CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 88Music Therapy and HealthNeuroscience and Music PerceptionDiverse Music Education Insights

Psychobiological Effects of Choral Singing on Affective State, Social Connectedness, and Stress: Influences of Singing Activity and Time Course

Open access
Bullack, Antje, Gass, Carolin, Nater, Urs M., Kreutz, Gunter·2018·Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00223PMC PMC6170917
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Previous studies have suggested that there are complex psychobiological effects of amateur choral singing on wellbeing. Here, we investigate the influences of singing versus non-singing on psychological and biological measurements, reflecting current positive and negative affect, perceived social connectedness and physiological stress. We hypothesized that active singing leads to significant increases in these measurements compared to participating without singing. Amateur choristers (Exp. 1: N = 54, age range 18 to 85 years and Exp. 2: N = 49, age range 18 to 85 years) were tested in two experiments in which approximately half of the group was asked not to sing over periods of 30 (Exp. 1) and 60 minutes (Exp. 2), while the other half of the group sang. Dependent measures included scales for positive and negative affect and perceived social connectedness. In addition, saliva samples were collected to assess cortisol and alpha-amylase. The results revealed that singing activity had positive influences on affect measurements. However, significant increases in perceived social connectedness for singing were found only in Exp. 2. Biomarker changes were not significant across the experiments. Together, our findings suggest that both singing activity and duration of singing modulate psychological effects, with perceived social connectedness evolving over larger time spans than 30 minutes. Findings support the notion of beneficial psychological effects also for individuals, who report lower levels of general social support. The unexpected absence of biological effects warrants further investigation.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In two naturalistic choir experiments, active singing improved affective state compared with non-singing, but significant increases in perceived social connectedness emerged only after 60 min. Salivary cortisol and alpha-amylase showed no significant changes across either experiment.

Key findings

  • Singing improved affect: in Exp. 1 (N = 54, 30 min), positive affect increased only in singers, t(30) = 4.17, p < 0.001, d = 0.75, while non-singers showed no change, t(30) = 0.45, p = 0.66; negative affect decreased in singers, t(30) = 4.00, p < 0.001, d = 0.71, with a significant time × group interaction, F(1, 51) = 5.24, p < 0.05, ηp² = 0.09.
  • In Exp. 2 (N = 49, 60 min), positive affect showed a significant time × group interaction, F(1.51, 69.25) = 12.16, p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.21; non-singers decreased in positive affect from T1 to T2, t(16) = 2.91, p < 0.033, d = 0.71, and T1 to T3, t(16) = 3.77, p < 0.006, d = 0.92, while singers did not significantly increase.
  • Negative affect in Exp. 2 also showed a significant time × group interaction, F(1.62, 74.70) = 10.77, p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.19; singers decreased from T1 to T2, t(30) = 2.87, p < 0.033, d = 0.68, whereas non-singers increased from T2 to T3, t(17) = 2.87, p < 0.033, d = 0.52, and T1 to T3, t(16) = 3.79, p < 0.006, d = 0.92.
  • Perceived social connectedness increased significantly for singers only in Exp. 2: time × group interaction F(1.52, 65.53) = 10.60, p < 0.001, ηp² = 0.20; singers increased T1–T2, t(28) = 3.64, p < 0.006, d = 0.68, T2–T3, t(28) = 3.04, p < 0.006, d = 0.56, and T1–T3, t(28) = 5.03, p < 0.0006, d = 0.93, while non-singers showed no changes. Biomarker changes were not significant; only non-significant sAA decreases appeared in Exp. 1, F(1, 42) = 4.00, p = 0.052, ηp² = 0.08, and Exp. 2, F(2, 82) = 2.68, p = 0.07, ηp² = 0.06.

Methods

  • Two experiments in an existing amateur choir: Exp. 1 randomized 54 adults (mean age = 59.63 years, SD = 15.01, range 18–85; 43 females) into singing (n = 31) and non-singing (n = 23) groups for 30 min; Exp. 2 randomized 49 adults (mean age = 57.69 years, SD = 14.89, range 18–85; 39 females) into singing (n = 31) and non-singing (n = 18) groups for 60 min, with 45 participants identical across sessions.
  • Measures included positive and negative affect (three items each, 0–3), perceived social connectedness (Inclusion of Community in Self Scale, 1–6), general social support (F-SozU), health-related quality of life (SF-12), and saliva samples for cortisol and alpha-amylase.
  • Main analyses used 2 × 2 (Exp. 1) and 2 × 3 (Exp. 2) repeated-measures ANOVAs with group and time, plus ANCOVA for social connectedness with F-SozU as covariate; cortisol and alpha-amylase were log-transformed, and one-tailed tests with Bonferroni adjustment were used.

