Sample Answer
Music, Emotion and Wellbeing
Introduction
Music performance and music-based interventions are deeply entwined with human emotion. Performers shape emotional experience through intentional expression and technique; listeners and contexts co-produce those experiences. Separately, music is used therapeutically for a range of health and wellbeing needs, including autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This essay critically examines (1) the factors that contribute to emotional experiences in music performance, focusing on the role of the performer, performance context, musical structure and social influences, and (2) what is known about music’s beneficial effects in autism, the mechanisms proposed, and limits of current evidence. Throughout I draw on key empirical and theoretical work, highlight strengths of current knowledge, and identify gaps and uncertainties that call for cautious interpretation and future research.
Part I, What Shapes Emotional Experience in Music Performance?
Core mechanisms: musical structure, expectation and physiological response
A large body of work locates musical emotion in the interaction between structural features of music and the listener’s perceptual and predictive machinery. Huron’s Sweet Anticipation (2006) argues that music generates emotion through the manipulation of expectations; surprise, fulfilment and frustration of expectations produce affective responses. Neurocognitive reviews (e.g. Koelsch, 2014) show that music engages limbic and paralimbic circuitry (amygdala, ventral striatum), supporting pleasure, arousal and reward responses. Juslin and Västfjäll (2008) synthesised mechanisms into a multi-pathway model, including brainstem reflexes (immediate arousal), evaluative conditioning, contagion, visual imagery and cognitive appraisal, arguing that no single mechanism explains all musical emotion.
Implication: musical structure (melody, harmony, tempo, dynamics, timbre) provides the raw material; the perceptual and neural systems mediate emotional response. But structure alone does not determine emotion: context and agentive factors matter.
The role of the performer: expressive intention, technique and authenticity
Performers influence emotional experience through expressivity (timing, dynamics, articulation), gesture and staging, and through communicative intention. Gabrielsson’s work on emotional communication in performance (2003) distinguishes between expressed emotion (what performer conveys) and felt emotion (what performer experiences), and finds that expressive cues reliably shape listeners’ emotional inferences. Empirical studies show that small timing variations, rubato, and dynamic shading strongly affect perceived sadness, joy or anger (Juslin & Laukka, 2003).
Performers’ authentic engagement, whether the performer is genuinely emotionally involved, also matters. When performers report feeling the emotions they convey, listeners often rate performances as more moving (Kawakami & Furukawa, 2019). However, “authenticity” is complex: staged expressivity can be convincing even in absence of felt emotion.
Critique / Uncertainties: many experiments use short excerpts and laboratory listeners; ecological validity for full concerts is uncertain. Self-report measures of felt emotion are subjective and vulnerable to bias. Causal pathways (does performer feeling increase listener emotions directly, or via richer expressivity?) remain under-explored.
Performance context and social influences
Context alters emotional meaning. The same piece performed in a recital hall, a festival, or a ritual will evoke different responses because of audience expectations, social norms, and setting (Small, 1998). Social-psychological processes play a role: Zajonc’s social facilitation (1965) shows that the presence of others alters performers’ arousal and performance quality; audience feedback (applause, silence) modulates performer expression in real time, creating bidirectional loops of emotion.
Group performance adds further dynamics: entrainment and interpersonal coordination among musicians produce emergent affect (Keller, 2014). For audiences, collective listening produces shared emotional states, “emotional contagion” through nonverbal cues and synchronized breathing/heartbeat (Nomura et al., 2016).
Critique / Uncertainties: the richness of live contexts defies easy experimental control. Social influences are culturally mediated; cross-cultural research is limited. We lack fine-grained, real-world physiological and behavioural datasets that capture performer–audience interaction across diverse settings.
Individual differences: expertise, personality and training
Listeners’ and performers’ traits shape emotion. Musical expertise enhances sensitivity to subtle cues and modulates neural responses (Brattico & Pearce, 2013). Personality (e.g. openness to experience) correlates with stronger emotional engagement with music (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003). Performance anxiety (Kenny, 2011) is another influential factor: moderate anxiety can heighten expressivity, but excessive anxiety impairs performance and emotional communication (Yerkes–Dodson law).
Part II, Music, Autism and Wellbeing: Evidence, Mechanisms and Limits
What do systematic reviews and trials show?
Interest in music therapy and music-based interventions for autism has grown over recent decades. A major synthesis by Geretsegger et al. (2014, Cochrane review) concluded that music therapy, particularly improvisational approaches, can improve social interaction, verbal communication and non-verbal communication in children with ASD, compared with standard care or play therapy. More recent randomised controlled trials (e.g. Sharda et al., 2018) have reported improvements in social communication and brain connectivity following structured music interventions.
However, heterogeneity is substantial: studies differ in intervention type (active music therapy vs. passive listening), duration, outcome measures and participant characteristics. Effect sizes vary, samples are often small, and long-term follow-up data are scarce.
Critical point: evidence supports potential benefits, especially for social engagement and communication, but not uniform or miraculous effects. Quality and replicability of trials need strengthening.
Proposed mechanisms: entrainment, shared attention, reward and neural plasticity
Several plausible mechanisms explain why music may help people with ASD:
-
Rhythmic entrainment and temporal predictability: rhythm can scaffold motor coordination and attention. The Dynamic Attending Theory suggests that predictable beats improve temporal expectations, which may aid joint attention and turn-taking (Large & Jones, 1999). Clinically, rhythmic cueing supports speech prosody and timing.
-
Social co-regulation and joint attention: interactive music-making provides clear, multimodal cues (sound, gesture) that scaffold shared attention and reciprocity, core challenges in ASD. Improvisational music therapy fosters turn-taking and contingent responsiveness in a non-threatening medium (Wigram, 2004).
-
Reward system engagement: music activates reward circuits (ventral striatum), possibly increasing motivation for social engagement (Salimpoor et al., 2013). If music is intrinsically rewarding, it can be used as a bridge to social interaction and learning.
-
Neural connectivity and plasticity: some neuroimaging studies (e.g. Sharda et al., 2018) show altered functional connectivity after music interventions, suggesting that music may facilitate neural pathways involved in social and communicative processing.
Uncertainties: causal links between these mechanisms and observed behavioural change are not firmly established; many studies infer mechanisms post hoc. Individual differences (e.g. sensory sensitivities, musical preference) moderate effects.
