National Endowment for the Arts

Beyond attendance: 

A multi-modal understanding 

of arts participation 

Jennifer L. Novak-Leonard and 

Alan S. Brown, WolfBrown

National Endowment for the Arts

Beyond attendance: 

A multi-modal understanding 

of arts participation 

Jennifer L. Novak-Leonard and 

Alan S. Brown, WolfBrown

Based on the 2008 Survey of 

Public Participation in the Arts
Research Report #54

February 2011

National Endowment for the Arts

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20506-0001

Telephone: 202-682-5400

Prepared for the Office of Research & Analysis by Jennifer L. Novak-Leonard and Alan S. Brown, WolfBrown 

Produced by the Office of Research & Analysis

Sunil Iyengar, Director

Tom Bradshaw, Senior Research Officer

Sarah Sullivan, Senior Program Analyst

Other staff contributors: Bonnie Nichols, Ellen Grantham, Patricia Shaffer, and Nona Milstead 

Designed by Roman/Thayer Design Inc. 

Front Cover Photo: Students at the Bates Dance Festival in Lewiston, Maine, perform in Stephan Koplowitz’s 

The Atrium Project. Photo by Phyllis Graber Jensen

Printed in the United States of America

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Novak-Leonard, Jennifer L. (Jennifer Leigh), 1977-

 Beyond attendance : a multi-modal understanding of arts participation / submitted by Jennifer L. Novak-Leonard & 

Alan S. Brown.

 p. cm. -- (Research report ; #54)

 Includes bibliographical references and index.

 1. Arts--United States--Citizen participation--Statistics. 2. Arts audiences--United States--Statistics. 

3. Arts surveys--United States. I. Brown, Alan S. (Alan Stuart), 1960- II. National Endowment for the Arts. III. Title.

 NX230.N38 2011

 700.973’09051--dc22

 2011004097

Available after February 24, 2011, in the PDF version of the report at www.arts.gov.

202-682-5496 Voice/TTY

(a device for individuals who are deaf or hearing-impaired)

Individuals who do not use conventional print materials may contact the Arts Endowment’s Office for 

AccessAbility at 202-682-5532 to obtain this publication in an alternate format.

This publication is available free of charge at www.arts.gov, the website of the National Endowment for the Arts.

The authors wish to thank Aimee Fullman for 

serving as an early reviewer and contributing to 

this monograph’s initial shape.
CHAIRMAN’S NOTE

“Art works.” Those two words — with their three 

meanings — are perhaps the simplest and clearest 

declaration of what we are about at the National 

Endowment for the Arts. They first refer to works of 

art themselves, to the creations of artists. They also 

remind us that art works on audiences, to comfort, 

challenge, and inspire us. And finally, they are a bold 

reminder of the artists and arts workers across this 

country who earn wages, pay taxes, and contribute 

toward our country’s economy.

Our 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the 

Arts seems to report that art is working for fewer 

Americans, a finding that is deeply disturbing 

to all of us who care about the arts in our country. 

It reports a 5 percentage point decline in arts 

participation by Americans. 

But as I have been traveling across this country, those 

findings did not ring true with what I was seeing: 

young people signing on to Pandora and plugged into 

all manner of mp3 players; people of all ages watching 

Dancing with the Stars and So You Think You Can 

Dance; the prevalence of etsy.com and the quarter 

of a million military families who visited one of our 

920 Blue Star Museums over 4 months this summer; 

the Kindles and Nooks in front of every airport 

passenger; Netflix and YouTube allowing all manner 

of film and media, past and present, to be consumed 

anywhere. And how about Glee?

I am witness to a voracious American appetite 

for the arts that does not seem to track with a decline 

in arts participation. Luckily, Sunil Iyengar, our 

director of research and analysis, had the foresight to 

commission a series of deeper looks at this data, 

and asked fellow researchers to interrogate this data 

about the roles that technology, arts education, 

age, and personal arts creation play in American 

arts participation. 

Each of these reports individually expands and 

shades our understanding of the arts participation 

numbers. Collectively they report that one 

factor, above all others, is the prime indicator of 

arts participation — a factor not surprising to 

any Glee-ks:

Arts education in childhood is the most significant 

predictor of both arts attendance and personal arts 

creation throughout the rest of a person’s life. 

All of us who care about the arts in this country 

have to care about arts education, about exposing 

young people, early and often, to the arts in rich, 

rigorous, and repeated ways. That is largely why, over 

the past year, we funded arts education projects in 

every Congressional district in America.

The reports on technology and personal creation 

greatly expand our institutional understanding of 

meaningful arts participation.

And the report on age shows that it’s not the 

audiences who are graying, it’s our country: the age 

distribution of audiences generally mirrors the 

adult population of the United States. Baby Boomers 

continue to dominate audiences, just as we did 

in the 1980s, when we were among the youngest 

audience members.

Taken together, the 2008 Survey of Public 

Participation in the Arts with its follow-up reports, 

present the most nuanced understanding of arts 

participation that the NEA has yet presented. I am 

pleased to share these reports with you, and proud 

of the way we are expanding our understanding 

of how art works in America.

Rocco Landesman

Chairman

National Endowment for the Arts

Photo by 

Michael Eastman
6 National Endowment for the Arts

“Professional arts programs 

cannot be sustained 

without a constituency that 

actively engages in other 

forms of cultural practice.”