Limitations

  • The paper states that participants came from a pre-existing choir, producing heterogeneity in age, education, and health status, and an unbalanced female-to-male proportion; the singing repertoire was chosen by the conductor and may have influenced measures.
  • The paper states that demand characteristics were a critical issue: non-singers were asked to refrain from singing over extended periods, adherence and covert engagement were not controlled, task demands could have provoked negative feelings, and perceived stress was not measured; the design assessed only short-term effects.
  • Evident from the text: Exp. 1 had a non-significant baseline sAA trend between groups, t(45) = 1.98, p = 0.054, d = 0.59; Exp. 2 may have carried over knowledge from Exp. 1, and all tenor singers were allocated to the singing group because of their small number.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00223

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 34 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Significant increases in perceived social connectedness for singing were found only in Experiment 2.

    “However, significant increases in perceived social connectedness for singing were found only in Exp. 2.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In amateur choristers, singing activity (vs non-singing) had positive influences on affect measurements.

    “The results revealed that singing activity had positive influences on affect measurements.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The six-item self-report scale validly measures positive and negative affect.
    • Rests on an assumption: The non-singing group's mere physical presence in the choir without singing adequately controls for non-singing aspects of choir participation.
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants adhered to the instruction not to sing (non-singing group) or to sing (singing group).
  • Findingown data

    Biomarker changes (cortisol and alpha-amylase) were not significant across the experiments.

    “Biomarker changes were not significant across the experiments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    No significant main effects of time or group on perceived social connectedness were found, regardless of general social support, F(1, 42) = 0.07, p = 0.80, ηp2 = 0.002.

    “Finally, no significant main effects of time or group on SOC were found, regardless of general social support, F(1, 42) = 0.07, p = 0.80, ηp2 = 0.002.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The singers showed a significant decrease in perceived negative affect between T1 and T2, t(30) = 2.87, p < 0.033, d = 0.68.

    “The singers showed a significant decrease of perceived NA between T1 and T2, t(30) = 2.87, p < 0.033, d = 0.68.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 46
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 29
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For positive affect, the time × group interaction was a non-significant trend (F(1, 52) = 3.77, p = 0.06, ηp2 = 0.07), and pairwise comparisons revealed no significant between-group differences (all ts ≤ 1.21, all ps ≥ 0.23).

    “A time x group interaction for positive affect indicated a non-significant trend, F(1, 52) = 3.77, p = 0.06, ηp2 = 0.07, however, pairwise comparisons revealed no significant differences between groups, all ts ≤ 1.21, all ps ≥ 0.23.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The six-item self-report scale validly measures positive and negative affect.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The singing group showed significant increases in perceived social connectedness between T1 and T2, t(28) = 3.64, p < 0.006, d = 0.68, between T2 and T3, t(28) = 3.04, p < 0.006, d = 0.56, and from T1 to T3, t(28) = 5.03, p < 0.0006, d = 0.93.

    “In addition, in-group comparisons revealed that the SIG showed significant increases between T1 and T2, t(28) = 3.64, p < 0.006, d = 0.68, between T2 and T3, t(28) = 3.04, p < 0.006, d = 0.56, and from T1 to T3, t(28) = 5.03, p < 0.0006, d = 0.93.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No interaction or main effects for salivary cortisol measures were found, all Fs ≤ 2.68, all ps ≥ 0.10.

    “No interaction or main effects for the CORT measures were found, all Fs ≤ 2.68, all ps ≥ 0.10.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    General social support appears not to compromise the evolving feeling of social connectedness.

    “Note that general social support appears to not compromise the evolving feeling of social connectedness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The singing group showed significantly lower negative affect at T2 compared to the non-singing group (t(52) = 2.73, p < 0.01, d = 0.75), with no significant between-group differences at baseline.

    “Comparisons of the means revealed no significant between-group differences at baseline, whereas the singing group showed significantly lower values at T2 compared to the non-singing group, t(52) = 2.73, p < 0.01, d = 0.75.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The six-item self-report scale validly measures positive and negative affect.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a non-significant trend for a main effect of time for sAA (F(1, 42) = 4.00, p = 0.052, ηp2 = 0.08), indicating a decrease of sAA across groups, but Bonferroni post-hoc revealed no significant differences between T1 and T2.

