wind is unfavorable, you simply don't get enough updraft and have to exert more effort for the same distance.]
How did my 'experiment' unfold?
The competition in 2022 was broadcasted live and recorded, and I watched the entire first round featuring 42 cellists.
As far as I understood the rules, each jury member in the first round evaluates the overall musical performance of the candidates on a scale from 0-100. Apparently, the jury is not asked to assess specific individual parameters (playing technique, musical expression, interpretation, originality, etc.). Therefore, the evaluation criteria between 0-100 are relatively subjective. Additionally, each jury member indicates with a Yes/No whether they would like to see the musician in the next round.
I adhered to the jury's method of assessment and assigned a score and a Yes/No verdict for each candidate. I followed the order of assessment but had to watch some performances as recordings at different times of the day due to professional commitments. My goal was to determine whether I mostly agreed with the jury's judgments.
What was the result of my experiment? In short, while I agreed with the jury on some candidates, the level of agreement could be statistically or mathematically explained by chance. I am by no means as qualified in assessment as the jury members, but I must give myself credit for being relatively experienced on the cello. Moreover, I have been an experienced jury member for years in the selection committee of the German National Scholarship Foundation. Therefore, it is not surprising that I did not want to see exactly the same candidates in the next round, but the fact that I only coincidentally agreed with the jury is noteworthy.
How can this result be explained psychologically?
Typical psychological effects in the assessment of other individuals, for example, in musical performance
The majority of processes in our brains occur unconsciously and subjectively. This provides the breeding ground for human perceptual and judgmental distortions (bias). The good news is that, much like with prejudices (e.g., towards other cultures, different genders, or sexual orientations), simply being aware that it could be a prejudice or, in this case, a perceptual bias, can help in assessing other people more 'objectively.'
The following psychological effects are particularly common in the assessment of musical performance.
Unclear Evaluation Criteria
A central reason for highly subjective assessments of the same performance is unclear or missing evaluation criteria. In a general assessment without a structured inquiry into specific aspects, there is considerable room for interpretation. I noticed in myself that I predominantly assessed the performances based on criteria such as liking/disliking, originality of interpretation, and, in a way, "flawlessness." But what exactly does that mean in each case? Can one aspect, like originality, outweigh another, like a few mistakes? How do these factors contribute relative to each other in the evaluation? Unconscious judgment biases, such as the Halo Effect or the Mere-Exposure Effect, also find it particularly easy to come into play.
Halo Effect
The Halo Effect describes the tendency of people to judge others based on a single characteristic that "radiates" above all else, like a halo. A well-known example from social psychology is the "What is beautiful is good" effect: Various experiments have shown that people perceive others as more competent if they are objectively considered (as far as one can say) attractive or good-looking, even if, on paper, they possess the same abilities in an experiment. The characteristic of attractiveness overshadows the other attributes of the individuals. Personality traits or skills can also exert a Halo Effect—both positive and negative!
"Sight over Sound"
All musicians will agree with me that sound is or should be the most crucial source of information for assessing the quality of a musical performance. After all, music is all about the sound. Unfortunately, a study by Chia-Jung Tsay revealed that even experienced jury members unconsciously based their judgments mainly on visual cues. In an experiment, they could most accurately identify the winners of an international music competition based on videos without sound (compared to videos with sound or sound alone). Thus, sound provided no additional information beyond the visual performance. Additionally, the study highlights how crucial stage presence/performance is during the performance itself (in front of a jury or audience).
"First Impression"
According to the rules, jury members who are related to candidates or have taught them for an extended period are not allowed to vote for them. A person is considered a "student" of the jury member only if they have had more than 5 hours of lessons with that individual, with master classes not counting. Psychologically, this rule seems weak to me because it is well-known that people form firm opinions about others after brief moments, which are challenging to correct. A study by Jones et al. in 1968 demonstrated that in a repeated performance test, the initial performance of the candidates significantly triggered bias among the assessors: candidates who improved in the retest were rated lower than the group that deteriorated. The same effect occurs with the initial impression of personality, the website, visual appearance, etc. (see also Sight over Sound).