– Jennifer L. Novak-Leonard 

and Alan Brown
TABLE OF CONTENTS

11 PREFACE

15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

21 INTRODUCTION

21 Data and Analysis Methods

22 Organization of the Report

25 CHAPTER 1. CONTEXT

26 “Arts Participation:” Defining a Central Term

26 Measuring “Arts Participation”

27 Cultural Ecology

33 Considerations of Policy and Practice throughout this Report

37 CHAPTER 2. A LOOK WITHIN THE MODES OF PARTICIPATION

37 Mode of Participation: Attendance

45 Mode of Participation: Arts Creation

52 Mode of Participation: Electronic Media-Based

59 CHAPTER 3. A LOOK BETWEEN MODES: ATTENDANCE AND ARTS CREATION

59 Rates

60 Arts Lessons

61 Civic and Social Engagement

61 Rates Within Disciplines

63 Rates Across Disciplines

65 Effect of Attendance on Rates of Arts Creation

65 Effect of Arts Creation on Rates of Attendance

67 Exploratory Factor Analysis

71 CHAPTER 4. THE RELATIONSHIP OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA-BASED PARTICIPATION 

TO ATTENDANCE AND ARTS CREATION

71 Rates

71 Rates Within Disciplines (Participation via Recordings or Broadcasts)

73 Rates Within Disciplines (Exclusively Online Participation)

74 Ratios Across Disciplines

77 CHAPTER 5. HOW THE THREE MODES INTERSECT

80 Distribution of Modal Participation Rates, by Discipline

83 CHAPTER 6. WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

83 Implications for Practice

86 Implications for Research

89 Implications for Policy

93 RECOMMENDED SOURCES

97 TECHNICAL APPENDIX
LIST OF TABLES

38 Table 1: Percentage of U.S. adults reporting arts attendance in the past 12 months: 1982, 1992, 2002, and 2008

39 Table 2: Distribution of U.S. adults’ self-reported race/ethnicity: 2008

40 Table 3: U.S. adults’ arts attendance rates between May 2007–May 2008, by demographic group

44 Table 4: Marginal impact of demographics on U.S. adults’ likelihood of arts participation via attendance: 2008

45 Table 5: Factor analysis results for arts attendance activities: 2008

46 Table 6: Rates of U.S. adult participation in arts creation activities: 1992, 2002, 2008

48 Table 7: U.S. adult participation rates in arts creation activities, by demographic group: 2008

50 Table 8: Marginal impact of demographics on U.S. adults’ likelihood of participating via arts creation: 2008

51 Table 9: Factor analysis results for arts creation activities: 2008

54 Table 10: Rates of U.S. adult participation in electronic media and internet arts activities, by demographic 

group: 2008

56 Table 11: Marginal impact of demographics on U.S. adults’ likelihood of participating via broadcasts or 

recordings of artworks or art programs: 2008

61 Table 12: Rate of U.S. adult participation in civic and social activities, by mode of arts participation cohort: 

2008

63 Table 13: Percentage of U.S. adults who report arts attendance that participate in arts creation activities, 

by disclipline: 2008

64 Table 14: Percentage of U.S. adults who report arts creation that participate via arts attendance, 

by discipline: 2008

67 Table 15: Odds of U.S. adults’ participation via attendance and arts creation, by discipline: 2008

68 Table 16: Factor analysis results for arts attendance and arts creation activities: 2008

78 Table 17: Distribution of U.S. adult participation rates across modes, by demographic group: 2008

79 Table 18: Demographic distribution of modal participation rates: 2008
LIST OF FIGURES

16 Figure A: A multi-modal distribution of U.S. adults’ arts participation rates: 2008

17 Figure B: A multi-modal distribution of U.S. adults’ arts participation rates, by artistic discipline: 2008

27 Figure 1: Cultural ecology framework

32 Figure 2: Five modes of arts participation framework

52 Figure 3: Percentage of U.S. adults who accessed artistic content via recorded or live arts broadcasts: 2008

59 Figure 4: Distribution of U.S. adults, based on participation in arts attendance and arts creation: 2008

60 Figure 5: Trend analysis of the distribution of U.S. adults based on participation in arts attendance and 

arts creation: 1992, 2002, and 2008

60 Figure 6: Comparative rates of arts attendance and creation among adults who did or did not take arts classes 

or lessons: 2008

62 Figure 7: Distribution of U.S. adults, based on participation in arts attendance and arts creation, 

by discipline: 2008

65 Figure 8: Comparative rates of arts creation, by discipline, among adults who did or did not attend any 

arts activities: 2008

65 Figure 9: Comparative rates of arts attendance, by discipline, among adults who did or did not create 

artwork: 2008

72 Figure 10: Distribution of U.S. adults, based on arts participation via attendance and viewing and/or listening to 

arts recordings or broadcasts, by discipline: 2008

73 Figure 11: Distribution of U.S. adults, based on participation via arts creation and/or viewing and/or listening 

to recordings or broadcasts, by discipline: 2008

73 Figure 12: Distribution of U.S. adults, based on participation via arts attendance and/or accessing the 

arts online: 2008

74 Figure 13: Distribution of U.S. adults, based on participation via arts creation and accessing the arts online: 

2008

74 Figure 14: Comparative rates of arts attendance among adults who did or did not experience arts broadcasts or 

recordings: 2008

77 Figure 15: A multi-modal distribution of U.S. adults’ arts participation rates: 2008

80 Figure 16: U.S. adults’ modal participation rates across artistic disciplines: 2008

81 Figure 17: A multi-modal distribution of U.S. adults’ arts participation, by discipline: 2008

92 Figure 18: Cultural ecology framework
10 National Endowment for the Arts
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 11