    “The only exception was a non-significant trend for a main effect of time for sAA, F(1, 42) = 4.00, p = 0.052, ηp2 = 0.08, indicating a decrease of sAA across groups. Nevertheless, the Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc analysis revealed no significant differences between T1 and T2.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “Although the sAA levels decreased during the choir rehearsal, this trend was not significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Negative affect in the non-singing group increased between T2 and T3, t(17) = 2.87, p < 0.033, d = 0.52, and from T1 to T3, t(16) = 3.79, p < 0.006, d = 0.92.

    “Figure 2 shows that NA in the non-singing group increased between T2 and T3, t(17) = 2.87, p < 0.033, d = 0.52, and from T1 to T3, t(16) = 3.79, p < 0.006, d = 0.92.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A significant decrease of negative affect over time was found for singers (t(30) = 4.00, p < 0.001, d = 0.71), whereas non-singers indicated no such changes (t(21) = 0.11, p = 0.92).

    “In addition, a significant decrease of NA over time was found for the singers, t(30) = 4.00, p < 0.001, d = 0.71. In contrast, the non-singers indicated no such changes of negative affect, t(21) = 0.11, p = 0.92 (cf. Figure 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The six-item self-report scale validly measures positive and negative affect.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The non-singing group showed a decrease in positive affect between T1 and T2, t(16) = 2.91, p < 0.033, d = 0.71, and from T1 to T3, t(16) = 3.77, p < 0.006, d = 0.92.

    “whereas the non-singing group showed a decrease of PA between T1 and T2, t(16) = 2.91, p < 0.033, d = 0.71, and from T1 to T3, t(16) = 3.77, p < 0.006, d = 0.92”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Inclusion of F-SozU as a covariate in an additional ANOVA did not alter the results for perceived social connectedness (F(1, 48) = 0.77, p = 0.39, ηp2 = 0.02).

    “However, the inclusion of this independent measure did not alter these results, F(1, 48) = 0.77, p = 0.39, ηp2 = 0.02.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No changes in perceived social connectedness occurred in the non-singing group, all ts ≤ 0.96, all ps ≥ 0.35.

    “In contrast, no changes in the NSG occurred, all ts ≤ 0.96, all ps ≥ 0.35.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a non-significant trend indicating a time × group interaction effect for perceived social connectedness (F(1, 49) = 3.47, p = 0.07, ηp2 = 0.07), and between-group comparisons revealed no significant differences (all ts ≤ 0.99, all ps ≥ 0.32).

    “There was a non-significant trend indicating a time x group interaction effect, F(1, 49) = 3.47, p = 0.07, ηp2= 0.07. Comparison of the means between groups revealed no significant differences, all ts ≤ 0.99, all ps ≥ 0.32.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
      “There was a non-significant trend indicating an increase of SOC values in the singing group but not in the non-singing group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    A negative correlation was observed between age and physical health component scores, r(46) = −0.30, p < 0.05.

    “Again, a negative correlation was observed between age and PCS, r(46) = −0.30, p < 0.05.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a non-significant trend indicating differences in perceived social connectedness between groups, with an increase in the singing group and no such increase in the non-singing group.

    “Furthermore, there was a non-significant trend indicating differences in perceived social connectedness between groups, with an increase in the singing group, whereas no such increase was found in the non-singing group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    There was a non-significant trend for the main effect of salivary alpha-amylase, F(2, 82) = 2.68, p = 0.07, ηp2 = 0.06, indicating a decrease of salivary alpha-amylase over time.

    “The only exception was a non-significant trend for the main effect of sAA, F(2, 82) = 2.68, p = 0.07, ηp2 = 0.06, indicating a decrease of sAA over time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In-group comparisons showed a significant increase of positive affect in the singing group only (t(30) = 4.17, p < 0.001, d = 0.75), whereas the non-singing group showed no such change (t(30) = 0.45, p = 0.66).

    “Even so, as depicted in Figure 1, in-group comparisons showed a significant increase of PA in the singing group only, t(30) = 4.17, p < 0.001, d = 0.75, whereas the non-singing group showed no such changes, t(30) = 0.45, p = 0.66.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The six-item self-report scale validly measures positive and negative affect.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In-group comparisons revealed a significant increase of perceived social connectedness in the singing group (t(27) = 4.35, p < 0.001, d = 0.82), whereas SOC remained level for non-singers (t(22) = 1.19, p = 0.25).

