Hands, from Michelangelo’s “Creation of Adam,” at Italianrenaissance.org

In Createquity’s view, a healthy arts ecosystem maximizes the arts’ capacity to improve the lives of human beings in concrete and meaningful ways. As such, we have sought to better understand the various means by which one measures such improvements, the current state of research across areas of impact, and where there’s room to grow.

Why We Care

Since the evidence base for the benefits of the arts is continually developing and evolving, our investigations in this area have been fairly expansive. We began by grounding our work in the concept of wellbeing – an emerging, interdisciplinary field of study in the social sciences centering on a holistic definition of individual and societal health – to look at the impact of the arts across multiple dimensions of human life. We wanted to better understand how other sectors define and measure wellbeing and quality of life, and how arts and culture might fit into these existing frameworks. This foundational investigation led to a subsequent inquiry into the following questions:

• What are particular claims to the benefits of arts participation?
• Does the majority of available evidence support each claim?
• How strong is the quality of evidence?

What We Know

Grounding our research in the concept of wellbeing helped to shape our definition of meaningful benefits as a result of arts participation. We learned that although most wellbeing frameworks do not explicitly include arts and culture, some do. The one most closely matching Createquity’s worldview is the capability approach originally proposed by economist Amartya Sen, which frames wellbeing in the context of human beings’ freedom to make choices about how to live their lives. Philosopher Martha Nussbaum’s elaboration of the capability approach embraces the arts’ influence on overall wellbeing both directly and indirectly via the capabilities of “senses, imagination, and thought” and “play,”  which may include active arts participation and creation, as well as observation, reflection, absorption and enjoyment of arts experiences.

Our subsequent review of research into arts and wellbeing – focusing on the benefits of the arts on a range of different wellbeing impact areas – fits into four broad areas of impact: physical and mental health, education and personal development, economic vitality, and social cohesion. Following is a list of benefits claimed for arts participation across these areas, categorized based on the strength of the evidence backing those claims.

We are highly confident that:

• Participatory arts activities help to maintain the health and quality of life of older adults.  There is evidence that singing improves mental health and subjective wellbeing; taking dance classes bolsters cognition and motor skills; dancing and playing a musical instrument reduce the risk of dementia; and visual arts generate increases in self-esteem, psychological health, and social engagement.
• Arts therapies contribute to positive clinical outcomes, such as reduction in anxiety, stress, and pain for patients. Music interventions tend to dominate studies in this area, mostly characterized by passive forms of participation (e.g., listening to music).
• Arts participation in early childhood promotes social and emotional development. For example, teachers report fewer instances of shy, aggressive, and anxious behavior among preschoolers taking dance classes, and toddlers receiving music instruction demonstrate increased social cooperation with other children.
• Student participation in structured arts activities enhances cognitive abilities and social skills that support learning, such as memory, problem-solving, and communication. (While arts participation may improve academic attainment as well, any effects are fairly small. Traditional scholastic measures such as standardized tests and grades have produced mixed evidence.)

We are moderately confident that:

• Community arts activities probably contribute to healthy living habits and improved understandings of health. A few mixed-methods studies have found among participants increases in healthy eating, physical activity, positive feelings, and other areas of personal development. However, it is difficult to know if these habits were sustained over time. Even in the case of sustained arts engagement, there is mixed evidence that it reduces mortality risk in adults.
• Arts and cultural participation probably improves subjective wellbeing (self-reported happiness or life satisfaction). Studies among large population samples cite both passive and active forms of art participation as important determinants of psychological wellbeing.
• Low-income students probably benefit disproportionately from access to arts education. Benefits such as improved cognitive abilities from music participation, or improved measures of tolerance for museum attendees, tend to be higher for students from low-SES households.

We have lower levels of confidence in the arts’ contributions to social cohesion and economic vitality, based on research we reviewed. For example,  participation in the arts may promote pro-social or civic behaviors like voting and volunteering, but the direction of the relationship is unclear – i.e., do pro-civic behaviors engender arts participation or vice versa, or is there is an underlying hidden value driving both behaviors? Evidence suggests that cultural participation may also contribute to economic growth through promotion of innovative workforce, and urban regeneration, but economic impact research is complicated by various confounding factors (e.g., planning policy, availability of jobs, general health of economy), making it difficult to really isolate the specific relationship and intensity of benefits.

What We Don’t Know

• In the absence of longitudinal studies, it is difficult to know the longer-term effects of arts participation. This is most true in the areas of health and early childhood education.
• The potential to make the case for the benefits of the arts suffers from a paucity of experimental and quasi-experimental designs, particularly in the areas of economic vitality and social cohesion.
• Generally, measuring effects at a community level is difficult to do when there are confounding factors. However, greater understanding of how the arts promote quality of life at the community or regional level could help to illuminate potential strategies or interventions that might work at scale to support a healthy ecosystem.
• Createquity’s investigations on the benefits of the arts have focused broadly on general effects on a general population. It is likely that there is quite a bit of variation between disciplines, between different modes of artistic participation (e.g., passive, active, solitary, communal), and between participants (comparing demographic and other differences). Research syntheses and comparative studies looking across these differences are generally lacking.

How to Use this Information

A few action items to consider:

For funders:

• The potential of the arts to improve lives for older adults and those in clinical settings seems under-invested in relative to the strength of the evidence. Consider how age and health fit into your strategy for improving lives through the arts.
• Similarly, consider what proportion of your arts funding portfolio reaches very young children (pre-K and younger), as some of the strongest available evidence indicates benefits for that population.
• Invest in longitudinal studies into benefits of the arts, especially those that involve diverse population samples, varying geographies, and embrace multiple disciplines.
• Consider funding more meta-analyses that take stock of the current spate of literature already in existence. British researchers have published a few of these, but there is much more to be done, and research coming out all the time that could be added to the mix.

For researchers:

• Conduct studies looking at the impact of the arts in comparison to other leisure-time activities, to make effect sizes in the arts more intelligible.
• Seek ways to assess impacts of arts participation across longer time frames, and embrace more experimental study designs if possible.
• There is currently very little research on the benefits of subsidizing the arts, as opposed to the benefits of arts participation. In other words, what proportion of the benefit realized from arts programming can be specifically attributed to grants or donations with that purpose in mind?
• Be transparent in discussing methods and limitations of arts participation, to allow others to learn directly from the research experience (in other words, don’t give undue credit to the arts if there isn’t enough supporting evidence).
• Further explore hierarchies of evidence in arts research, including examples of rigorous qualitative designs.

For arts organizations:

• Foster partnerships with other sectors that might benefit from your arts organization’s work (e.g., community and civic engagement, public health, social justice), and work together to further the arts’ contributions for community-wide benefit.
• Use the evidence that is available to help guide your programming to be as impactful as possible in providing benefits to individuals in your communities.

Resource List

Everything We Know about Whether and How the Arts Improve Lives (2016)
The research could still use an upgrade in many areas. But what we know so far should cheer any arts advocate.
A summary of the benefits of various arts endeavors including participatory activities, arts therapies, and arts engagement by young children and students.

(Eng)Aging with the Arts Has its Benefits  (2016)
In fact, the best evidence we have of the arts’ impact is that they make older adults feel better.
Recent studies indicate that  the most compelling evidence of the value of the arts revolves around improving the lives of older adults.

Are the Arts the Answer to Our TV Obsession? (2016)
Television can wreak havoc on the brain and the body. But people who watch it the most don’t seem to mind.
This article explores how, from obesity to apathy, the side effects of America’s national pastime (watching the tube) are taking their toll. What else to do?

Part of Your World: On the Arts and Wellbeing (2015)
A concept that’s been making the rounds in other fields for decades provides fresh ideas about how to think about the benefits of the arts.
This piece explains how the relationship between the arts and wellbeing could earn the former a proper seat at the table in conversations about human progress.

Capsule Review: The Impacts of Culture and Sport (2017)
What are the relationships between cultural engagement, sports participation, and social wellbeing? A recent study sheds light.
A British study examines the impact of sports and cultural participation on outcomes including measurements of health, education, civic participation, and personal wellbeing.

Capsule Review: Music, Singing, and Wellbeing (2017)
Three reports explore the effects of music on quality of life.
The UK’s What Works Centre for Wellbeing recently commissioned one of the most thorough research syntheses we’ve seen on the benefits of the arts.

A New Way to Think about Intrinsic vs. Instrumental Benefits of the Arts (2015)
Which matters more, art for art’s sake or art for people’s sake? Neither, according to a recent report.
A Philadelphia-based study reveals patterns between cultural participation, economic and geographic factors, and wellbeing among citizens.

Methodology for Rating Evidence

We use the following definitions for placement on the graph and for describing benefits in the document.

Does the evidence indicate that the benefit exists?

• Yes: the majority of the available evidence supports the claim
• No: the majority of the available evidence opposes the claim
• Mixed: neither of the above conditions is true

How strong is the quality of the evidence?

• High: multiple studies with causal designs (experimental or quasi-experimental)
• Medium: a single study with a causal design, or multiple studies that otherwise make a compelling case for causal interpretation in the judgment of our team
• Low: neither of the above conditions is met

In cases where the supporting, mixed, and opposing evidence is of differing strength, the stronger evidence is given more weight in determining whether the evidence supports the claim.

In the body of the article, we use the qualifier “probably” to describe effects in the Yes/Medium cell of the matrix, “may” to describe effects in the Yes/Low, No/Low, and all Mixed cells of the matrix, “probably not” to describe effects in the No/Medium cell of the matrix, and “does not” to describe effects in the No/High cell of the matrix.

Note: in general, we support methodological diversity, and are not dogmatic about valuing “gold standard” study designs such as randomized controlled trials at the expense of all other types of research. However, in practice, studies with causal designs tend to be much rarer than descriptive and case-study-based research, and therefore more valuable due to their scarcity and the fact that they are typically more challenging to conduct. In addition, given that the questions explored in this review are inherently causal in nature – can we trust that an activity or intervention makes some kind of benefit more likely – it is appropriate to privilege designs that make a convincing attempt to rule out alternative hypotheses for any observed effects. Our rating of evidence strength takes these considerations into account.

Full Bibliography

Below is a full list of resources which informed this research investigation. Much of our research focused on literature reviews or meta-analyses, and we have included here works that were consulted directly, as well as resources that were encountered within a review and factored into our findings. Works that received a thorough review from Createquity are marked with an asterisk (*).

Arts Council England. (2006). The Power of Art. Visual arts: evidence of impact. Part 2. London. Retrieved from www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/ documents/publications/phpOCmaHq.pdf

Arts Council England. (2014). The Value of Arts and Culture to People and Society: An Evidence Review. Retrieved from http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/download-file/Value_arts_culture_evidence_review.pdf

Arts Midwest, & Metropolitan Group. (2015). Creating Connection: Research Findings and Proposed Message Framework to Build Public Will for Arts and Culture. Retrieved from http://www.artsmidwest.org/sites/default/files/ArtsMidwest_BPWReport.pdf

Asbury, C. H., & Rich, B. (2008). Learning, arts, and the brain: The dana consortium report on arts and cognition. Dana Press.