PREFACE

The National Endowment for the Arts’ Survey 

of Public Participation in the Arts (SPPA) is the 

nation’s largest periodic survey of adult involvement 

in arts and cultural activities. For more than a 

quarter-century, since the survey was first 

conducted, researchers at the Arts Endowment 

have issued summary reports and key findings to 

the public. In addition to reporting the survey 

results as a whole, the NEA has made the data files 

available to other arts and cultural researchers 

for their own analyses and publications.1

The 2008 SPPA provided a fascinating glimpse into 

changing patterns of arts participation. Since the 

prior survey period of 2001–2002, rapid advances in 

technology had enabled more access to arts events 

and arts creation through portable devices and the 

Internet. Also, in 2007–2008, many representatives 

of Gen Y (or the “Millennials”) — the second largest 

generation since the Baby Boomers — became 

eligible for taking the survey.

These factors alone would have made the 2008 

SPPA data an attractive prospect for researchers. But 

in still other ways the 2007–2008 survey year 

marked an aberration. For the first time since 1982, 

attendance rates declined for virtually all art forms 

captured by the survey; also for the first time, many 

of those declines occurred for adults 45 years or 

older — an age group that historically has accounted 

for the largest share of arts audiences.

Therefore, even before the 2008 SPPA results had 

been announced, the NEA posted the survey data 

online, to allow researchers to conduct their own 

analyses. The NEA also commissioned reports on 

five cross-cutting topics: media and technology, arts 

education, arts creation, age, and race and ethnicity.2

Results from the study of media, technology, and 

arts participation appeared in June 2010.3 For the 

remaining topics, the NEA was fortunate to obtain 

the services of four researchers or research teams 

already renowned for their work in characterizing 

trends in arts participation. Those researchers 

included Mark Stern, University of Pennsylvania, 

and separate teams at WolfBrown and the National 

Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University 

of Chicago.

Each of these researchers has added a vitally 

new dimension to the NEA’s official summary of the 

2008 data, as published in 2009.4 This report, one of 

three to become available in 2011, is a direct result 

of their efforts. 

In their analysis, NORC researchers Nick Rabkin 

and Eric Hedberg test and ultimately confirm the 

validity of an assumption made with prior SPPA 

data, that participation in arts lessons and classes is 

the most significant predictor of arts participation 

later in life, even after controlling for other 

variables. They also show that long-term declines 

in Americans’ reported rates of arts learning align 

with a period in which arts education has been 

widely acknowledged as devalued in the public 

school system. Nor are the declines distributed 

equally across all racial and ethnic groups.

Working along quite different lines, Mark Stern 

similarly concludes that arts education is the 

most important known factor in influencing arts 

participation trends. But he is much more skeptical 

about the impact of other variables, especially age. 

Practically since the SPPA began, in 1982, there has 

been much talk about the “graying” of arts audiences. 

And while it is certainly true that the audiences 
12 National Endowment for the Arts

for many art forms tracked by the SPPA are aging 

more rapidly than the U.S. population, Stern brings 

out the sobering fact that age and generational 

cohort differences account for less than 1 percent of 

the variance in the total number of arts events that 

Americans attended over the period of 1982–2008. 

Observing that arts attendance may be far less 

dependent on age than usually considered, he 

gives the lie to the notion of “demographic destiny” 

when it comes to arts engagement.

Based on their own analysis of the SPPA data, 

Jennifer Novak-Leonard and Alan Brown advance a 

“multi-modal” framework for understanding arts 

participation. Novak-Leonard and Brown challenge 

the orthodoxy of representing overall participation 

rates merely as a function of visual or performing 

arts attendance. They suggest that a more expansive 

benchmarking system — one accounting for 

participation across three modes (arts creation or 

performance; arts engagement through media; and 

attendance at a broader array of activities) — would 

produce more relevant results for arts funders, 

arts managers, and the general public. 

The NEA’s Office of Research & Analysis already has 

begun to incorporate the ideas of these report-writers 

into its deliberations about the future of the SPPA. 

The authors offer three distinctive takes on a federal 

data source which, since 1982, has shaped much of 

the conversation about how arts and cultural policies 

and programming can engage audiences more 

effectively. By supporting independent research of 

this type, we hope to broaden the scope of that 

conversation.

Sunil Iyengar

Director, Research & Analysis

National Endowment for the Arts
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 13

NOTES

1 For example, see the National Endowment for the Arts website, 

Supplementary Materials Related to the NEA’s 2008 Survey of 

Public Participation in the Arts, www.nea.gov/research/SPPA/

index.html.

2 The report on race/ethnicity and arts participation is still in 

progress. Authored by Vincent Welch, et al. of the National 

Opinion Research Center (NORC), it will be made available 

via the NEA website in 2011.

3 This report was published in multi-media and PDF versions as 

Audience 2.0: How Technology Influences Arts Participation, 

based on research by Sameer Bawa, Kevin Williams, and 

William Dong, BBC Research & Consulting. Audience 2.0, 

Research Report #50 (Washington, DC: National Endowment for 

the Arts, 2010), available online, www.nea.gov/research/

ResearchReports_chrono.html.