    “However, in-group comparisons revealed a significant increase of SOC values in singing group, t(27) = 4.35, p < 0.001, d = 0.82, whereas SOC remained level for the non-singers, t(22) = 1.19, p = 0.25.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The ANOVA for perceived social connectedness produced no significant interactions, but there was a significant main effect of time (F(1, 49) = 13.79, p ≤ 0.001, ηp2 = 0.22), with higher ratings at T2 compared to T1.

    “The ANOVA for perceived social connectedness (SOC) produced no significant interactions, however, there was a significant main effect of time, F(1, 49) = 13.79, p ≤ 0.001, ηp2 = 0.22. The Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc analysis revealed higher ratings at T2 [95% CI (3.88, 4.57)] compared to T1 [95% CI (3.33, 4.06)].”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
      “Second, the results indicate no between-group differences regarding the perceived social connectedness (SOC) but instead a general increase over time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    A positive correlation was observed between general social support and mental health component scores, r(46) = 0.53, p < 0.001.

    “Furthermore, a positive correlation was observed between the general social support and the MCS, r(46) = 0.53, p < 0.001.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was a significant main effect of time for positive affect (F(1, 52) = 7.44, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.13), with a significant increase from T1 to T2.

    “However, there was a significant main effect of time, F(1, 52) = 7.44, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.13. The Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc analysis revealed a significant increase between the T1 [95% CI (1.75, 2.14)] and T2 [95% CI (1.95, 2.33)].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The six-item self-report scale validly measures positive and negative affect.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Pairwise comparisons revealed no significant between-group differences in perceived social connectedness at all three time points, all ts ≤ 1.93, all ps ≥ 0.07.

    “Pairwise comparisons revealed no significant between-group differences at all three time points, all ts ≤ 1.93, all ps ≥ 0.07.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    There has been a connection between general social support (F-SozU) and the mental health score (MCS).

    “Furthermore, there has been a connection between general social support (F-SozU) and the mental health score (MCS).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Nater et al. (2005) found marked increases in sAA levels in participants exposed to the Trier Social Stress Test.

    “For example Nater et al. (2005), found marked increases in sAA levels in participants exposed to the Trier Social Stress Test.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Nater et al., 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    There was a non-significant trend indicating higher sAA levels in the singing group compared to the non-singing group at baseline (t(45) = 1.98, p = 0.054, d = 0.59).

    “Nevertheless, a non-significant trend indicated a difference of the groups regarding sAA levels at T1, t(45) = 1.98, p = 0.054, d = 0.59. The sAA values of the singing group were higher at baseline compared to the non-singers, and the difference indicated a medium size effect.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductcitation

    An a priori power analysis indicated a total sample size of 54 participants was needed to obtain an effect size of f = 0.25 (α-level 0.05, power 0.95, correlations among repeated measures 0.5).

    “According to this programme, a total sample size of 54 participants was needed to obtain an effect size of f = 0.25 (α-level: 0.05, power (1–β): 0.95, correlations among repeated measures: 0.5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Erdfelder et al., 1996 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Decreases of salivary cortisol have been found in low-stress singing conditions, while high-stress conditions are often connected with increased cortisol levels.

    “Decreases of salivary cortisol have been found in low-stress singing conditions, while high-stress conditions (e.g., performances) are often connected with increased cortisol levels (Beck et al., 2000; Fancourt et al., 2015, 2016; Schladt et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Beck et al., 2000 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Fancourt et al., 2015, 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Schladt et al., 2017 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Sex, intake of medication, acute disease, and chronic illness were entered as between-subject factors in a previous analysis to assess any influence from these variables.

    “Sex (female/male), intake of medication (no medication/ medication), and acute disease (no disease/ disease), as well as a chronic illness (no illness/illness), were entered as between-subject factors in a previous analysis to assess any influence from these variables.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Both singing activity and duration of singing modulate psychological effects, with perceived social connectedness evolving over larger time spans than 30 min.

    “Together, our findings suggest that both singing activity and duration of singing modulate psychological effects, with perceived social connectedness evolving over larger time spans than 30 min.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were randomized into singing and non-singing groups, with equal distribution of voice types considered.

    “They were randomized into a singing group (SIG; n = 31; 26 females) and a non-singing group (NSG; n = 23; 17 females), and the equal distribution of every voice type was considered.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study was performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Carl von Ossietzky University's Ethics Committee, which approved the protocol.

    “This study was performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Carl von Ossietzky University's Ethics Committee. This committee approved the protocol of the current study.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Neither sex, intake of medication, nor chronic and acute diseases yielded any interaction effects on the dependent measures (all Fs ≤ 3.22, all ps ≥ 0.08).