Bakhshi, H., Freeman, A., & Higgs, P.. (2013). Dynamic Mapping of The UK’s Creative Industries. NESTA. Retrieved from www.nesta. org.uk/publications/dynamic-mapping-uks-creative-industries

Baxter, C., Tyler, P., Moore, B., Morrison, N., McGaffin, R., & Otero-Garcia, M. (2005). Enterprising Places: Sustaining Competitive Locations for Knowledge-Based Business. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge–MIT Institute.

BOP Consulting. (2011). Edinburgh Festivals Impact Study. Final Report. London. Retrieved from www.eventscotland.org/ resources/downloads/get/56.pdf

*Brown, A. (2006). An Architecture of Value. GIA Reader, 17(1). Retrieved from http://www.giarts.org/article/architecture-value

Brown, E. D., & Sax, K. L. (2013). Arts enrichment and preschool emotions for low-income children at risk. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(2), 337–346.

Bygren, L. O., Johansson, S.-E., Konlaan, B. B., Grjibovski, A. M., Wilkinson, A. V., & Sjöström, M. (2009). Attending cultural events and cancer mortality: A Swedish cohort study. Arts & Health, 1(1), 64–73.

Carnwath, J. D., & Brown, A. S. (2014). Understanding the Value and Impacts of Cultural Experiences: A Literature Review. WolfBrown and Arts Council England. Retrieved from http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/pdf/Understanding_the_value_and_impacts_of_cultural_experiences.pdf

CASE programme: understanding the drivers, impacts and value of engagement in culture and sport. (2010). Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/case-programme-understanding-the-drivers-impacts-and-value-of-engagement-in-culture-and-sport

CEBR. (2013). The contribution of the arts and culture to the national economy. London. Retrieved from www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/pdf/CEBR_economic_ report_web_version_0513.pdf

Clarke, E., DeNora, T., & Vuoskoski, J. (n.d.). Music, Empathy, and Cultural Understanding. 2014: Arts & Humanities Research Council.

Clawson, H. J., & Coolbaugh, K. (2001). The YouthARTS Development Project. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED454130

Clift, S, Hancox, G, Morrison, I, Hess, B, Stewart, D, & Kreutz, G. (2008). Choral Singing, Wellbeing and Health: Summary of Findings from a Cross-national Survey. Sidney De Haan Research Centre for Arts and Health, Canterbury Christ Church University. Retrieved from https://www.canterbury. ac.uk/health-and-wellbeing/sidney-de-haan-research-centre/ documents/choral-singing-summary-report.pdf

Clift, S., Skingley, A., Coulton, S., & Rodriguez, J. (2012). A controlled evaluation of the health benefits of a participative community singing programme for older people (Silver Song Clubs). Sidney De Haan

*Crossick, G., & Kaszynska, P. (2016). Understanding the Value of Arts and Culture: The AHRC Cultural Value Project. United Kingdom: Arts & Humanities Research Council. Retrieved from http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/documents/publications/cultural-value-project-final-report/

Research Centre for Arts and Health, Canterbury Christ Church University, Folkestone, Kent, UK. Canterbury Christ Church University, Folkestone, Kent, UK: Retrieved from http://www. Ahsw. Org. uk/userfiles/Other_Resources/SSCRCTsummaryreportOct12. Pdf

Daykin, N., & Byrne, E. (2006). The impact of visual arts and design on the health and wellbeing of patients and staff in mental health care: A systematic review of the literature. University of the West of England.

Development Services Group, Inc. (2016). Arts-Based Programs and Arts Therapies for At-Risk, Justice-Involved, and Traumatized Youths. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Arts-Based-Programs-for-Youth.pdf

Education Endowment Foundation. (2016). Hallé SHINE on Manchester: Evaluation report and executive summary. Retrieved from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/our-work/projects/shine-on-manchester/

Everitt, A., Hamilton, R., & White, M. (2003). Arts, health and community: A study of five arts in community health projects. University of Durham.

Falck, O., Fritsch, M., & Heblich, S. (2011). The phantom of the opera: Cultural amenities, human capital, and regional economic growth. Labour Economics, 18(6), 755–766.

Feldman, A. F., & Matjasko, J. L. (2005). The Role of School-Based Extracurricular Activities in Adolescent Development: A Comprehensive Review and Future Directions. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 159–210. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075002159

Fujiwara, D. (2013). Museums and Happiness: The Value of Participating in Museums and the Arts (The Happy Museum). Retrieved from http://www.happymuseumproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Museums_and_happiness_DFujiwara_April2013.pdf

*Fujiwara, D., Kudrna, L., & Dolan, P. (2014a). Quantifying and Valuing the Wellbeing Impacts of Culture and Sport. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/304899/Quantifying_and_valuing_the_wellbeing_impacts_of_sport_and_culture.pdf

*Fujiwara, D., Kudrna, L., & Dolan, P. (2014b). Quantifying the Social Impacts of Culture and Sport. Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/304896/Quantifying_the_Social_Impacts_of_Culture_and_Sport.pdf

Garrod, B. (2014). Investigating the role of Eisteddfodau in creating and transmitting cultural value in Wales and beyond. Arts & Humanities Research Council.

Gerry, D., Unrau, A., & Trainor, L. J. (2012). Active music classes in infancy enhance musical, communicative and social development: Active music classes enhance development. Developmental Science, 15(3), 398–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2012.01142.x

Giordano, P. C., Cernkovich, S. A., & Rudolph, J. L. (2002). Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation1. American Journal of Sociology, 107(4), 990–1064.

Graham, G., Chattopadhyay, S., & Lakhanpal, J.R. (2014). Using New Metrics to Assess the Role of the Arts in Well-Being: Some Initial Results from the Economics of Happiness. The Brookings Institute. Retrieved from https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/Brookings-Final-Report.pdf

Greene, J. P., Kisida, B., & Bowen, D. H. (2014). The educational value of field trips. Education Next, 14(1).

Grodach, C., Foster, N., & Murdoch III, J. (2014). Gentrification and the artistic dividend: the role of the arts in neighborhood change. Journal of the American Planning Association, 80(1), 21–35.

Grossi, E., Blessi, G. T., Sacco, P. L., & Buscema, M. (2012). The interaction between culture, health and psychological well-being: Data mining from the Italian culture and well-being project. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(1), 129–148.

Guetzkow, J. (2002). How the Arts Impact Communities: An introduction to the literature on arts impact studies. Presented at the Taking the Measure of Culture Conference, Princeton University: Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies. Retrieved from https://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/workpap/WP20%20-%20Guetzkow.pdf

Hacking, S., Secker, J., Spandler, H., Kent, L., & Shenton, J. (2008). Evaluating the impact of participatory art projects for people with mental health needs. Health & Social Care in the Community, 16(6), 638–648.

Hancock, M. R. (1993). Character journals: Initiating involvement and identification through literature. Journal of Reading, 37(1), 42–50.

Hervas-Olivier, J., & others. (2011). The Importance of Creative Industries Agglomerations in Explaining the Wealth of European Regions. DRUID. Retrieved from http://druid8.sit.aau.dk/acc_ papers/3u3ov4ld8gx1uvxa4pgddeivjeg5.pdf

Hesmondhalgh, D., & Pratt, A. (2005). Cultural industries

Hetland, L., & Winner, E. (2001). The arts and academic achievement: What the evidence shows. Arts Education Policy Review, 102(5), 3–6.

Holden, J. (2006). Cultural value and the crisis of legitimacy. Demos London.

Hyyppä, M. T., Mäki, J., Impivaara, O., & Aromaa, A. (2006). Leisure participation predicts survival: a population-based study in Finland. Health Promotion International, 21(1), 5–12.

Ings, R., Crane, N., & Cameron, M. (2012). Be Creative Be Well. Arts, wellbeing and local communities. An evaluation. London: Arts Council England. Retrieved from www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/pdf/BCBW_final.pdf

*Jackson, M. R., & Herranz, J. (2002). Culture Counts in Communities: A Framework for Measurement (Research Report). The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310834_culture_counts.pdf

*Jackson, M. R., Kabwasa-Green, F., & Herranz, J. (2006). Cultural Vitality in Communities: Interpretation and Indicators. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/projects/cultural-vitality-indicators/publications.cfm

John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. (2010). Soul of the Community – Overall Findings. Retrieved from http://www.knightfoundation.org/sotc/

Jones, S. (2010). Culture shock. London: Demos.

Kattenstroth, J.C., Kalisch, T., Holt, S., Tegenthoff, M., & Dinse, H. R. (2013). Six months of dance intervention enhances postural, sensorimotor, and cognitive performance in elderly without affecting cardio-respiratory functions. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 5, 5.

Kay, A. (2000). Art and community development: the role the arts have in regenerating communities. Community Development Journal, 35(4), 414–424.

Kay, A., & Watt, G. (2000). The role of the arts in regeneration. Scottish Executive.

Kidd, D. C., & Castano, E. (2013). Reading literary fiction improves theory of mind. Science, 342(6156), 377–380.

Konlaan, B. B., Bygren, L. O., & Johansson, S.-E. (2000). Visiting the cinema, concerts, museums or art exhibitions as determinant of survival: a Swedish fourteen-year cohort follow-up. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 28(3), 174–178.

Lambert, C. (2014). The Value of Live Art: experience, politics and affect. Arts & Humanities Research Council.

Lobo, Y. B., & Winsler, A. (2006). The effects of a creative dance and movement program on the social competence of head start preschoolers. Social Development, 15(3), 501–519.

Lowe, S. S. (2000). Creating community art for community development. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(3), 357–386.

Manchester, M, & Pett, E. (n.d.). Teenage Kicks: Exploring cultural value from a youth perspective. Arts & Humanities Research Council.

*Mark J. Stern. (2007). Culture and Urban Revitalization: A Harvest Document. University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from https://www.reinvestment.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Culture_and_Urban_Revitalization_A_Harvest_Document-Report_2007.pdf

*Markusen, A., & Gadwa, A. (2010). Arts and culture in urban or regional planning: A review and research agenda. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 29(3), 379–391.

Martin, A. J., Mansour, M., Anderson, M., Gibson, R., Liem, A., & Sudmalis, D. (2013). The Role of Arts Participation in Students’ Academic and Nonacademic Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study of School, Home, and Community Factors. ResearchGate, 105(3), 709–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032795

*Matarasso, F. (1997). Use or Ornament? The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts. Comedia. Retrieved from http://www.feisean.org/wp-content/uploads/Use-or-Ornament.pdf

*McCarthy, K., Ondaatje, E., Zakaras, L., Brooks, A., & RAND. (2004). Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate About the Benefits of the Arts. RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG218.pdf

McLean, J., Woodhouse, A., Goldie, I., Chylarova, E., & Williamson, T. (2011). An evidence review of the impact of participatory arts on older people. Edinburgh: Mental Health Foundation. http://baringfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/EvidenceReview.pdf Luettu, 16, 2013.