4 See 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, 

Research Report #49 (Washington, DC: National Endowment 

for the Arts, 2009), available online, www.nea.gov/research/

2008-SPPA.pdf. The Executive Summary of that data appeared 

as Arts Participation 2008: Highlights from a National 

Survey (Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 

2009), available online, www.nea.gov/research/NEA-SPPAbrochure.pdf.
14 National Endowment for the Arts

Arts participation can 

be understood as occurring 

in multiple modes, 

sometimes overlapping: 

arts attendance, personal 

creation and performance, 

and arts participation 

through electronic media.
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

First conducted in 1982, the NEA’s Survey of Public 

Participation in the Arts (SPPA) serves as the 

longest-standing resource for studying U.S. adult 

levels of arts attendance, personal arts creation and 

performance, and arts participation through 

electronic media. The SPPA evolved from the need 

to establish a consistent baseline for quantifying 

arts audiences nationwide (DiMaggio, Useem, and 

Brown, 1978). It also evolved from the need to collect 

better information about those audiences, in keeping 

with the NEA’s programmatic and policy priorities 

at the time of the survey’s development (Tepper and 

Gao, 2008).5 Today, SPPA-based information about 

arts attendance continues to provide the nonprofit 

arts sector with useful, reliable information 

about Americans’ rates of participation in live 

arts events.

The environment in which arts organizations 

function has changed dramatically in the 29 years 

since the first SPPA. Alternatives for arts and 

entertainment activities have proliferated, and 

expectations for personalization and individual 

control over those experiences have increased. 

The proliferation of new technologies for interacting 

with digital content is occurring at a heightened 

pace, while the nation’s demographic characteristics 

grow increasingly diverse. 

For arts funders and grantee organizations alike, 

conferences and meetings have tended to focus on 

adapting to this new environment. Such discussions 

often lead to debates over what “arts participation” 

is and how arts organizations might best channel 

the myriad pathways through which Americans now 

engage in artistic and creative expression. 

Those pathways are blurring in several important 

respects. The evolution of art forms themselves 

is inevitable and this evolution is rapidly underway 

with the introductions of new or blended forms 

that infuse technology, different cultural traditions, 

and elements of multiple art disciplines. Similarly, 

the settings in which Americans choose to engage in 

arts activities have long expanded well beyond 

purpose-built arts facilities, moving into bookstores, 

community centers, schools, places of worship, 

and especially the home. The nonprofit arts and 

cultural sector has grown accustomed to these 

shifting boundaries of participation — a realization 

that takes in a larger swatch of the “cultural ecology,” 

including professional arts, personal participatory 

practice, and cultural literacy (Kreidler and 

Trounstine, 2005). 

Using SPPA data from 1982–2008, this monograph 

explores the breadth of participation within and 

between three primary categories, or “modes,” of arts 

activities: arts attendance, personal arts creation 

and performance, and arts participation through 

electronic media.6 In addition, the monograph 

offers a unique context for understanding arts 

participation, suggesting that a more expansive 

framework for the cultural ecology is needed, and 

discusses implications of the SPPA data and other 

trends for practice, policy, and future research. 
16 National Endowment for the Arts

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND 

IMPLICATIONS

Four key contextual factors emerge from the 

current literature and research; they are crucial to 

a more comprehensive understanding of arts 

participation. These four factors are 1) the skill level 

of the artist or participant, 2) the form of artistic 

expression, 3) the setting in which the activity 

occurs, and 4) the degree to which the individual 

exercises creative control over the activity. 

Modal patterns of arts participation

■ Arts participation can be understood as 

occurring in multiple modes, sometimes 

overlapping: arts attendance, personal creation 

and performance, and arts participation 

through electronic media. The absolute 

levels of participation within each mode, and the 

relative extent of overlap in arts participation 

across the modes, supports this multi-modal 

theory.

■ When we expand the scope of activities 

counted in “arts attendance,” for example, we 

find that 74% of U.S. adults reported having 

participated in the arts via at least one 

of three modes. U.S. adults participate in each 

of the three modes at approximately the same 

rate (50%). Meanwhile, approximately the 

same portion of U.S. adults (26%) participated 

in all three modes as did in none of the three 

modes (26%).7

■ Approximately 23% of U.S. adults participate 

in the arts, but do not attend. This figure does not 

account for the reading of literature as a form of 

arts participation. (See Figure A.)

■ Rates of aggregate arts attendance have declined 

significantly from 2002, when 39.5% of adults 

reported attending at least one “benchmark” 

arts event in the prior 12 months. In 2008, the 

attendance rate was 34.6% over the same period.8

Adult rates of aggregated arts creation have 

remained stable (42.2% in 2002, 41.1% in 2008). 

However, rates for both aggregate measures 

in attendance and arts creation declined from 

1992 to 2002.9,10

■ Data underscore the relationship between having 

had arts lessons and participating in all modes 

of arts activities as an adult. Specifically, having 

had any arts lessons increases the likelihood 

of arts creation by 32%, increases the likelihood 

of media-based arts participation by 33%, and 

increases the likelihood of arts attendance by 

29%, after controlling for demographics variables. 