    “Neither sex, intake of medication nor chronic and acute diseases yielded any interaction effects on the dependent measures in this study and, thus, were not considered in further analyses, all Fs ≤ 3.22, all ps ≥ 0.08.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Inter- and intraassay variance was below 10.00% for both CORT and sAA.

    “Inter- and intraassay variance was below 10.00% for both CORT and sAA.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    For perceived social connectedness, an additional ANCOVA was conducted with general perceived social support (F-SozU) as a covariate.

    “In case of SOC, an additional ANCOVA was conducted, using the same factors as described above but with the general perceived social support (F-SozU) as a covariate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    At baseline (T1), there were no between-group differences in physical or mental health scores, general social support, positive and negative affect, perceived social connectedness, or physiological measures (all ts ≤ 1.98, all ps ≥ 0.10).

    “No between-group differences regarding physical or mental health scores, general social support, positive and negative affect, perceived social connectedness or physiological measures were found at T1, all ts ≤ 1.98, all ps ≥ 0.10).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Preconditions for conducting ANOVAs (normality, Box's M test of equality of covariance matrices, and Mauchly's test of sphericity) were assessed.

    “The preconditions for conducting ANOVAs were assessed (normality Box's M test of equality of covariance matrices and Mauchly's test of sphericity).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Due to incomplete data, one participant was excluded from negative affect analysis, three from perceived social connectedness, three from cortisol, and eight from alpha-amylase.

    “Due to incomplete data, one participant had to be excluded from further analysis regarding negative affect, and three participants were excluded from the analysis of the perceived social connectedness. Furthermore, because of unusual results concerning the intake of food within the last hour before testing, three participants were excluded from the analysis of cortisol measures, as well as eight”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Short-term changes in affect from singing seem well-documented, while time effects of singing on social connectedness have been neglected.

    “While short-term changes in affect seem well-documented, the time effects of singing on social connectedness have been neglected (Tarr et al., 2014).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tarr et al., 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Cortisol is a hormone associated with emotional stress and a valid measure for hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis activity.

    “For example, it appears to be well-established that cortisol (CORT) is a hormone associated with emotional stress and a valid measure for hypothalamus–pituitary–adrenal axis (HPA) activity (Kirschbaum and Hellhammer, 1994).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kirschbaum and Hellhammer, 1994 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Positive affect was stable in the singing group, which also benefited from decreases in negative affect.

    “Nonetheless, positive affect was stable in the singing group, which also benefited from decreases of negative affect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Active singing did not affect positive affect, whereas participants in the non-singing group experienced a decrease in positive affect.

    “Surprisingly, and contrary to Experiment 1, active singing did not affect positive affect (PA), whereas the participants in the non-singing group experienced a decrease in positive effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Due to the small number of tenor singers, all participants of this voice type were allocated to the SIG.

    “However, due to the small quantity of tenor singers, all participants of this voice type were allocated to the SIG.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were randomized into a singing group (SIG; n = 31) and a non-singing group (NSG; n = 18), with equal distribution of every voice type considered.

    “They were randomized into a singing group (SIG; n = 31; 25 females) and a non-singing group (NSG; n = 18; 14 females), and the equal distribution of every voice type was considered.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Previous studies have pointed out psychological benefits of choral singing to individuals suffering from mental health problems.

    “Previous studies have pointed out the psychological benefits of choral singing to individuals suffering from mental health problems (e.g., Coulton et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Coulton et al., 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    A priori power analysis indicated that 44 participants were needed to achieve a medium effect size (f = 0.25) with a repeated measures ANOVA and a within-between subject design (alpha = 0.05, power = 0.95, correlations among repeated measures = 0.5).

    “A priori power analysis revealed a necessary sample size of 44 participants to achieve a medium effect size (f = 0.25), with a repeated measures ANOVA and a within-between subject design [α-level: 0.05, power (1–β): 0.95, correlations among repeated measures: 0.5].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results suggest that singing activity influences psychological measures but not physiological measures.

    “In sum, the results suggest that singing activity influences psychological measures but not physiological measures.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The perceived social connectedness result could be attributed to the specific choir group; most members have been involved for a long time, so social connectedness may not vary as much as in a newly formed singing group.

    “To some extent, this result could be attributed to the specific choir group. Although the members of the participating choir fluctuate to a certain extent, most members have been involved in this group for a long time. Therefore, the SOC may not vary as much as it does in a newly formed singing group (Kreutz, 2014; Pearce et al., 2015).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kreutz, 2014 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Pearce et al., 2015 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: Familiarity between the choir members influenced perceived social connectedness, making it harder to provoke changes in this measure.
    • Rests on an assumption: Most members of the participating choir have been involved in this group for a long time.