Medeiros, K. de, & Basting, A. (2014). “Shall I Compare Thee to a Dose of Donepezil?”: Cultural Arts Interventions in Dementia Care Research. The Gerontologist, 54(3), 344–353. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt055

Medvedeva, M., Novak-Leonard, J., Brown, A,. (2011). Audience Impact Study: Literature Review. WolfBrown and the National Endowment for the Arts. Retrieved from http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/Audience-Impact-Study-Literature-Review.pdf

*Menzer, M. (2015). The Arts in Early Childhood: Social and Emotional Benefits of Participation. National Endowment for the Arts. Retrieved from https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/arts-in-early-childhood-dec2015-rev.pdf

Morley, E., & Winkler, M.K.. (2014). The Validating Arts & Livability Indicators (VALI) Study: Results and Recommendations. Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/VALI-Report.pdf

*National Endowment for the Arts. (2012). How Art Works. Retrieved from http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/How-Art-Works_0.pdf

National Endowment for the Arts. (2013). The Arts and Aging: Building the Science.

Newman, M., Bird, K., Tripney, J., Kalra, N., Kwan, I., Bangpan, M., & Vigurs, C. (2010). Understanding the impact of engagement in culture and sport: A systematic review of the learning impacts for young people. Retrieved from http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/16334/1/Understanding_the_impacts_main_report.pdf

Nicolopoulou, A., Barbosa de Sá, A., Ilgaz, H., & Brockmeyer, C. (2009). Using the Transformative Power of Play to Educate Hearts and Minds: From Vygotsky to Vivian Paley and Beyond. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 17(1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030903312512

Niemi, L. (2014). The Arts & Economic Vitality: relationships between the Arts, entrepreneurship, & innovation in the workplace (working paper). Washington, DC: NEA. Retrieved from http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/Research-Art-Works- BostonCollege.pdf

*Noice, T., Noice, H., & Kramer, A. F. (2013). Participatory Arts for Older Adults: A Review of Benefits and Challenges. The Gerontologist, gnt138. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt138

Pajaczkowska, C. (n.d.). Empathy by Design. Arts & Humanities Research Council. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/12247924/Empathy_By_Design

Petrie, K. J., Fontanilla, I., Thomas, M. G., Booth, R. J., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2004). Effect of written emotional expression on immune function in patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection: a randomized trial. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(2), 272–275.

Putnam, R. D. (1994). What makes democracy work? Review-Institute of Public Affairs, 47(1), 31.

Reynolds, J, Hetherington, J., O’Sullivan, A, Clayton, K, & Holmes, J.. (2014). The story of Lidice and Stoke-on-Trent: towards deeper understandings of the role of arts and culture. Arts & Humanities Research Council.

Ritblatt, S., Longstreth, S., Hokoda, A., Cannon, B.-N., & Weston, J. (2013b). Can music enhance school-readiness socioemotional skills? Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27(3), 257–266.

Roger Tym & Partners. (2011). Economic Impact of the Liverpool Arts Regeneration Consortium. Manchester. Retrieved from www.larc.uk.com/wp-content/ uploads/2011/10/LARC-Economic-Impact-Final-Report.pdf

Sacco, P.L. (2013, October). Culture 3.0: the impact of culture on social and economic development, & how to measure it. Presented at the Scientific Support for Growth and Jobs: cultural and creative industries conference, Brussels.

Särkämö, T., Tervaniemi, M., Laitinen, S., Forsblom, A., Soinila, S., Mikkonen, M., … others. (2008). Music listening enhances cognitive recovery and mood after middle cerebral artery stroke. Brain, 131(3), 866–876.

Schellenberg, E. G. (2004). Music Lessons Enhance IQ. Psychological Science, 15(8), 511–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00711.x

Scottish Government, S. A. H. (2006, January 20). Quality of Life and Well-being: Measuring the Benefits of Culture and Sport: Literature Review and Thinkpiece [Research Publications]. Retrieved January 24, 2015, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/13110743/0

See, H. B, & Dimitra Kokotsaki, D. (2016). Impact of arts education on the cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes of school-aged children. Durham University and the Education Endowment Foundation. Retrieved from https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Publications/Arts_Education_Review.pdf

*Sheppard, S.C, Oehler, K., Benjamin, B., & Kessler, A.. (2006). Culture and Revitalization: The Economic Effects of MASS MoCA on its Community (No. C3 D Report NA3.2006). North Adams, MA: Center for Creative Community Development. Retrieved from http://web.williams.edu/Economics/ArtsEcon/library/pdfs/NA%20Economic%20Impacts%2032006.pdf

*Staricoff, R. L. (2004). Arts in health: a review of the medical literature. Arts Council England London. Retrieved from http://www.artsandhealth.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/AHReview-of-Medical-Literature1.pdf

*Stern, M. J., & Susan C Seifert. (2013). Cultural Ecology, Neighborhood Vitality, and Social Wellbeing – A Philadelphia Project. University of Pennsylvania Social Impact of the Arts Project (SIAP). Retrieved from https://www.arts.gov/exploring-our-town/sites/arts.gov.exploring-our-town/files/SIAP%20CULTUREBLOCKS%20REPORT%20DEC2013%20V1.pdf

Taylor, P, Davies, L., Christy, E, Cooley, E., Taylor, A., Jones,R, Dumas, V. (2015). The Social Benefits of Engagement with Culture and Sport. London: DCMS. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/416279/A_review_of_ the_Social_Impacts_of_Culture_and_Sport.pdf

*Tepper, S. (2014). Artful living: Examining the relationship between artistic practice and subjective wellbeing across three national surveys. The Curb Center for Art, Enterprise, and Public Policy at Vanderbilt University. Retrieved from http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/Research-Art-Works-Vanderbilt.pdf

The Cultural Learning Alliance. (2011). Key Research Findings: The Case for Cultural Learning. Retrieved from http://www.culturallearningalliance.org.uk/images/uploads/Key_Research_Findings.pdf

The National Endowment for the Arts. (2011). The Arts and Human Development. Retrieved from https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/TheArtsAndHumanDev.pdf

Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001). Does beauty build adapted minds? Toward an evolutionary theory of aesthetics, fiction, and the arts. SubStance, 30(1), 6–27.

*Topos Partnership for the Fine Arts Fund. (n.d.). The Arts Ripple Effect: A Research-Based Strategy to Build Shared Responsibility for the Arts. Retrieved from http://www.theartswave.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/The-Arts-Ripple-Report-January-2010.pdf

Trüby, J., Rammer, C., Müller, K., & others. (2008). The role of creative industries in industrial Innovation. ZEW-Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung/Center for European Economic Research. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/zewdip/7499.html

Verghese, J., Lipton, R. B., Katz, M. J., Hall, C. B., Derby, C. A., Kuslansky, G., … Buschke, H. (2003). Leisure activities and the risk of dementia in the elderly. New England Journal of Medicine, 348(25), 2508–2516.

Vlismas, W., Malloch, S., & Burnham, D. (2013). The effects of music and movement on mother–infant interactions. Early Child Development and Care, 183(11), 1669–1688.

Wolf, D. (2016). Why Making Music Matters: WolfBrown and Carnegie Hall’s Weill Music Institute. Retrieved from http://www.carnegiehall.org/uploadedFiles/Resources_and_Components/PDF/WMI/WhyMusicMatters.pdf

*Wali, A., Severson, R., & Longoni, M. (2002). Informal Arts: Finding cohesion, capacity, and other cultural benefits in unexpected places. The Chicago Center for Arts Policy at Columbia College. Retrieved from http://www.americansforthearts.org/sites/default/files/Informal_Arts_Full_Report.pdf

Weinberg, M. K., & Joseph, D. (2016). If you’re happy and you know it: Music engagement and subjective wellbeing. Psychology of Music, 305735616659552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735616659552

*What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth. (2016). Evidence Review 3: Arts and Culture. Retrieved from http://www.whatworksgrowth.org/public/files/Policy_Reviews/16-06-15_Culture_and_Sport_Updated.pdf

Wheatley, D., & Bickerton, C. (2016). Subjective well-being and engagement in arts, culture and sport. Journal of Cultural Economics, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-016-9270-0

Winter, T. (2014). A Somatic Ethnography of Grand Gestures Elders Dance Group (Project Report No. AH/L005638/1). Sunderland: University of Sunderland. Retrieved from http://sure.sunderland.ac.uk/5820/.

Zeilig, H. (2014). The arts in dementia care – A critical review of cultural and arts practices in dementia care in the UK. Arts & Humanities Research Council.

“Catalog” by Flickr user Beyond DC

The platitudes are on the lips of every arts supporter, ready to be recalled at the first sign of a public hearing or potential funding cut. “The arts are essential – a necessity, not a luxury.” “The arts help kids learn.” “The arts are the foundation of the knowledge economy.” It feels good to say those things, especially if you’re someone who has spent a life in the arts. But are they actually true? Are we pulling a fast one on ourselves and our audience by saying them? Or are we doing a service to the world by spreading the good news?

Over the past half century, hundreds of researchers have spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars grappling with these questions. And while the literature still has a ways to go before we can consider the answers definitive, it is becoming clear in at least several arenas that it’s not just our imagination: arts participation really does improve lives. In particular:

• Participatory arts activities help to maintain the health and quality of life of older adults. As discussed in our previous feature, singing improves mental health and subjective wellbeing; taking dance classes bolsters cognition and motor skills; dancing and playing a musical instrument reduce the risk of dementia; and visual arts generate increases in self-esteem, psychological health, and social engagement.

• Arts therapies contribute to positive clinical outcomes, such as reduction in anxiety, stress, and pain for patients. Music interventions tend to dominate studies in this area, mostly characterized by passive forms of participation (e.g., listening to music).

• Arts participation in early childhood promotes social and emotional development. For example, teachers report fewer instances of shy, aggressive, and anxious behavior among preschoolers taking dance classes, and toddlers receiving music instruction demonstrate increased social cooperation with other children.

• Student participation in structured arts activities enhances cognitive abilities and social skills that support learning, such as memory, problem-solving, and communication. (While arts participation may improve academic attainment as well, any effects are fairly small.)

We’ve catalogued these and other benefits in an interactive graphic we’ve created – the first of its kind – that explores the various benefits claimed for arts participation along with the strength of evidence backing those claims. See how the benefits stack up against each other at a glance, or zoom in to read what the research has to say about specific questions. (Read about our methodology here.) We recommend viewing in full-screen mode for best results.

Before we dive in further, a little context-setting is in order. The first thing to note is that what you’re going to read below is a work in progress. The literature on the effects of arts participation is vast and of highly uneven quality. To arrive at the conclusions we express here, we’ve relied heavily on existing literature reviews and meta-analyses on the topics in question, which means that any errors of interpretation or questionable judgments in those reviews are likely repeated here. Over time, we intend to get to know the underlying studies and publications and fill in gaps or make corrections as needed. In addition, new research on these topics comes out on a regular basis, and sometimes it challenges conclusions that we had previously drawn about a topic. For both of these reasons, you can expect that we will make tweaks both to the interactive and the content below as we gain access to new information going forward.