■ Over half of U.S. adults participate in some way in 

music (52.6%) and in visual arts (51.7%). Adult 

participation rates in theater (29.8%) and dance 

(16.0%) are substantially lower. (See Figure B.)

■ The vast majority of participation in theater and 

visual arts is through attendance, whereas the 

majority of participation in music and dance 

occurs via electronic media.

FIGURE A

A multi-modal distribution of U.S. adults’ arts 

participation rates: 2008

Attendance

8%

Creation

6%

Media-based participation

10%

No participation

26%

7%

10% 7%

All modes

26%

In Percentages of U.S. Adults
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 17

Arts attendance

■ Data suggest that the form of artistic 

expression and the setting in which it occurs 

are two contextual factors that influence 

who participates. For example, respondents 

who self-identified as African American were 

significantly more likely than other racial/ethnic 

groups to report attendance at religious 

institutions, and their highest rate across the 

creative activities was reported for “singing 

in a chorale, choir, or glee club or other type 

of vocal group.” The disparities between rates 

of attendance for non-benchmark activities 

tend to be smaller between whites and other 

racial/ethnic groups compared to the disparities 

in the “benchmark” arts attendance rates. 

■ Art or craft fairs and festivals, and other outdoor 

festivals that feature performing artists, attract 

notably different people than benchmark arts 

activities; overall, these activities produce some 

of the highest rates of attendance on record in the 

SPPA. Given their popularity, these activities 

appear to play a central role in the landscape of 

arts participation, especially for Americans of 

color.

■ Community venues (schools and religious 

institutions) play a major role in the cultural 

lives of Americans as settings for arts activities. 

The rates of attendance at these types of venues 

were among the highest for any individual 

arts-attendance activity reported between 

May 2007 and May 2008. 

■ Demographic variables, including race/ethnicity, 

age, educational attainment, family income, and 

others, explain less than 20% of the variation in 

attendance rates at arts events.

Personal arts creation and performance

■ Arts-creation activities are embedded in the lives 

of Americans, and vary by racial/ethnic group. 

For example, American Indians and people of two 

or more races tend to create “pottery, ceramics, 

jewelry, or any leatherwork or metalwork” at 

higher rates than other racial/ethnic groups. 

Furthermore, arts-creation activities generally 

appeal to younger adults. Conversely, older adults’ 

creative participation wanes sharply (with the 

exception of stitchery), which raises a policy issue 

as to what incentives can be effected to foster 

programs and activities designed to keep older 

Americans engaged in arts creation, especially in 

the context of life-long learning opportunities.

■ After controlling for the respondent’s history 

of taking arts lessons, the role of demographic 

characteristics diminishes. In 2008, SPPA 

respondents with any history of arts lessons 

were, on average, 32% more likely than those 

without any arts lessons to participate in 

arts-creation activities. In addition to arts lessons, 

two demographic characteristics significantly 

predict the likelihood that someone participates 

in arts creation: females (15% more likely 

than males to participate), and people living in 

metropolitan areas (10% less likely to participate 

in arts creation). 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

FIGURE B

A multi-modal distribution of U.S. adults’ arts 

participation rates, by artistic discipline: 2008 Percentage of U.S. adults 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Via recordings or broadcasts only

Attended and via recordings or

broadcasts

Attended only

Attended and created

Created only

Created and via recordings or

broadcasts

Created, attended, and via 

recordings or broadcasts

Music (52.6%) Theater (29.8%) Dance (16.0%) Visual (51.7%)

25.9%

21.1%

19.7%

5.3%

10.0%

7.0%

11.1%

53.5%

19.8%

22.1%

36.2%

10.7%

11.6%

24.8%

11.9%

15.9%

6.0%

19.2.0%

14.4%

34.6%

2.7%

6.7%

3.3% 1.3% 2.1% 1.9% 1.0%

0.4%

In percentages of U.S. adults

Note: The rate of U.S. adult participation in the discipline is included in the column labels. 

The columns themselves demonstrate the distribution of rates across each participation 

mode within the discipline.
18 National Endowment for the Arts

Electronic media-based participation

■ Approximately 15% of adults in the U.S. 

participate in the arts via electronic media only.

■ Broadcasts and recordings reach a large and 

distinct segment of the American population 

that does not attend live performances. For 

example, 26% of those who participate at all in 

music activities do so via recordings or broadcasts 

only. Americans with lower incomes and lower 

levels of educational attainment are more likely 

to participate via broadcasts and recordings, 

suggesting the vital role that these distribution 

channels play in making the arts accessible to 

more Americans.

■ “Audiences” for dance and music are largely 

comprised of adults who do not attend, but access 

the art form via live or recorded broadcasts.

This monograph invites discussion about how 

people engage in the arts (through multiple 

modes of participation) and what those patterns of 

participation across modes imply for arts 

and cultural organizations, and for broader policy 

decisions and investments. 

In planning for the first SPPA in 1982, one of the 

10 key policy questions was, “How is amateur 

participation related to attendance?” (NEA, 1995) 

While the framing language may have changed 

over the years, the question remains as essential as 

ever. The need to know more about the inventive 

and imaginative arts activities of Americans, and 

the connections between these activities and other 

forms of participation, are not new (Cwi, ed., 1977), 

but are perhaps more urgent than before, given the 

dramatic societal changes the U.S. has seen in 

terms of shifting demographics, evolving cultural 

tastes, and new technological opportunities. 