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationown data

    Changes in both dimensions of affect were found in active singers only, while no changes were found through mere exposure.

    “In addition, our results show that changes were caused by singing activity only, while no changes were found through mere exposure.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The six-item self-report scale validly measures positive and negative affect.
    • Rests on an assumption: The non-singing group's mere physical presence in the choir without singing adequately controls for non-singing aspects of choir participation.
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants adhered to the instruction not to sing (non-singing group) or to sing (singing group).

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    These findings corroborate those of previous research (Kreutz et al., 2004; Fancourt et al., 2016).

    “These findings corroborate those of previous research (Kreutz et al., 2004; Fancourt et al., 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kreutz et al., 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Fancourt et al., 2016 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    No between-group differences were found at baseline in physical or mental health component scores, general social support, positive and negative affect, perceived social connectedness, or physiological measures (all ts ≤ 1.47, all ps ≥ 0.15).

    “No between-group differences regarding physical or mental health component scores, general social support, positive and negative affect, perceived social connectedness or physiological measures were found, all ts ≤ 1.47, all ps ≥ 0.15.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Due to incomplete data, one participant was excluded from negative affect and positive affect analyses, three from perceived social connectedness, four from salivary cortisol, and five from salivary alpha-amylase because of unusual values.

    “Due to incomplete data, one participant had to be excluded from further analysis regarding negative affect and positive affect, and three participants were excluded from analysis of the perceived social connectedness. Furthermore, four participants were excluded from the analysis of salivary cortisol measures, as well as five participants from analysis of salivary alpha-amylase, because of unusual”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The preconditions for conducting ANOVAs were assessed (normality, Box's M test of equality of covariance matrices, and Mauchly's test of sphericity), and Greenhouse-Geisser corrections were applied as appropriate.

    “The preconditions for conducting ANOVAs were assessed (normality Box's M test of equality of covariance matrices and Mauchly's test of sphericity). Accordingly, degrees of freedom were estimated in the F-statistics using Greenhouse-Geisser corrections, as appropriate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Members of the non-singing group did not develop strong feelings of inclusion or exclusion, suggesting that lack of singing activity was at least not detrimental to group participation per se.

    “Therefore, the members of the latter group did not develop strong feelings of inclusion or exclusion, which suggests that lack of singing activity was at least not detrimental to group participation, per se.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The non-singing group's mere physical presence in the choir without singing adequately controls for non-singing aspects of choir participation.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Joint singing may benefit social bonding, although the results were not as strong as expected.

    “This could be an indication that joint singing benefits social bonding, although the results were not as strong as expected.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Singing might have strengthened individual feelings of belonging to the group, although the short duration of the intervention may have prevented reported values from reaching significance.

    “However, singing might have strengthened individual feelings of belonging to that group, although the short duration of the intervention may have prevented reported values to reach significance levels.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    There was no balanced proportion of female and male participants.

    “Furthermore, there was no balanced proportion of female and male participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Participants in the singing group showed better affect compared to participants in the non-singing group, and this difference was particularly marked by a decrease in negative affect.

    “As expected, the participants in the singing group (SIG) showed better affect compared to participants in the non-singing group (NSG), and this difference was particularly marked by a decrease of negative affect (NA)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Positive changes in affect caused by choir singing have been reported in previous studies and could connect choir singing with a positive impact on general psychological and physiological health.

    “These positive changes in affect caused by choir singing have been reported in previous studies (Grape et al., 2003; Clift et al., 2010a) and could be one important factor that connects choir singing with a positive impact on general psychological (Valentine and Evans, 2001; Clift and Hancox, 2010) and physiological health (Kreutz et al., 2004; Fancourt et al., 2016; Schladt et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Grape et al., 2003; Clift et al., 2010a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Valentine and Evans, 2001; Clift and Hancox, 2010

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Kreutz et al., 2004; Fancourt et al., 2016; Schladt et al., 2017

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The sample represents a naturalistic choir setting and reflects the pluralism of a choral group.

    “Nevertheless, the sample represents a naturalistic choir setting and reflects the pluralism of a choral group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study was designed to evaluate short-term effects of choral singing, so it remained unclear whether long-term observations could lead to more pronounced changes.

    “Finally, this study was designed to evaluate the short-term effects of choral singing, thus, it remained unclear whether long-term observations could lead to more pronounced changes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Adherence to task demands cannot be ascertained, and the level of overt or covert engagement in singing among non-singers was not controlled.