Second, it’s important to remember that the focus of this review is quite broad, and looks for general effects on a general population. It’s likely that in practice, there is quite a bit of variation between disciplines, between different modes of artistic participation, and between participants (e.g., different personality types). We can already say, for example, that music is both the most-studied intervention and the one that seems to have the most robust evidence behind it. As we get to know the literature better via the process described above, we’ll be able to identify these kinds of nuances with more precision.

Readers interested in the details behind the evidence in the article are encouraged to take a look at our capsule reviews on participatory arts for older adults, cultural arts and dementia, arts and early childhood, and arts and at-risk youth, all of which are based on in-depth literature and systematic reviews conducted by others and outline common methodological shortcomings and recommendations for future research. Of particular note is our capsule review on the Cultural Value Project (CVP), which shares the results of the UK-based Arts and Humanities Research Council’s three-year investigation into the value of culture. While the full bibliography to this article is far more extensive, our investigation relied heavily on the above sources.

Feelin’ Good: Physical and Mental Health

Of the four broad areas of arts impact that we identified in our review, the most robust research has taken place in the areas of education and personal development and physical and mental health. In fact, the evidence underlying the benefits of the arts for older adults is so compelling that we decided to write a whole separate article about it. A variety of participatory arts activities improve older adults’ mental and physical health, and in some cases, lessen the likelihood of developing dementia later in life. For instance, weekly singing has been shown to decrease anxiety and depression; weekly dance has been shown to improve cognition and attention, posture and balance, and hand and motor skills; and lifelong engagement with music, particularly playing an instrument, is correlated with improved memory among older adults. The arts also play a role in improving the overall quality of life for older adults more generally, such as attitudes toward social life.

While this was some of the most compelling evidence uncovered by our review, older adults aren’t the only beneficiaries. Arts therapies have been shown to improve clinical outcomes among patients. For example, a 2004 review of more than 400 pieces of literature exploring the arts’ and humanities’ relationship to healthcare and the arts’ effects on health identified a number of impacts for arts therapies. This includes visual art and music helping to reduce anxiety and depression among cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, an association between music and reduction in anxiety and blood pressure in cardiovascular care, and reduction in use of pain medicine following surgery. Music tends to dominate these studies, with a generally positive effect on anxiety, stress, and pain reduction among patients. Another strain of studies has explored the related claim that visual art and design may help to improve the quality of healthcare settings, thus improving patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes. While the methodological quality of the evidence in this area is considerably weaker than that described above, initial results support the claim..

The arts may also generate health impacts beyond dedicated healthcare settings. We found that community arts activities probably contribute to healthy living habits and improved understanding of health. Using a mixed-methods approach that included a community-randomized design, an evaluation of 100 small participatory arts projects across impoverished parts of London found increases among participants in healthy eating, physical activity, and positive feelings. Similarly, a 2003 mixed-methods evaluation of the Wrekenton Lanterns Project, a community arts project drawing attention to coronary heart disease, suggested that arts activities contributed to healthy personal development, including healthy eating and mothering, mental health improvements, and increased absorption of health information. In the absence of longitudinal studies, however, it is difficult to know if participants sustained these habits over time.

The strongest and most consistent evidence for the health impacts of the arts relate specifically to mental health: in particular, reductions in depression and anxiety. It should come as no surprise, then, that arts participation is associated with subjective wellbeing, or one’s perceived quality of life. Over the past several decades, growing scholarship on wellbeing has sought to address just how well a person thinks they’re doing, with ongoing development of indicator systems that, in more recent years, have begun to incorporate measures related to arts, culture, and creativity. Createquity has been interested in the connection between arts participation and subjective wellbeing for some time. In our own analysis of data from the 2012 General Social Survey, we found no relationship between having attended an exhibit or performance in the past year and one’s satisfaction with life. However, a subsequent research spotlight revealed that among a large sample of Americans, more active forms of cultural participation including playing a musical instrument, gardening, and craft-making were positively associated with life satisfaction.

Our current review of the literature suggests that while causal attribution remains difficult to pin down, arts and cultural participation probably improves self-reported happiness or life satisfaction. A 2010 study of 1,500 randomly selected Italians analyzed two data sets on general wellbeing and cultural participation, yielding surprising results: cultural experiences – in this instance, passive modes of participation such as cinema, theatre, concert, and museum going – were the second most important determinant of psychological wellbeing, second only to the incidence of diseases, and ranking above factors like job, income, and education. And while not all arts participants are necessarily “doing well,” there is some evidence that unhappy people might be worse off it not for their cultural activities. For instance, a 2008 study of 1,124 choral singers in England, Germany, and Australia found that among respondents who scored on the lowest third of the psychological wellbeing scale, singing in a choir had a significant impact on their ability to cope with physical and mental health issues, among other personal challenges. There is some work being done to explore these issues in the US, but existing data sets on wellbeing and arts participation are not as easy to cross-reference. For instance, a 2014 study found an association between arts participation and wellbeing, but the study design made it difficult to determine if it was indeed attributed to arts participation and not other factors.

From Jungle Gyms to Jobs: Education and Personal Development

Although some of the strongest evidence we’ve come across speaks to the value of participatory arts for older adults, one doesn’t have to be a senior citizen, or for that matter even an adult at all, to benefit. On balance, the evidence suggests that the impact of arts and culture on psychological wellbeing is consistent across the lifespan, as far back even as early childhood.

A recent NEA literature review found ample evidence that arts participation in early childhood (birth to eight years) promotes social and emotional development. For example, a 2013 randomized controlled trial of 102 toddlers found that those participating in classroom-based music education were more likely to increase their level of social cooperation, interaction, and independence (as reported by their teachers) than a control group that did not receive a music education program. Similarly, a 2006 study of 40 preschoolers found that those that met with a dance group for eight weeks had stronger improvements in social skills and showed noticeable reductions in shy, anxious and aggressive behavior compared to a control group.

For slightly older kids, student participation in structured arts activities enhances cognitive abilities and social skills that support learning (e.g., memory, problem-solving, and communication). A 2010 systematic review of the Culture and Sport Evidence (CASE) database in the UK concluded that participation in “structured arts activities” could increase young people’s performance on a range of indicators of cognitive and social ability. Perhaps even more importantly, there is good reason to believe that arts education programs are disproportionately impactful for lower-income children. The NEA literature review on early childhood mentioned above includes a Head Start arts education experiment with 88 preschoolers from low socioeconomic status families. Those who participated in music activities showed improved cognitive abilities and increased ability to pay attention than children in the control group that received regular Head Start instruction. According to the NEA literature review, other specific benefits to lower-income youth include increases in confidence, student behavior and social skills. These findings are consistent with those from the well-known randomized controlled trial to measure the impact of field trips to the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art. Benefits such as enhanced critical thinking skills and improved measures of tolerance were two or three times higher for children attending schools in rural areas or that served predominantly low-income households.

An earlier systematic literature review of 188 studies, the landmark 2001 Reviewing Education and the Arts Project (REAP) study, offers another perspective on the evidence base for non-arts academic outcomes of arts education. After comparing 275 effect sizes across groups of comparable studies, the researchers found strong causal evidence for the impact of music listening on spatial-temporal reasoning; learning to play music on spatial reasoning; and classroom drama instruction on verbal skills. However, the evidence was weaker in several other areas, including most effects on reading and math performance.

Indeed, one puzzle embedded in the extensive literature on arts education is how little the aforementioned benefits to learning and cognitive capabilities seem to translate to traditional measures of academic attainment such as standardized tests. Evidence from a wide body of literature suggests that even if there is a positive effect, it is so small as to be practically meaningless. The CASE systematic review cited above found that overall, participation in structured arts activities only improved attainment in high-school-aged students (as measured by standardized tests) by one to two percent. Similarly, a review from the Education Endowment Foundation in the UK concluded that arts participation had “positive but low” effects on academic learning in English, math, and science.

A major drawback within this literature is a lack of longitudinal studies. Short-term experimental designs that assign some students to an arts program and others to a control group are useful for isolating the effects of that particular program, but they usually only measure temporary effects on participants. Both the NEA’s early childhood literature review and the Cultural Value Project note the dearth of research that might isolate the long-term effects of arts participation in childhood over a lifetime.

Arts as Economic Engine, Sort of

In contrast to the health and educational literature described above, research on the economic and social impacts of the arts does not paint as straightforward a picture of benefit to society. In some cases this is because the available research simply is not very robust (unsurprising, given that measuring effects at a community level is far more difficult than doing so at an individual level); in others, it is because the evidence is conflicting, or the implications of it unclear.

Arguably the most convincing case to be made here is that cultural assets (organizations, venues, etc.) probably contribute to higher real estate values at a neighborhood level, but this insight is complicated by questions around the potential negative impacts of gentrification. For instance, a 2013 study on how cultural districts reshape neighborhoods found evidence that cultural districts “have significant impacts on property values,” although the evidence of effects on poverty, education, and families was weaker. A 2006 case study of MASS MoCA and its surrounding neighborhood in rural Massachusetts found significant increases in property values following the opening of the contemporary art museum. Similarly, between 2006 and 2008, a multi-pronged investigation by Mark Stern and Susan Seifert’s Social Impact of the Arts Project (SIAP) revealed a relationship between concentrated cultural assets and rising real estate values. It remains unclear, however, whether this effect generates benefits for existing, non-property-owning residents, like rising income levels or job prospects, or alternatively, brings potential harm through disruption of existing population dynamics. Perhaps surprisingly, there is a general lack of evidence that the arts contribute to concrete negative neighborhood revitalization impacts like displacement, but little attention has been devoted to “fuzzier” outcomes like feeling a loss of ownership.

Another common type of research in cultural economics is the much-touted (and much-criticized) economic impact study. If you work in the arts, chances are you’ve seen a press release at some point in the past decade announcing that the arts generate some large dollar amount in revenue and impressive number of jobs in your community. Claims of this nature may be true in a literal sense, but are usually far less meaningful than they first appear. Sure, the arts industry creates jobs, but so does literally every other industry. The more relevant question is this: “do the arts spur spending in the economy that wouldn’t have happened otherwise?” Evidence for that more ambitious proposal is mixed. For example, a review of 36 studies by the UK-based What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth found that the effects of large-scale facilities on local employment are limited at best; however, the review included both cultural and sports facilities, and was heavily weighted toward the latter.

Speaking of employment, one of the few studies that examines the longer-term effects of arts and cultural participation suggests that cultural participation may contribute to capacity for innovation within the workforce. In an analysis of the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Laura Niemi compared more than 7,000 Americans’ history of arts participation as children to their career history as adults. Niemi found a strong association between interest in the visual arts in adolescence and later innovation and entrepreneurship, which held true even when controlling for personality traits associated with innovation (like a willingness to take risks) and educational attainment. Family income, however, was not tested as a control factor.