Especially due to the one-on-one interaction, it can be assumed that teacher-student relationships may already develop relatively intense positive or negative perceptions after 5 hours, extending beyond the "objectively" musical aspects. However, I am aware that in the field of music, especially at the highest level, it would be challenging to apply a stricter rule since it is very common to attend numerous master classes or receive individual instruction from various instructors to gain diverse insights.
Order Effects
Human perception, as well as memory, is significantly influenced by order effects. People tend to better remember those who appear first and last in a sequence of individuals or content on a list than those in the middle (Primacy/Recency Effect). Indirectly, factors such as the time of day affecting alertness and cortisol levels, as well as the day of the week influencing exhaustion levels, also impact cognitive performance, such as attention to a musical performance and the ability to recall it. A jury member's personal tendency toward leniency or strictness usually diminishes with the sequence of sessions. Similar patterns are observed in academic performance tests: teachers often evaluate the first assignments of a class more rigorously and adjust their assessment later if they realize that the class's average level does not match their initial expectations. In music competitions, however, evaluations are typically submitted immediately to prevent collusion. Therefore, the first candidates often face a disadvantage, explaining the order effects observed in the study on the Queen Elisabeth Competition.
Mere-Exposure Effect
Another disadvantage for the first candidates arises when it comes to the presentation of a new, unfamiliar musical work (premiere). People tend to evaluate other individuals, things, or situations more positively the more they come into contact with them. Simply through repeated exposure (Mere-Exposure), the brain perceives the stimulus as more pleasant and relevant, and also memorizes it better. This effect is particularly exploited by consumer advertising.
Confirmation Bias
There are numerous types and variations of confirmation bias. People tend to seek and find confirmation of their own assumptions in their environment. Persistent prejudices are based, in part, on this effect. This is because the brain enjoys making predictions and particularly likes it when those predictions are fulfilled.
In the social context, there is another effect discovered by Solomon Asch in 1950. Even in the case of obvious and straightforward tasks, such as the matchstick test, individuals in groups tend to align their opinions with the incorrect opinions of others (conformity bias):
Positive Aspects of Competitions
As a psychologist, I am, of course, familiar with the Recency Effect, so I'll conclude the article with something positive :-).
Despite all the unconscious and deeply human tendencies toward psychological bias and judgmental distortion, music competitions naturally have positive effects on the candidates. Depending on one's personality, competitions can significantly boost motivation for practice, either as short- or long-term goals. Similar to other professional summits, they also provide an opportunity to learn from others (assuming openness) and to network. Additionally, stage performance and handling criticism can be practiced.
Sources & further reading
Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychological bulletin, 119(1), 111.
Bornstein, R. F., & D'agostino, P. R. (1992). Stimulus recognition and the mere exposure effect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 63(4), 545.
Flôres Jr, R. G., & Ginsburgh, V. A. (1996). The Queen Elisabeth musical competition: How fair is the final ranking? Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series D (The Statistician), 45(1), 97-104.
Glejser, H., & Heyndels, B. (2001). Efficiency and inefficiency in the ranking in competitions: The case of the Queen Elisabeth Music Contest. Journal of cultural Economics, 25, 109-129.
Klayman, J. (1995). Varieties of confirmation bias. Psychology of learning and motivation, 32, 385-418.
Jones, E. E., Rock, L., Shaver, K. G., Goethals, G. R., & Ward, L. M. (1968). Pattern of performance and ability attribution: An unexpected primacy effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10(4), 317.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of personality and social psychology, 35(4), 250.
Tan, L., & Ward, G. (2000). A recency-based account of the primacy effect in free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1589.
Tsay, C. J. (2013). Sight over sound in the judgment of music performance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(36), 14580-14585.
Comments