    “We cannot ascertain to what extent each participant adhered to the task demands. Whereas, the members of the singing group did not sing continuously throughout the rehearsal sessions, which would have been unusual and unrealistic, the level of overt or covert engagement in singing among the non-singers was not controlled.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The relationship between general social support and mental health has been observed in previous studies and across different age groups.

    “This relationship has been observed in previous studies and across different age groups (Everard et al., 2000; Bovier et al., 2004; Hawton et al., 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Everard et al., 2000 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bovier et al., 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hawton et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The two studies show that the singing activity of amateur choristers influences affect and perceived social connectedness.

    “In sum, the two studies show that the singing activity of amateur choristers influences affect and perceived SOC.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The singing repertoire was not specified and was decided by the choral conductor.

    “In addition, we did not specify the singing repertoire, which was decided by the choral conductor, thus, the least possible influence on a regular choir rehearsal was provoked by the study situation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    These measures could have an essential influence on mental health and well-being.

    “These measures could have an essential influence on mental health and well-being.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Changes in perceived social connectedness are attributable to the singing group, so singing activity itself seems to influence perceived social connectedness.

    “However, changes are attributable to the SIG, thus, the singing activity itself seems to have an influence on the perceived SOC.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The stable cortisol level may be explained by a diurnal effect: cortisol is highest in the morning, decreases during waking hours, and is lowest in the evening, and the evening rehearsal time may have restricted cortisol secretion dynamics.

    “The stable level may be explained by a diurnal effect. While the CORT levels showed the highest concentration in the morning, they decreased during the waking hours and reached the lowest level in the evening (Schmidt-Reinwald et al., 1999). Given that the choir rehearsal took place between 8.30 and 9.30 p.m., it is possible that the secretion dynamics of CORT were restricted at this time of day.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Schmidt-Reinwald et al., 1999 source

      Not checked in the free run.

66 of 66

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The six-item self-report scale validly measures positive and negative affect.

    “The participants reported positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) through a total of six items, three representing PA (i.e., “I am feeling well,” “I am in good spirits,” “I am feeling unconcerned”) and three representing NA (i.e., “I am feeling tired,” “I am feeling bored,” “I am feeling stressed”).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The non-singing group's mere physical presence in the choir without singing adequately controls for non-singing aspects of choir participation.

    “To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to compare singing and non-singing conditions in a naturalistic choir setting, with no between-group differences, other than the singing activity.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants adhered to the instruction not to sing (non-singing group) or to sing (singing group).

    “Both groups were asked to follow the instructions of the conductor (e.g., to sit up straight or to read the music), except that the NSG was told to not participate in the singing activity.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Familiarity between the choir members influenced perceived social connectedness, making it harder to provoke changes in this measure.

    “It can be assumed that familiarity between the choir members influenced the perceived SOC, which makes it harder to provoke changes in this measure.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The short-time interventions did not last long enough to influence the ANS.

    “could lead to the assumption that the short-time interventions did not last long enough to influence the ANS (Nater et al., 2007).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most members of the participating choir have been involved in this group for a long time.

    “Although the members of the participating choir fluctuate to a certain extent, most members have been involved in this group for a long time.”
6 of 6

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(45) = 1.98reported p = .054 · recomputed p = .054

    “t(45) = 1.98, p = .054”

  • Consistentr(51) = -0.3reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .029

    “r(51) = −0.30, p < .05”

  • Consistentr(51) = 0.33reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .016

    “r(51) = 0.33, p < .05”

  • Consistentr(51) = 0.49reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “r(51) = 0.49, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 3.77reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .058

    “F(1, 52) = 3.77, p = .06”

  • ConsistentF(1, 52) = 7.44reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .009

    “F(1, 52) = 7.44, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(30) = 4.17reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(30) = 4.17, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(30) = 0.45reported p = .66 · recomputed p = .656

    “t(30) = 0.45, p = .66”

  • ConsistentF(1, 51) = 5.24reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .026

    “F(1, 51) = 5.24, p < .05”

  • Consistentt(52) = 2.73reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .009

    “t(52) = 2.73, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(30) = 4reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(30) = 4.00, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(21) = 0.11reported p = .92 · recomputed p = .913

    “t(21) = 0.11, p = .92”

  • ConsistentF(1, 49) = 3.47reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .068

    “F(1, 49) = 3.47, p = .07”

  • Consistentt(27) = 4.35reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(27) = 4.35, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(22) = 1.19reported p = .25 · recomputed p = .247