If the arts help produce more innovative individuals, it stands to reason that the presence of arts and cultural activities and creative industries in a region may contribute to increased productivity and innovation in other industries in that region. For example, a 2015 empirical study of 2,000 creative enterprises in Austria found evidence to support three theories for how creative industries affect an economy’s overall innovation performance: being a major source of innovative ideas, products and services; offering services that lend themselves to innovative activities in other enterprises; and using new technologies to encourage further development in tech production. Do creative industries similarly make a region wealthier? Maybe: a 2011 study examining the relationship between manufacturing, service, and creative industry agglomerations and the wealth of 250 European regions found that for every percent increase in employment in the creative industries, there is a little over a half-percent increase in GDP. As with much of this literature, though, including that seeking to test Richard Florida’s hypothesis that creative industries draw talented workers and employers to a region and increase wealth that way, causation and correlation are difficult to tease out.

Come Together: On the Arts and Social Cohesion

The state of the evidence is even muddier when it comes to the impact of the arts on the social fabric between and among communities. As with economic vitality, evidence in this arena suffers from a lack of experimental and quasi-experimental designs that would help us better understand the social benefits of the arts. However, much of the difficulty is also rooted in the theoretical complexities that complicate coming to a shared definition of terms in this area. Social benefits of the arts have been described by many names, including social capital, social wellbeing, social inclusion, arts for social change, and more. We even struggled with what label to use to describe benefits in this area, and consider “social cohesion” to be a preliminary designation.

One of the better-studied research topics in this area is the relationship between participation in the arts and pro-social or civic behaviors like voting, volunteering, or attending community meetings. A 2014 Arts Council England evidence review found “growing evidence that children and young people’s engagement with arts and culture has a knock-on impact on their wider social and civic participation.” More specifically, based on British and American systematic reviews, high school students who participate in the arts “are twice as likely to volunteer than those that don’t…and 20 percent more likely to vote as young adults.” However, the major problem with research of this nature is that it does not test the very plausible counter-hypothesis that a common personality trait or set of values drives both arts engagement and civic behavior. Experimental work in this area would be extremely valuable for answering that question.

What about the relationship between arts assets and indicators of social wellbeing at a neighborhood level? The best work on this front has been conducted by SIAP’s Stern and Seifert, who attempted in a recent project to analyze multiple dimensions of economic and social wellbeing in Philadelphia. Their investigation, however, failed to find correlations between cultural assets and most indicators of social wellbeing after controlling for race and economic vitality, casting significant doubt on this effect.

Can the arts help increase trust and understanding between people of different backgrounds through dialogue or creating spaces for storytelling? In the United States, Animating Democracy and SIAP have both conducted qualitative and descriptive research into this phenomenon. However, the literature is almost entirely bereft of control groups, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions. One of the few exceptions is the aforementioned Crystal Bridges study on field trip attendance, which reported an increase in tolerance and “historical empathy” among students who attended the museum compared to students who didn’t. It’s difficult to know, however, how meaningful the proxy measure used in this study is in practice. Furthermore, one of the problems for this area of research is that it seemingly matters a lot what messages are being communicated through the artwork when it comes to building bridges across social divides, complicating attempts like this one to assess in general terms whether this type of intervention “works.”

What It All Adds Up To

Last year, Createquity explored the literature on wellbeing and quality of life in general, and noted that culture is often missing from frameworks that seek to capture a holistic definition of wellbeing. This investigation, and the ongoing work that will flow from it, demonstrates how and where the arts fit most naturally into such a framework.

• Arts participation contributes directly to quality of life by increasing self-reported happiness and life satisfaction. This is probably the case for the population in general, and is almost certainly true for the subset of that population that pursues sustained engagement in arts activities over time. In addition, robust effects of arts participation on reducing anxiety and depression have been demonstrated for people in healthcare settings and older adults, two potentially vulnerable populations. This research validates Createquity’s thematic focus on ensuring equitable access to opportunities to participate in the arts across society as a whole.
• Arts participation contributes indirectly to wellbeing via, at a minimum, its effects on education and personal development (particularly the development of emotional and social skills in early childhood, and the development of cognitive capabilities and communication skills in later childhood), and physical health (particularly in healthcare settings). Other indirect effects to wellbeing may exist as well, but the research is not yet at a place where these can be demonstrated conclusively.

This review likewise highlights where additional investments in research would be especially productive. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs are extremely rare in the research on the economic and social impacts of the arts; initiatives to fill this gap, though likely expensive and difficult to implement, would prove enormously helpful in resolving many of the causation vs. correlation conundrums that currently pervade this literature. Even in the health and education areas where these techniques are more common, however, there remains considerable room for further research and greater methodological ambition. There is a strong need in these areas for studies that examine the effects of arts participation over a long period of time, and for randomized controlled trials that use larger sample sizes.

As stated in the beginning of this article, both the research literature itself and our understanding of it are works in progress. We will continue to update and adjust the infographic describing benefits as new research comes to light in the months and years to come. As we learn more about how the arts benefit lives, the knowledge will inform our ongoing inquiry into the most important issues in the arts and what we can do about them.

“Crayons” by flickr user nathanmac87

Title: The Arts in Early Childhood: Social and Emotional Benefits of Participation

Author(s): Melissa Menzer

Publisher: National Endowment for the Arts

Year: 2015

URL: https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/arts-in-early-childhood-dec2015-rev.pdf

Topics: Arts participation, early childhood development, Social and emotional development

Methods: Literature Review

What it says: The report presents a review of studies examining the effects of arts participation on social and emotional skills in early childhood (defined as birth to eight years.) The review was limited to peer-reviewed studies published between January 2000 and June 2015 which included quantitative analysis.

Overall the review found that there is evidence that participation in arts in early childhood is associated with positive social-emotional development (e.g., showing empathy, cooperating with others), at least in the short term. The review summarizes the available evidence by arts discipline and two areas of social-emotional development (social skills and emotional regulation). At least five studies included in the review point to an association between music participation and development of social skills, and another three found a similar relationship between visual arts and theatre participation and social skills development. Three studies did not find a relationship between arts participation and social-emotional development, but the author argues that overall, a “general trend in the literature” points to positive benefits for young children’s social-emotional development. In addition, the author found strong evidence of an positive association between participation in music, visual, theatre, and integrated arts programs and emotional regulation amongst young children. Only one study found no association between arts participation and emotional regulation.

The study further examines potential differences around these effects in regards to age, gender, socioeconomic status, and developmental disability. There were no observable differences in effect in regards to gender, and the age groups in the studies were too homogenous to detect effects based on age. Studies that focused on children of low socioeconomic status found significant impacts related to social-emotional health as a result of arts participation when compared to control groups. Although there is limited available research, arts participation was observed to be associated with positive social-emotional development among children with developmental differences such as autism.

The review notes a few important characteristics of the available literature, notably that there are significantly more studies examining music participation than other disciplines, and that many of the studies use samples that are too small to detect differences in specific demographics. Menzer also notes that experimental research designs are particularly valuable and should be pursued in future research. Her proposed research agenda consists of 1) research on the long-term effects of arts participation in early childhood across the lifespan, 2) determining the effect of demographic characteristics, 3) outcomes of arts participation specifically for children with developmental disabilities, 4) a better understanding of variation in outcomes by discipline. The report also notes that future literature review projects from the NEA may explore arts participation’s effects on other aspects of early childhood development, such as cognitive and physiological development.

What I think about it: This review provides a detailed yet concise summary of the recent research literature on this topic. The details provided about the methodology of the review, as well as the specificity with which the research characteristics and findings were summarized, make this a valuable example of the type of synthesis that will help policy makers and artistic professionals understand how the arts can contribute in specific areas (such as early childhood development). Its exclusive focus on peer-reviewed studies, however, is a limitation.

What it all means: This first chapter of the report mentions its connection to the research agenda of the Interagency Task Force on the Arts and Human Development, of which the NEA is a part. This report speaks to the value of this task force’s research agenda and the overarching work of the NEA towards understanding the mechanisms through with the arts improve the lives of citizens. This report is a step in better understanding how the arts contribute to positive outcomes along the lifespan, and the research agenda it advances is sound. A better understanding of these mechanisms will not only be helpful in advocating for public investment, but also in promoting the design of programs that are most effective in producing positive social and emotional outcomes for children.

“Youth” by flickr user CN

Title: Arts-Based Programs and Arts Therapies for At-Risk, Justice-Involved, and Traumatized Youths

Author(s): Development Services Group, Inc

Publisher: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Year: 2016

URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Arts-Based-Programs-for-Youth.pdf

Topics: Arts participation, arts programs, arts therapy, youth development, at-risk youth, justice-involved youth, traumatized youth

Methods: Literature Review

What it says: This study presents a review of recent research on arts programs for three types of youth: 1)at-risk youth, or those with risk factors that increase likelihood of delinquency or other problem behaviors; 2) system-involved youth who are currently in the juvenile justice system; and 3) traumatized youth, identified based on their personal experiences. The review focuses on two types of intervention: 1) art-based programs where arts engagement are considered a type of therapy, and 2) arts therapy programs where arts approaches are part of a therapeutic process.

The review does not find clear evidence on the outcomes of arts interventions for these categories of youth in the literature, because of methodological deficiencies such as small sample sizes, lack of comparison groups, short follow-up periods, and reliance on self-reported measures. They also note that studies of programs with multiple components do not isolate the effects of each component, meaning that there is no evidence on the outcome of the arts element specifically. They conclude that more research is needed to understand the the potential impacts of these interventions, and to understand differences between the impacts of interventions using different arts disciplines.

The report does note that arts participation has been found to be associated with strong social and emotional skills among youth generally (Menzer, 2016), and that there are theoretical foundations for the efficacy of such interventions. Cognitive behavioral theory promotes changing dysfunctional beliefs, thoughts, and behaviors by helping people change the way they think. The reflective nature of many arts based approaches is well suited to this kind of therapy. Positive Youth Development theory focuses on developing the positive assets of youth by providing opportunities for pro-social involvement, such as arts programs with a social element. Additionally, multiple theoretical frameworks support the use of arts therapies with traumatized children.

The report concludes with a summary of a select number of arts-based programs that have demonstrated positive impacts on youth, including Reading for Life, Project Venture, and Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools (CBITS).

What I think about it: The authors of this review provide a useful summary of the theory and practice surrounding arts-based programs and therapies for these specific categories of youth, as well as a clear summary of the available evidence and its limitations. In spite of a lack of conclusive evidence, this research provides a good overview of how such programs are theorized to work. The review would benefit from a clearer explanation of how works were identified and included in the review, in order to provide more context for the findings.

What it all means: The positive outcomes noted in individual programs (even with the methodological problems cited), as well as the strong theoretical basis of such programs, points towards the usefulness of further research aimed at identifying specific outcomes of arts programs for at-risk, justice-involved, and traumatized youth. Such research could also help isolate the characteristics of effective programs. This knowledge could both inform program design, and help to justify spending on such programs in the future.