Aligning cultural policy and practice with a fuller 

understanding of how Americans engage with 

culture is a necessary step toward a more vibrant 

arts ecology.
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 19

NOTES

5 Beginning in the 1960s, the nonprofit arts business model 

boomed, fuelled in part by a surge in public funding for these 

organizations. See Arts and Culture in the Metropolis: 

Strategies for Sustainability, Kevin F. McCarthy, Elizabeth 

Heneghan Ondaatje, and Jennifer L. Novak (Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND, 2007); and “Leverage Lost: The Nonprofit Arts in the 

Post-Ford Era,” John Kreidler, in The Journal of Arts 

Management, Law and Society 26, no. 2 (1996): 79–100.

6 For the purpose of this report, arts education was not treated 

as a separate “mode” of arts participation. The three principal 

modalities of participation discussed in the monograph are: 

arts attendance, creation, and media-based participation. 

Arts education, as captured in the SPPA, is difficult to view as 

a distinct modality because it spans both attendance- and 

media-based participation (e.g., music appreciation and art 

appreciation/history) and more inventive/interpretive modes 

of participation (e.g., music lessons or classes, and dance 

lessons or classes). Further, by treating arts education outside 

our tri-modal framework, we could better test its influence 

on rates of attendance and arts creation. (See also the NEA’s 

Arts Education in America: What the Declines Mean for 

Arts Participation, Nick Rabkin and Eric C. Hedberg.)

7 These aggregate measures of arts participation are described in 

Chapter 4. See the Technical Appendix for specific variables 

used.

8 “Benchmark” activities include: attendance at a live jazz 

performance, a classical music performance, a live opera, a live 

musical stage play, a live performance of a non-musical stage 

play, a live ballet, and a visit to an art museum or gallery.

9 Throughout this monograph, multi-year analyses contain only a 

subset of activities captured in the 2008 survey due to differences 

between SPPA waves. Hence, the percentages reported in this 

bullet differ from those reported in Figure A. See the Technical 

Appendix for details on which variables from the longitudinal 

analyses are included in this report. 

10 Difference in question-wording across SPPA waves does not 

allow longitudinal analysis of electronic media-based 

participation.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
20 National Endowment for the Arts

What are the implications 

for policy and practice of 

embracing a broader definition 

of arts participation?
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 21

INTRODUCTION

The NEA’s report 2008 Survey of Public 

Participation in the Arts (Research Report #49) 

contributes to a growing body of literature 

and the experiences of arts professionals that have 

affirmed a long-term decline in arts attendance. 

Should policymakers be concerned? Does the 

decline in attendance signal a broader cultural shift 

away from the arts, or are Americans engaging in 

other forms of artistic expression? Conversations 

about the decline in attendance raise fundamental 

questions about the definition of arts participation

— for example, what counts and what does not, 

and what conceptual models should be used to take 

stock of arts participation, cultural engagement, 

and creative vitality?

“Arts participation” includes more possibilities than 

attendance alone. How many Americans make 

art? How many Americans engage with art online? 

The NEA’s Survey of Public Participation in the 

Arts (SPPA) captures data on three modes of arts 

participation essential to the health of the overall 

arts ecology — attendance, personal arts creation, 

and electronic media-based arts participation. 

Does participation in one mode — such as attending, 

listening, or creating — increase the likelihood 

of engaging via another mode? What are the 

implications for policy and practice of embracing 

a broader definition of “arts participation?” Using 

the SPPA data, this monograph investigates arts 

participation across modes and other questions 

deemed critical to the future of arts participation 

in America.

DATA AND ANALYSIS METHODS

The SPPA uniquely provides national benchmarking 

indicators of arts creation, arts learning, and arts 

attendance to inform cultural policy and stimulate 

discourse on cultural development in the U.S. 

First conducted in 1982, the SPPA is a national 

survey of adults resident in the U.S. and their 

self-reported behavioral participation in arts and 

cultural activities.11 The appendices of the 

2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts

reproduce the data-collection methods and 

changes to the questionnaire for each of the SPPA 

data-collection years, the corresponding design 

effects, and the survey questions in their entirety.12

Our findings are based on a statistical analysis of 

four cycles of SPPA data, from 1982, 1992, 2002 

and 2008, including cross-tabulations, likelihood 

ratios, factor analysis, and logistic regression. 

The SPPA uses a complex survey design, the effects 

of which are considered in the analyses.
22 National Endowment for the Arts

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Chapter 1 discusses the existing perspectives 

on arts participation, and recent research 

and conversations happening within the arts and 

cultural policy fields about adopting a broader 

perspective for understanding arts participation. 

In this chapter, we seek to clarify the usage of the 

term “arts participation” and review literature and 

existing research that identify four factors (beyond 

demographics) that motivate and bring value to 

individuals’ participation with the arts. The four 

elements are: skill level, form of expression, setting, 

and creative control. The chapter also discusses 

new frameworks for measuring participation and 

introduces the potential implications for practice 

and policy that stem from a broader perspective 

of arts participation. 

Chapter 2 looks at relationships between 

disciplines and genres within attendance, within

arts creation, and within electronic media-based 

participation modes of arts participation. This 

chapter recaps, and expands upon, the analysis of 

participation rates originally published in the 

NEA’s Arts Participation 2008: Highlights from 

a National Survey (June 2009) and 2008 Survey 

of Public Participation in the Arts (Research 

Report #49, November 2009). Chapter 2 reports 

participation rates by demographics and explores 

underlying factors — other than demographics 

— that explain observed differences in arts 

participation in the SPPA. 