    “t(22) = 1.19, p = .25”

  • ConsistentF(1, 48) = 0.77reported p = .39 · recomputed p = .385

    “F(1, 48) = 0.77, p = .39”

  • ConsistentF(1, 42) = 4reported p = .052 · recomputed p = .052

    “F(1, 42) = 4.00, p = .052”

  • Consistentr(46) = -0.3reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .038

    “r(46) = −0.30, p < .05”

  • Consistentr(46) = 0.53reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “r(46) = 0.53, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1.51, 69.25) = 12.16reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1.51, 69.25) = 12.16, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(47) = 2.45reported p < .033 · recomputed p = .018

    “t(47) = 2.45, p < .033”

  • Consistentt(30) = 2.17reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .038

    “t(30) = 2.17, p = .04”

  • Consistentt(16) = 2.91reported p < .033 · recomputed p = .010

    “t(16) = 2.91, p < .033”

  • Consistentt(16) = 3.77reported p < .006 · recomputed p = .002

    “t(16) = 3.77, p < .006”

  • ConsistentF(1.62, 74.7) = 10.77reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1.62, 74.70) = 10.77, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(47) = 4.17reported p < .0006 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(47) = 4.17, p < .0006”

  • Consistentt(47) = 4.41reported p < .0006 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(47) = 4.41, p < .0006”

  • Consistentt(30) = 2.87reported p < .033 · recomputed p = .007

    “t(30) = 2.87, p < .033”

  • Consistentt(17) = 2.87reported p < .033 · recomputed p = .011

    “t(17) = 2.87, p < .033”

  • Consistentt(16) = 3.79reported p < .006 · recomputed p = .002

    “t(16) = 3.79, p < .006”

  • ConsistentF(1.52, 65.53) = 10.6reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1.52, 65.53) = 10.60, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(24.69) = 1.93reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .065

    “t(24.69) = 1.93, p = .07”

  • Consistentt(28) = 3.64reported p < .006 · recomputed p = .001

    “t(28) = 3.64, p < .006”

  • Consistentt(28) = 3.04reported p < .006 · recomputed p = .005

    “t(28) = 3.04, p < .006”

  • Consistentt(28) = 5.03reported p < .0006 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(28) = 5.03, p < .0006”

  • ConsistentF(1, 42) = 0.07reported p = .8 · recomputed p = .793

    “F(1, 42) = 0.07, p = .80”

  • ConsistentF(2, 82) = 2.68reported p = .07 · recomputed p = .075

    “F(2, 82) = 2.68, p = .07”

37 of 37

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • General discussion claims a significant SOC group difference that results deny

    Major

    The general discussion says a between-group difference in social connectedness was significant after 60 minutes, whereas the Experiment 2 results explicitly report no significant between-group difference at any time point.

  • Experiment 1 non-singer paired-test degrees of freedom imply 31 participants

    Minor

    A paired t-test with 30 degrees of freedom requires 31 participants, but the Experiment 1 non-singing group has 23.

  • Experiment 2 affect comparison conflicts with stated exclusion

    Minor

    The reported independent-samples t-test has 47 degrees of freedom, implying all 49 participants were included. The paper says one participant was excluded from positive- and negative-affect analysis.

  • Experiment 1 negative-affect comparison includes an excluded participant

    Minor

    The reported between-group t-test has 52 degrees of freedom, implying 54 participants in an ordinary independent-samples test. The paper says one of the 54 participants was excluded from negative-affect analysis, leaving at most 53.

4 of 4

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Fydrich, 2007, F-SozU: Fragebogen zur Sozialen Unterstützung
  2. Morfeld, 2011, SF-36: Deutsche Version des Short Form-36 Health Survey.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bullack, A., Gass, C., Nater, U. M., & Kreutz, G.
Affiliations
  • Carl von Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg (DE)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
  • Bullack, Antje
  • Kreutz, Gunter
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2018-09-27
Volume
12
Pages
223-223
ISSN
1662-5153 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fnbeh.2018.00223
PMC
PMC6170917
OpenAlex
W2892868581
Semantic Scholar
694c233f852db9150dc7a865d0a372c711b3306d
Cited by
88
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
8.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carl von Ossiezky University of Oldenburg (acceptedVersion)
  • Phaidra (Universität Wien) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Music Therapy and Health
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Music Perception
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Music › Diverse Music Education Insights
Keywords
choral singing, positive affect, negative affect, stress, cortisol, alpha-amylase, psychobiological effects, well-being, social support

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review