“Sculpture by Ron Mueck – Two Women 2005” by flickr user Lance

Title: Participatory Arts for Older Adults: A Review of Benefits and Challenges

Author(s): Tony Noice, Helga Noice, and Arthur F. Kramer

Publisher: The Gerontologist, 54(5)

Year: 2013

URL: http://gerontologist.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/10/geront.gnt138.full.pdf+html

Topics: Arts participation, older adults, creative aging, quality of life, health benefits, cognition

Methods: Literature review

What it says: This article reviews literature on the health benefits of active arts participation among older adults ages 60 and older in good general health. Arts activities include dance, expressive writing, music (singing and instrumental), theater, and visual arts. The review included a combination of 31 experimental and correlational studies conducted between 1985 and 2013. The following were excluded: case studies; studies with small sample sizes (n < 8); reports in non-peer-reviewed journals; articles not written in English; and studies focusing on arts therapies to treat those with illness, trauma, or other life challenges.

Overall, the studies demonstrate positive cognitive, affective, and quality-of-life outcomes. The review categorizes findings based on art forms

• A number of dance studies using quasi-experimental designs demonstrated cognitive and physiological improvements (e.g., increased attentional control). Dancers also scored higher on self-assessments of general health and subjective wellbeing compared to control groups. One of the studies suggests that cognitive benefits might be attributed to dance’s aesthetic qualities, rather than aerobic exercise, as no significant improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness among study groups (dancers and non-dancers alike) was observed.
• Studies related to expressive writing include evidence of improved processing, speed, attention, verbal learning, and memory, although this may be moderated by participants’ educational level and interest in writing. One study revealed psychological benefits, indicated by improvements of scores on a standard depression scale. The authors note that studies involving expressing writing were the only ones where a professional artist was not involved. This is a notable distinction because it may 1) point to why effects were likely moderated by participants’ level of educational attainment, or existing interest in writing, and 2) shed light on the value of formal arts instruction, which is likelier to draw sustained engagement (and produce substantive effects) than one-off attendance at events or other modes of passive engagement in the arts.
• Music-related studies produced a wide variety of results. For singing, there were self-reported decreases in doctor visits, falls, and use of over-the-counter medicine, decreases on a standard depression/anxiety scale, as well as improvements in overall health and involvement in activities and statistically significant improvements in emotional wellbeing, quality of life, and knowledge of singing;increases in self confidence were marginally significant. As for playing a musical instrument, results include: decreased levels of anxiety and depression, increases in the human growth hormone (associated with higher energy and improved memory and sex function), significant improvements in cognitive processes, and perceived favorable effects on health, and to a lesser extent, on social relationships and personal development. In some cases, positive outcomes did not persist over the longer term following music participation,unless, instrumentalists had trained or practiced over an extended period of their lives.
• Theater studies produced positive evidence, mostly related to increases in memory, comprehension, creativity, problem-solving, and personal growth. A study on improvisational drama yielded positive changes in anxiety, and another demonstrated improvements in wellbeing and physical measures, but not psychological health.
• Lastly, visual arts studies using qualitative methods revealed increases in social engagement, sense of empowerment, psychological health, skills development, ability to set new challenges, and identity preservation. One study using a randomized controlled trial yielded positive outcomes measures for anxiety, affect, and self-esteem.

The authors acknowledge the limitations of the research: the total number of studies reviewed is relatively small; a variety of instruments were used to measure change; and not all experiments were well controlled. To improve consistency across future research, they propose standardizing measures, vocabulary, and behavioral outcomes to assess effectiveness of interventions across art forms. They also recommend consistent use of pre/post design, and including control groups, where appropriate, as well as pursuing more meaningful sample sizes, more diverse populations, and longitudinal studies that measure effects over a long period of time.

What I think about it: The review offers a useful overview of health benefits associated with older adults’ arts participation. Some of the claims that were summarized had no indication of statistical significance, which may be a result of authors’ attempt to succinctly summarize findings from studies that used a wide variety of research designs. Nonetheless, the summary chart prepared by the authors is useful in showing the breadth of methods, sample sizes, and outcome measures used across arts interventions among older adults.

What it all means: Noice, Noice, and Kramer’s review was published the same year that NEA released The Arts and Aging: Building the Science, a report summarizing findings from its public workshop exploring research gaps and opportunities for understanding the relationship between the arts and health and wellbeing among older adults. A preliminary version of this review was prepared as a paper for the workshop, so this is a useful, evidence-based supplement to the mostly anecdotal findings in the NEA’s summary. The two combined – in addition to the NEA’s 2011 white paper on the arts and human development, which has a chapter on arts, health and wellbeing among older adults – show that there is growing momentum in the field of creative aging. The health focus and population specificity of this field offers a unique opportunity to lay the groundwork for developing more rigorous research designs for arts inventions broadly. In doing so, researchers can begin to identify the specific benefits of aesthetic engagement. In addition, researchers and advocates can use this evidence to gain support not only from public arts agencies, but also from non-arts agencies serving aging populations.

Reading by Flickr user Moyan Brenn

This summer we have returned to the topic of the arts and wellbeing. Our previous work in this area served as an introduction to wellbeing (and its importance to the arts) for us and our readers. Our current investigation focuses more directly on the following research questions:

1. What are the wellbeing-related outcomes that have been theorized to be related to arts activities?
2. For each of those outcomes, what is the state of the evidence about the relationship?

For this investigation we are reviewing literature reviews on aspects of this topic, as well as major theoretical works about the mechanisms through which the arts improve wellbeing. We are also continuing to consider if the term quality of life is a better fit for our work in this area instead of wellbeing. (If you have an opinion, your input is very welcome).

Below is our current list of resources we are reviewing.

Arts Council England. (2014) The Value of Arts and Culture to People and Society: An Evidence Review. Retrieved from http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/pdf/The-value-of-arts-and-culture-to-people-and-society-An-evidence-review-TWO.pdf

Arts Midwest, & Metropolitan Group. (2015). Creating Connection: Research Findings and Proposed Message Framework to Build Public Will for Arts and Culture. Retrieved from http://www.artsmidwest.org/sites/default/files/ArtsMidwest_BPWReport.pdf

Brown, A. (2006). An Architecture of Value. GIA Reader, 17(1). Retrieved from http://www.giarts.org/article/architecture-value

Carnwath, J. D., & Brown, A. S. (2014). Understanding the Value and Impacts of Cultural Experiences: A Literature Review. WolfBrown and Arts Council England. Retrieved from http://www.artscouncil.org.uk/media/uploads/pdf/Understanding_the_value_and_impacts_of_cultural_experiences.pdf

Crossick, G., & Kaszynska, P. (2016). Understanding the Value of Arts and Culture: The AHRC Cultural Value Project. United Kingdom: Arts & Humanities Research Council.

Wolf, D. (2016). Why Making Music Matters. WolfBrown and Carnegie Hall’s Weill Music Institute. Retrieved fromhttp://www.carnegiehall.org/uploadedFiles/Resources_and_Components/PDF/WMI/WhyMusicMatters.pdf

Development Services Group, Inc. (2016). Arts-Based Programs and Arts Therapies for At-Risk, Justice-Involved, and Traumatized Youths. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Arts-Based-Programs-for-Youth.pdf

Fujiwara, D. (2013). Museum’s and Happiness: The Value of Participating in Museums and the Arts (The Happy Museum). Retrieved from http://www.happymuseumproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Museums_and_happiness_DFujiwara_April2013.pdf

Fujiwara, D., Kudrna, L., & Dolan, P. (2014a). Quantifying and Valuing the Wellbeing Impacts of Culture and Sport. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/304899/Quantifying_and_valuing_the_wellbeing_impacts_of_sport_and_culture.pdf

Fujiwara, D., Kudrna, L., & Dolan, P. (2014b). Quantifying the Social Impacts of Culture and Sport. Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/304896/Quantifying_the_Social_Impacts_of_Culture_and_Sport.pdf

Jackson, M. R., & Herranz, J. (2002). Culture Counts in Communities: A Framework for Measurement (Research Report). The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/310834_culture_counts.pdf

Jackson, M. R., Kabwasa-Green, F., & Herranz, J. (2006). Cultural Vitality in Communities: Interpretation and Indicators. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/projects/cultural-vitality-indicators/publications.cfm

John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. (2010). Soul of the Community – Overall Findings. Retrieved fromhttp://www.knightfoundation.org/sotc/

Jones, S. (2010). Culture shock. London: Demos.

Guetzkow, J. (2002). How the Arts Impact Communities: An introduction to the literature on arts impact studies. Presented at the Taking the Measure of Culture Conference, Princeton University: Princeton University Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies. Retrieved from https://www.princeton.edu/~artspol/workpap/WP20%20-%20Guetzkow.pdf

Stern, M., & Seifert, S. (2007). Culture and Urban Revitalization: A Harvest Document. University of Pennsylvania. Retrieved from https://www.reinvestment.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Culture_and_Urban_Revitalization_A_Harvest_Document-Report_2007.pdf

Matarasso, F. (1997). Use or Ornament? The Social Impact of Participation in the Arts. Comedia.

McCarthy, K., Ondaatje, E., Zakaras, L., Brooks, A., & RAND. (2004). Gifts of the Muse: Reframing the Debate About the Benefits of the Arts (p. 104). RAND. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG218.pdf

Medeiros, K. de, & Basting, A. (2014). “Shall I Compare Thee to a Dose of Donepezil?”: Cultural Arts Interventions in Dementia Care Research. The Gerontologist, 54(3), 344–353. http://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt055

Menzer, M. (2015). The Arts in Early Childhood: Social and Emotional Benefits of Participation. National Endowment for the Arts. Retrieved from https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/arts-in-early-childhood-dec2015-rev.pdf

National Endowment for the Arts. (2012). How Art Works. Retrieved from http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/How-Art-Works_0.pdf

National Endowment for the Arts. (2013). The Arts and Aging: Building the Science.

Noice, T., Noice, H., & Kramer, A. F. (2013). Participatory Arts for Older Adults: A Review of Benefits and Challenges. The Gerontologist, gnt138. http://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnt138

Scottish Government, S. A. H. (2006, January). Quality of Life and Well-being: Measuring the Benefits of Culture and Sport: Literature Review and Thinkpiece. Retrieved January 24, 2015, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/13110743/0

Sen, A. (n.d.). How does culture matter?’. In V. Rao & M. Walton (Eds.), Culture and Public Action. Stanford UP.

Stern, M. J., & Seifer, S. C. (2013). Cultural Ecology, Neighborhood Vitality, and Social Wellbeing – A Philadelphia Project. University of Pennsylvania Social Impact of the Arts Project (SIAP).

