Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT - Research is reviewed on singing, health and well-beingfrom the perspective of health psychology. In accordance with a multidimensional, biopsychosocial conceptual framework commonly used by health psychologists, the review is organized by biological, psychological and social factors that collectively contribute to health. Studies using quantitative and qualitative methods are reviewed that include singing prescribed as intervention, and research with professional and amateur singers. Although research findings are often inconclusive, preliminary evidence suggests possible benefits of breathing and short-term immune response. Mood, stress, and social responses may vary with amateur or professional status and nature of the singing activity (group or solo, rehearsal or performance). Potential mechanisms and variables for future study are proposed. Recommendations for further research include studies that are interdisciplinary, address basic descriptive phenomena as well as explanatory mechanisms, utilize appropriate methods and controls while maintaining validity, measure long-term health, examine potential drawbacks of singing, and explore linkages among biological, psychological and social processes. KEYWORDS - singing, health, well-being, singing and health, singing and well-being idea that singing may be conducive to wellbeing is an old one. In Cervantes' (1605/1885) 17th century novel, Don Quixote states that he who sings scares away his woes (p. 171). Longfellow's (1881) poem The Day is Done similarly suggests the power of singing to drive away sorrow (e.g., Such songs have power to quiet restless pulse of care; p. 134). In addition, Hunter (1999) reports on references to physical health benefits of singing in his review of articles published between 1891 and 1949 in a popular music magazine, Etude. Why might singing be beneficial? Everyday experience suggests that singing favorite, upbeat songs may energize us or even provide a physical workout. Indeed, singing was discussed by several Etude authors as an appropriate means of exercising the lungs in women, because they were often prohibited from participating in exercise, and, moreover, had to wear restricting corsets (Hunter, 1999). Hunter (1999) also reports that Etude authors described singing as a pleasant diversion for hospitalized patients. Given that positive mood and exercise are generally related to good health (Pressman & Cohen, 2005), it is not unreasonable to expect potential benefits to health from singing. Is there research evidence to support the common-sense and anecdotal claims of benefits of singing to health and well-being? In contrast to research on benefits of music to health or well-being, singing is under-researched. A search of a common psychology database (Psychlnfo) yielded 550 journal articles on music (and not singing), health or well-being, in contrast to 48 articles on singing, health or well-being. Research on singing varies widely in purpose, methodological approach, and measures. Examples include a quasi-experimental study of successful aging in choral members vs. nonchoral members of a retirement community (Wise, Hartmann, & Fischer, 1992); an experimental study of singing as an inexpensive and non-pharmacological treatment for distress following knee surgery (Giaquinto, Cacciato, Minasi, Sostero, &: Amanda, 2006), and associations between performance satisfaction and immune response in professional choral singers (Beck, Cesario, Yousefi, & Enamoto, 2000). Given the varying populations and methodological approaches, perhaps it is not surprising that the research lacks an overarching theoretical framework, including what is meant by health and well-being. One objective of the present review is to consolidate research on singing, health and well-being into a common conceptual framework in order to facilitate its evaluation, consideration of possible mechanisms by which singing may have its effects, and suggestions for further research. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".