Chapters 3 and 4 examine the pair-wise 

relationships between modes. Chapter 3 discusses 

the relationships between arts attendance and 

arts creation, while Chapter 4 discusses the 

relationships between electronic media-based 

participation with attendance and with arts creation.

Chapter 5 considers the interconnectedness of all 

three modes of arts participation — attendance, arts 

creation and electronic-media based participation, 

while Chapter 6 contemplates the implications for 

practice, research and policy, based on the totality of 

the SPPA data and relevant literature. 

Throughout the process of creating this report, the 

NEA has invited us to think broadly about personal 

arts creation as a discrete mode of arts participation, 

to draw from our prior work within this context, 

and to consider what the findings from the SPPA 

might imply for cultural policy and programming 

decisions. 
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 23

NOTES

11 In the 2008 SPPA, the survey design was changed to allow 

for proxy responses for spouses or partners in the same 

household. See 2008 SPPA Public-Use Data File User’s 

Guide: A Technical Research Manual, Timothy Triplett 

(Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2009), available online, 

www.cpanda.org/cpanda.

12 National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), 2008 Survey of Public 

Participation in the Arts, Research Report #49 (Washington, DC: 

National Endowment for the Arts, 2009), available online, 

www.arts.gov/research/ResearchReports_chrono.html.

INTRODUCTION
24 National Endowment for the Arts

Symbolic identification with 

different types of venues plays an 

important role in decisions 

that Americans make about arts 

attendance. Moreover, setting 

is one of the few variables that arts 

presenters and producers might 

be able to control.
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 25

CHAPTER 1

CONTEXT

How people participate in the arts is influenced 

by technological, social, demographic, and 

economic changes. The environment in which arts 

organizations now function is different from what it 

was in the early 1980s, when the SPPA originated. 

In 1981, for example, Sony Corporation introduced 

the first prototype digital camera. Now, millions of 

Americans have digital cameras in their cellular 

telephones. The first entirely digital audio recording 

of a popular-music record album had been made 

only a few years prior to the first SPPA. Now, iTunes 

and other online platforms dominate the landscape 

of music distribution. The King Tut exhibition had 

been drawing record crowds to museums in the late 

1970s, while The Phantom of the Opera, the musical 

that would change the course of Broadway history, 

did not open until 1986. Among the many trends that 

have re-shaped the landscape of arts participation 

since 1982 are:

■ Technology

– The proliferation of artistic content via 

broadcast media (cable television, satellite 

radio, online media, etc.)

– The availability of low-cost, high-quality 

audio and visual recording devices (e.g., digital 

cameras) and portable sound systems

– The widespread availability of computer 

software for downloading, organizing, and 

composing music

– The availability of digital reading devices 

such as Amazon’s Kindle

■ Diversification 

– A diversification of settings where arts 

activities happen (e.g., bookstores, coffee 

houses, churches, art exhibitions in airports)

– More rapidly changing aesthetic tastes, 

aided by technology

– Increased mobility, immigration patterns, 

ethnic diversification, and the rapid evolution 

and amalgamation of cultural traditions and 

practices

– The emergence of spoken word, hip-hop, and 

self-made videos as popular forms of cultural 

expression 

■ Accessibility and flexibility

– The Internet and public expectations for 

high-speed exchanges and availability of 

information

– Higher productivity expectations and 

increased scarcity of time outside work and 

family obligations

– Delayed decision-making patterns among 

those who attend arts events, and the erosion 

of the subscription-marketing model

These and other demographic, technological, and 

cultural trends have profoundly changed society and 

the landscape of arts participation since 1982. 

Together, they pose serious challenges to many 

existing arts organizations.
26 National Endowment for the Arts

“ARTS PARTICIPATION:” DEFINING A 

CENTRAL TERM

The term “arts participation” is far-reaching, but is 

commonly interpreted to mean “arts attendance.” 

“Arts participation” studies in the U.S. have largely 

evolved from arts organizations undertaking 

their own audience surveys, and have traditionally 

focused on visits to museums and attendance 

at live performances by professional artists at 

arts-specific venues, such as theaters and concert 

halls. Tepper and Gao (2008, 26) consider 

the trade-offs between focusing data collection 

on institutional program offerings versus a 

broader array of arts activities to represent the 

public interest. These researchers discuss the 

disproportionate emphasis on attendance metrics, 

especially at events historically designated as 

“benchmark” arts activities by the NEA.

Attendance is only one way that Americans 

participate in the arts. Does downloading music and 

burning CDs qualify as arts participation? How 

about meeting with a book club? Re-writing the lyrics 

to a popular song? Making an online scrapbook 

of family pictures? When does digital photography 

cross the line from social expression to artistic 

creation? Increasingly over the past decade, the 

conversation about “arts participation” has become a 

discourse more broadly accepted to imply multiple 

modes of engagement — including attendance, 

interactivity through the electronic media, arts 

learning, and arts creation (McCarthy et al., 2001; 

NEA, 1995)13 — and a broader scope of contexts and 

settings (Brown et al., 2008).