Tepper, S. (2014). Artful living: Examining the relationship between artistic practice and subjective wellbeing across three national surveys. The Curb Center for Art, Enterprise, and Public Policy at Vanderbilt University. Retrieved from http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/Research-Art-Works-Vanderbilt.pdf

The National Endowment for the Arts. (2011). The Arts and Human Development. Retrieved fromhttps://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/TheArtsAndHumanDev.pdf

Topos Partnership for the Fine Arts Fund. (n.d.). The Arts Ripple Effect: A Research-Based Strategy to Build Shared Responsibility for the Arts. Retrieved from http://www.theartswave.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/The-Arts-Ripple-Report-January-2010.pdf

Urban Institute. (n.d.). The Validating Arts & Livability Indicators (VALI) Study: Results and Recommendations. Retrieved January 23, 2015, from http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/VALI-Report.pdf

WolfBrown & The National Endowment for the Arts. (n.d) Audience Impact Study Literature Review. Retrieved from http://arts.gov/sites/default/files/Audience-Impact-Study-Literature-Review.pdf

Ukulélé — photo by flickr user oh_debby

In a perfect world, who should have access to the arts? Among artists, arts administrators, and arts educators the answer is likely to be unanimous: “Everyone!” And yet for the most part, that conviction is based on little more than gut instinct and personal experience. Do we actually have any evidence that people are happier with their lives for having art in it?

Those of you who read Createquity’s recent article on television and wellbeing might have noticed an interesting tidbit: according to our analysis of data from the 2012 General Social Survey, there is no relationship between having attended an exhibit or performance in the past year and one’s satisfaction with life, after controlling for factors such as health and income. Left unexplored by that analysis, however, was the question of more active forms of participation – i.e., creation and performance. Enter “Artful Living,” a recent paper from Vanderbilt University’s Curb Center for Art, Enterprise, and Public Policy. Not only does the 2014 study reveal a positive correlation between several forms of active participation and life satisfaction (which some scientists refer to as “subjective wellbeing”), it finds that some forms of art increase people’s wellbeing more than others, and that the arts improve some people’s lives more noticeably than others, too.

In “Artful Living,” Steven Tepper and his team examine the relationship between several creative pastimes and subjective wellbeing, and compare findings across demographic groups. The authors focus specifically on “artistic practice” (including activities such as playing a musical instrument and craft-making), rather than more passive forms of arts participation, such as attendance and reception.

Drawing on data from three national surveys, the researchers find a generally positive relationship between maintaining an artistic practice and various measures of subjective wellbeing. For instance, using a dataset of over 20,000 responses to the DDB Needham Life Style Survey of consumer attitudes in the U.S., the authors find that all three of the artistic practices examined (playing a musical instrument, gardening, and craft-making) are all positively associated with life satisfaction. Moreover, life satisfaction increases with greater frequency of participation in any of these activities. While the relationships are positive across the board, there are considerable differences between those three practices: the wellbeing gains associated with playing an instrument are almost twice as large as those for craft-making.

Besides the differences across artistic practices, the researchers observe that these positive correlations are more pronounced among women and people of color than their male and white counterparts. The relationships are particularly strong for women engaged in craft-making and gardening and people of color who either play an instrument or garden. The authors theorize that this might be attributed to certain benefits of artistic practice like self-expression and a greater sense of personal control and efficacy, which might be particularly helpful for improving the wellbeing of historically marginalized groups.

In addition to the DDB data, the Curb Center researchers analyzed data from a survey of 1,700 college seniors at nine institutions (the Double Major Student Survey) and from the Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP), which surveyed slightly more than 4,000 graduates from 76 art colleges. The results from the Double Major Student Survey lead the authors to conclude that students who engage in arts activities have a more positive self-image and social outlook. The SNAAP data indicates higher levels of life satisfaction among former arts students who have continued their artistic practice, but only among those who feel that they have adequate time to practice their art. Those who continue to create art but feel they don’t have enough time to do so report lower levels of life satisfaction than arts graduates who gave up their creative work entirely.

While these findings are intriguing, it is difficult to say how meaningful these associations are, as the effect sizes are fairly small. The developed models include variables such as age, race, gender, income, employment status, and marital status, plus data on respondents’ artistic practice. All of these variables together only explain about 8 to 13 percent of respondents’ subjective wellbeing.

The authors try to contextualize the size of the wellbeing increases associated with an artistic practice by stating that the increases are comparable to or greater than those that result from being married or having children. That seems pretty impressive at first glance, until one thinks about the fact that over 30 percent of marriages end in divorce, and that spending quality time with a crying newborn at 2am is a decidedly mixed blessing. It turns out that the ups and downs of these life-changing events are reflected in wellbeing surveys: the impact of marriage on wellbeing is fairly mixed, and while individual studies have conflicting results, it seems like levels of life satisfaction generally aren’t so different for parents and non-parents.

A more helpful point of comparison is provided in a study that compares the wellbeing impacts of sports and cultural engagement in the U.K., which came out the same year as “Artful Living.” As in “Artful Living,” the British researchers found a positive, statistically-significant relationship between artistic endeavors and life satisfaction. However, the increase in life satisfaction associated with arts engagement is slightly lower than that of participation in sports. This certainly isn’t the final word on the subject, but it demonstrates how comparisons can be used to make the effect sizes intelligible.

Even with these caveats, “Artful Living” serves as a great example of exploratory work demonstrating the relationship between the arts and wellbeing in the U.S. It also gives us valuable insight into the varying effects of artistic practice on different populations. As always, additional research would be useful. While experimental methods would be desirable, incorporating more forms of artistic practice within a general population survey like the DDB Needham Lifestyle Survey might be an excellent first start. In the meantime, “Artful Living” is notable for taking the challenge of measuring the wellbeing impact of the arts head on, and lays a helpful foundation for future research.

Mural: Miwok Coast, Photo by Jay Galvin

Title: The Cultural Lives of Californians: Insights from the California Survey of Arts & Cultural Participation

Author(s): Jennifer Novak-Leonard, Michael Reynolds, Ned English, Norman Bradburn

Publisher: The James Irvine Foundation

Year: 2015

URL: https://ncg.org/sites/default/files/resources/TheJamesIrvineFoundation_CulturalLivesofCaliforniansReport_05.2015.pdf

Methods: Survey of 1,238 California adults by telephone (both landline and cellphone), stratified by urban/rural county and including oversamples for black and Chinese respondents

What it says: Conducted as a companion piece to “A Closer Look at Arts Engagement in California,” “The Cultural Lives of Californians” is an attempt to model a different approach to cultural participation surveys. Rather than limit the inquiry to closed-ended questions about specific types of participation, the survey opens with an open-ended prompt about what types of creative activities the respondent participates in. The report seeks to understand how and where Californians participate in arts and culture, as well as the value they gain from such participation and the role technology plays in their cultural lives. It broadly finds similar patterns of engagement among California’s population compared to previous surveys, particularly “A Closer Look at Arts Engagement in California,” but includes a few notable twists. In particular, “The Cultural Lives of Californians” brings attention to a notable pattern of lower participation among immigrants, even those of the same ethnic background as non-immigrants. The authors explain that immigrants work more hours and have less leisure time than the rest of the population, which could account for the difference. (Unfortunately, the report does not ask about barriers to participation.) The report also highlights the very significant effect of age on art-making (as distinct from arts attendance), which overshadow the effect of income and education (though that effect does not disappear entirely).

What I think about it: There is a tremendous level of transparency provided regarding the survey design and administration, as well as an attempt to consider the core questions by both primary and secondary research methods, both of which are welcome. A significant investment was made into the primary data collection component of the work, with robust methodological principles applied. Despite this, the values observed in the respondent set to “Cultural Lives of Californians” are consistently higher than seen in comparable questions in the SPPA and other data sources, sometimes dramatically so. For example, the California Survey reports a prevalence of acting six times higher than the SPPA; four times higher for purchasing or acquiring art; and double the rate of attending a cultural fair or festival. By way of explanation, the authors cite the broader frame of the survey as a whole (which doesn’t explain the difference in directly comparable questions) and cast doubt on the methodology of the SPPA, implying that the abrupt transition to the set of questions about arts and culture as well as the switch in recall period from the past week to the past year depress the results. While this is probably true to some extent, the authors seem to go out of their way not to consider another possibility, which is that the California Survey may suffer from increased nonresponse bias. The response rate to the survey is substantially lower than that of both the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts and the General Social Survey, which opens up a higher risk for bias considering the targeted nature of the survey (i.e., it is upfront about being interested in people’s cultural lives, so people who have richer cultural lives were probably more likely to respond).

The authors assert repeatedly that the report asks about a wider range of arts activities than the 2012 SPPA, but the difference is not enormous, with perhaps half a dozen new activities gauged in addition to the open-ended prompt at the beginning. That said, one important difference is that examples are provided for many of the prompts, which may encourage respondents to think more expansively about experiences they’ve had that qualify as arts-related.

Overall, the California Survey and accompanying report excel in two respects: the design of the survey, particularly the questions, and the level of transparency and rigor involved in validating the results against other data sources and making the data available for others to use. The administration of the survey seems not to have been robust enough to overcome nonresponse bias, making it less useful than it could have been, but it is a great model for integration into the next edition of the SPPA.

What it all means: There are really two stories here – one about survey methodology and one about arts participation patterns. Regarding the latter, even with potential bias we can establish some upper bounds on overall participation, since 6.3% of the respondents couldn’t name a single cultural activity they participate in even with an open-ended prompt. It’s also interesting that about 15% of the remaining responses had no correspondence with the closed-ended questions about specific types of participation. In terms of Createquity’s original interest in the study, determining whether low-SES adults are more likely to participate in the informal arts than high-SES, we don’t see a lot of evidence here to suggest that’s the case. Certainly, the differences across education and especially income are muted compared to various forms of physical attendance, but there is no category of participation that demonstrates a clear pattern in the opposite direction – of higher participation by adults in the bottom income quartile or who never attended college. Put another way, while poor and economically disadvantaged adults may be more likely to sing to themselves or dance with friends than see the opera, the same is true of people with a college degree.

The second story here is about what it takes to conduct a truly reliable survey. Response rates for phone surveys continue to get worse and worse, and there seems to be a strong suggestion here that even with a random sample and a professional approach, a survey that signals too strongly the subject under study can bias results if part of what’s being measured is interest in that subject. This has implications for every arts organization that surveys its own audience members, an extremely common practice throughout the industry. If your market research relies on people taking the time to tell you whether they’re interested in what you have to offer, odds are you’ll be hearing from the most interested people.

Image by Florent Lemieux

If you’ve read a study about arts participation in the United States in the past few years, it’s a fair bet that it was authored, co-authored, or influenced by Jennifer Novak-Leonard. The University of Chicago researcher has maintained a breathtaking pace of output recently, nearly all of it focused on better understanding the ways in which people engage in and feel about arts and culture, broadly defined. The first five months of 2015 alone have seen the publication of no fewer than five texts listing Novak-Leonard as the lead author, picking apart arts participation statistics in every way imaginable over the course of some 250+ not exactly beach-reading pages.

The James Irvine Foundation, which has been a critical enabler of this work for nearly a decade, came out this spring with a cluster of arts participation studies by Novak-Leonard and others. Chief among these is “The Cultural Lives of Californians,” which synthesizes lessons from a new telephone survey of 1238 Golden State residents specially designed by Novak-Leonard and her colleagues at NORC at the University of Chicago. This so-called California Survey is an attempt to model a different approach to measuring cultural participation by offering a broader take on what “counts” as arts and culture than the statistics we typically hear about. Rather than limit the inquiry to questions about specific types of participation, the survey begins with an open-ended prompt about what role arts and culture plays in the respondent’s life:

People are involved indifferent types of activities that they enjoy or that are important to them. Please briefly tell me about any creative, cultural or artistic activities that you do.

If stumped, respondents were encouraged think broadly, with suggestions like “You could include anything you do that involves making music, dancing, roleplaying or telling stories, writing or making art. Also think of activities when you make something, or build, customize or repurpose something to your liking.” The resulting range of activities recorded is highly illuminating, and includes such seemingly off-the-wall responses as sandblasting mirrors, customizing old cars, and my favorite, making bowties that incorporate people’s personality characteristics. Clearly, Americans (or at least Californians) define cultural participation very broadly indeed. Importantly, about 15% of the responses had no correspondence with later closed-ended questions in the survey that asked about a range of specific types of participation, meaning that surveys that rely solely on closed-ended questions, such as the NEA’s Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, likely miss a substantial portion of the cultural activity that goes on. Yet even with this open-ended (and, let’s face it, highly leading) approach, a little over 6% of respondents to the California Survey either only mentioned sports-related activities or couldn’t come up with a single way in which they engage culturally, which probably sets a pretty hard upper bound on the percentage of the population that is culturally active for reasons elaborated on below.

While the bulk of “The Cultural Lives of Californians” is devoted to findings that are familiar from previous participation literature, a few new perspectives are offered. In particular, the report brings valuable attention to a consistent pattern of lower participation among immigrants, even those of the same ethnic background as non-immigrants. The authors explain that immigrants work more hours and have less leisure time than the rest of the population, which could account for the difference. “Cultural Lives” also documents a significant pattern of decreased art-making (as distinct from arts attendance) as people age, which overshadows the effect of income and education on that particular form of participation.

More than anything, the report repeatedly emphasizes the wide range of ways in which Californians engage with culture, and makes an argument for funders, researchers, and arts practitioners to use a wider aperture in conceptualizing participation. In particular, art-making activities that take place inside the home or outside of traditional arts spaces receive much attention from the authors, and the survey provides data on the demographic breakdowns of participants in such activities at a greater level of detail than we’ve seen in any other study.

Informal Yet Not (Fully) Inclusive

It turns out that “The Cultural Lives of Californians” is very timely for Createquity’s research process for that reason. A big question running through our investigation into socioeconomic status and arts participation earlier this year was whether poor and less-educated adults are less likely to participate in the arts generally, or just have different patterns of participation that don’t show up as readily in surveys and market research that focus on traditional nonprofit institutions. It’s long been an article of faith in the community arts field that the latter of these two assumptions is true; in other words, that the people who are not coming to the symphony or the ballet are instead experiencing music, dance, and other art forms in their homes, places of worship, and other “informal” contexts.

Despite its explicit goal of uncovering the hidden ways in which Californians participate in culture, there is not a lot of evidence in “Cultural Lives” to suggest that poor and less-educated adults are more likely than others to engage in the informal arts. For example, 60% of respondents with less than a high school diploma spent time with friends or family making music, compared to 73% with an advanced degree; there is a similar slightly upward trend by income associated with that activity. While we don’t see the kinds of dramatic differences across education and especially income as we do with various forms of physical attendance – the ones noted above are within the margin of error for the survey – there is no category of participation that demonstrates a clear pattern in the opposite direction, of higher participation by adults in the bottom income quartile or who never attended college. Put another way, while poor and economically disadvantaged adults may be more likely to sing to themselves or dance with friends than see the opera, the same is true of people with college degrees and well-paying jobs.

Survey Says…Don’t Trust (Most) Surveys?

Discussion about “The Cultural Lives of Californians” will no doubt focus primarily on its content and findings, but the study is no less notable for what it has to teach us about survey methodology and the art of measurement.

The project of which “Cultural Lives” is a part represents an ambitious and serious bid to move the practice of measuring cultural participation forward. In addition to the survey and accompanying analysis, the Irvine Foundation has also published a technical appendix that is longer than the report itself; a review of theoretical constructs and issues in arts participation research; and an entirely separate analysis of the California-based respondents to the NEA’s Survey of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA). This last bit is especially important because it provides for direct comparisons between the “old” and “new” ways of measuring participation – the researchers even used the exact same question wording across surveys in many cases in order to facilitate such comparisons.

As a result, and because of the tremendous level of transparency provided by the authors, we can learn a lot about the effects that survey design and administration have on cultural participation data. Fortunately for the sake of making this article interesting, but unfortunately from the perspective of researchers and practitioners, it turns out that conclusions can differ substantially depending on the choices made in constructing the survey.

In her forward to “Cultural Lives,” Irvine Foundation arts program director Josephine Ramirez declares, “the new narrative is not about decline! Californians actually have a deep interest in the arts and lead active cultural lives.” While the report can’t comment one way or another on decline since there is no longitudinal component to the data, what I take Ramirez to mean here is that when you broaden the definition of what’s included in arts and culture, all of the sudden you see a lot more people participating than you did before. That is true, but it turns out that much of that apparent increase is attributable to the survey itself.

The values observed in the respondent set to “Cultural Lives of Californians” are consistently higher than seen in comparable questions in the SPPA and other data sources, sometimes dramatically so. For example, the California Survey reports a prevalence of acting six times higher than California respondents to the SPPA; four times higher for purchasing or acquiring art; and double the rate of attending a cultural fair or festival. These are not deceptively small adjustments within the margin of error; some of the differences here approach or exceed 30 percentage points. To their credit, the authors noticed this pattern and even made a table to summarize some of the most eye-popping differences in the technical appendix:

By way of explanation, Novak-Leonard et al. cite the broader frame of the California Survey as a whole (although this doesn’t explain the difference in directly comparable questions), and credit the open-ended question about participation at the beginning of the survey and example prompts throughout for jogging respondents’ memories. Most notably, they cast doubt on the methodology of the SPPA, implying that the abrupt transition to the set of questions about arts and culture as well as the switch in recall period from the past week to the past year are confusing for participants and result in false negatives.

These explanations are quite plausible and (with the exception of the broader frame, as discussed above) very likely account for at least some of the gap between survey results. However, the authors seem to go out of their way not to consider another possibility, which is that the California Survey may suffer from increased nonresponse bias. The response rate to the survey is substantially lower* than that of the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, which opens up a higher risk for bias in light of the targeted nature of the survey. The SPPA is an attachment to a larger, multi-modal measurement exercise called the Current Population Survey that is administered by the Census Bureau; thus, respondents to the CPS agree to participate in the survey without knowing that they’re going to be asked questions about their arts engagement habits. By contrast, the California Survey is a telephone-only survey that was upfront about being interested in people’s cultural lives, with the result that people who have richer cultural lives may have been more likely to respond. This is seen perhaps most clearly in the discussion of volunteering for an arts organization, as follows:

Forty-one percent of California adults donated money, goods or services to an arts or cultural organization or project and almost one-third (30 percent) otherwise volunteered to help an arts or cultural organization….These rates of support are substantially higher than those generally seen in other studies that ask about support for arts and culture….In addition, a report released by the United States Census Bureau in early 2014 finds that approximately 26 percent of U.S. adults aged 25 and older volunteered in any way…

In other words, the California Survey found that adults in California volunteer for arts organizations at a higher rate than adults nationally volunteer for anything!

This is not the first time that we’ve seen this phenomenon in evidence with participation data. In 2008, Irvine published the results of a survey by Novak-Leonard (then known as Jennifer Novak) and Alan Brown that purported to measure cultural engagement patterns among Californians living in the state’s inland regions. Createquity’s analysis of that report noted the following:

While most of WolfBrown’s measures cannot be compared with those in the SPPA, many that do show significantly higher levels of activity. For instance, 30% of Cultural Engagement respondents said they “regularly” attend stage plays; only 12.5% of SPPA respondents in the Pacific region claim to have done so even once in the past year. Six percent of Cultural Engagement respondents perform dances, but just 2.1% of Pacific region SPPA respondents do.

Now, with even more direct comparisons possible with the SPPA, we see such differences persisting or even expanding. Is the variance the result, as the authors suggest, of the SPPA not giving people enough to go on as they try to think of ways in which they’ve participated in the arts? Or is the culprit nonresponse bias, meaning that the California Survey’s numbers are inflated? My guess would be that it’s some of both, and that “true” participation rates are somewhere in between these estimates. Seemingly mundane details like where a question appears in a survey have indeed been shown to have surprisingly large impacts on results in some cases. However, in its 2012 review of the threat of nonresponse bias to public opinion surveys, the Pew Research Center observed, “survey participants tend to be significantly more engaged in civic activity than those who do not participate, confirming what previous research has shown…This has serious implications for a survey’s ability to accurately gauge behaviors related to volunteerism and civic activity. For example, telephone surveys may overestimate such behaviors as church attendance, contacting elected officials, or attending campaign events.”

Regardless of the explanation, the fact that two different surveys asking the exact same questions of the exact same target population could come up with such disparate results has important implications for anyone who uses survey research in their work. Ultimately, the lesson here is that survey results are much more sensitive to both design and administration choices than we would like to think. And with response rates for surveys getting worse and worse, there seems to be a strong suggestion that even with a random sample and a professional approach, a survey that signals too strongly the subject under study can bias results if part of what’s being measured is interest in that subject. That should be a heads up for every arts organization that surveys its own audience members, an extremely common practice throughout the industry. If your market research relies on people taking the time to tell you whether they’re interested in what you have to offer, odds are you’ll be hearing from the most interested people.

Fortunately, all hope is not lost for cultural participation research. As if publishing five reports in five months wasn’t enough, Novak-Leonard has been working closely with the NEA for several years now to address some of the deficiencies in the SPPA and introduce more inclusive questions. A marriage of the more thoughtful survey design elements from the California Survey with the increased resources for ensuring a representative data set that the federal government can provide would result in the best cultural participation data we’ve yet seen. Let’s just hope that those government statistics-gathering efforts can survive political pressure and budget cuts long enough for that vision can come to pass.

* NORC researchers actually calculated two versions of the weighted response rate, each of which used different assumptions for estimating what percentage of telephone numbers that didn’t result in a completed survey were eligible to be included in the first place. The higher of these response rates, 31.6%, is the one shared in the report’s technical appendix. Following a lengthy email exchange with two individuals at NORC who worked on the survey, my sense is that the lower number, 9.9%, is likely a better estimate. I am happy to share the details of the exchange with anyone who is interested. By comparison, the response rate to the Current Population Survey, of which the SPPA is a part, is 75%.