MEASURING “ARTS PARTICIPATION”

Although much has been written about the changing 

cultural climate, measurement systems have been 

slow to adapt. To permit comparability of SPPA 

results over time, relatively few changes to the 

SPPA protocol have been made since 1982. In 2008, 

the SPPA expanded the range of events it uses to 

measure arts attendance. Such events now include 

“Latin, Spanish, or salsa music” and “Outdoor 

festival that featured performing artists.” Also in 

2008, the SPPA included more questions about 

accessing, creating, and posting artworks on the 

Internet. For example, “During the last 12 months, 

did you use the Internet to watch, listen to, or 

download live or recorded music, theater or dance 

performances?” 2008 was also the first year that 

the SPPA included a question about playing an 

instrument independent of musical genre.14 Earlier 

modifications included listening to “rap or hip-hop 

music” (added in 1992), attending “a live dance 

performance other than ballet, such as modern, folk, 

tap, or Broadway style” (1992), and “singing with a 

chorale, choir, or glee club or other type of vocal 

group” (1992).

Until recently, few organizations or researchers 

have pushed forward with new definitional 

frameworks or methods that offer an improved 

understanding of the changing ways in which people 

experience culture. Within the past few years, 

however, several papers have made a compelling 

case for a new generation of measurement tools. 

Carole Rosenstein wrote in 2005 that old ways of 

measuring arts participation focus too much on 

passive forms of engagement (e.g., attendance) 

within the classical Western art forms and fail to 

incorporate participatory forms of engagement 

that are more prevalent among immigrants and 

communities of color (Rosenstein, 2005). When 

broader definitions of culture are used, the study 

asserts, significantly higher levels of participation 

are seen among populations of color. In their 

paper for 1st ACT Silicon Valley, Tom Borrup and 

Heidi Wagner (2007) argue for specific changes in 

future measurement systems. They hold that 

research on cultural engagement should measure: 
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 27

■ Acts of art-making, creative activity, and content 

creation

■ Cross-cultural activity in which individuals are 

exposed to cultures outside their own life 

experience

■ Various forms of participatory and social forms 

of engagement (to include, for example, “amateur” 

involvement in music or dance, community 

theater, etc.)

■ Forms of cultural engagement involving 

technology

A recent report on arts attendance in England, part 

of the continuous “Take Part” survey of 28,000 

adults — sponsored by Arts Council England and its 

parent agency, the Department for Culture, Media 

and Sport — identifies psychological and practical 

barriers to increased attendance. Yet the report also 

concludes that many people, including those in the 

higher education and income cohorts, do not attend 

the arts, or attend at very low levels. Reflecting on 

this “self-exclusion” phenomenon, the authors 

conclude that different measurement systems are 

necessary to “better understand the extent to which 

people have opportunities to experience the arts 

beyond the established forms that typically receive 

public funding.” The authors inquire “whether public 

money could be used in the future to support arts 

activities and experiences of a very different nature” 

(Bunting, et al., 2008, 14).

Developing a broader and more inclusive definition 

of “participation” is not just an academic issue; it is 

critical to the future of cultural policy. The Urban 

Institute’s Arts and Culture Indicators Project 

has made significant advances in setting forth a 

conceptual framework for defining and assessing 

cultural vitality and in establishing its critical 

link to the overall quality of life. The Urban Institute 

defines cultural vitality as “evidence of creating, 

disseminating, validating, and supporting arts 

and culture as a dimension of everyday life in 

communities” (Jackson et al., 2006, 4). Moreover, a 

growing body of literature suggests that future 

measurement systems should position the arts 

within the larger contexts of cultural vitality, civic 

engagement, and social capital.

CULTURAL ECOLOGY

Our research suggests that a better conceptual 

framework is needed to guide future efforts to 

measure participation in arts and culture. 

With the conceptual expansion of arts participation, 

recent publications and research have emphasized 

three spheres of arts and cultural activities: 

centralized, attendance-based activity within the 

traditional structures of arts organizations and 

institutions; relatively decentralized personal 

practice in community contexts; and an awareness 

and appreciation of arts and culture in daily life, 

embedded in culture and daily activities, such as 

electronic media-based participation. Each of these 

spheres is recognized for its contribution to cultural 

vitality and creative, productive communities 

(Brown et al., 2008; Kreidler and Trounstine, 2005).

FIGURE 1

Cultural ecology framework15

Cultural literacy

Participatory cultural practice

Professional cultural

goods and services

CHAPTER 1

John Kreidler and Philip Trounstine (2005) 

developed a simple framework for thinking about 

the cultural ecology of a community, as illustrated in 

Figure 1. In their framework, cultural literacy is the 

foundation of a healthy cultural ecology, supporting 

higher levels of engagement such as participatory 

cultural practice and consumption of professional 

cultural goods and services. The authors define 
28 National Endowment for the Arts

cultural literacy as “fluency in traditions, 

aesthetics, manners, customs, language and the 

arts, and the ability to apply critical thinking 

and creativity to these elements” (2005, 6).16

They define participatory cultural practice as 

“engagement of individuals and groups in cultural 

activities in a nonprofessional setting” (2005, 6), 

regardless of the arts participation mode. One 

can think of the cultural ecology framework as 

describing spheres of activity, whereas attendance, 

personal arts creation and performance, and 

electronic media-based arts participation, 

as documented by the SPPA, describe modes of 

participation within each of those spheres 

of activity. 

In assessing the cultural ecology of a community 

or region, therefore, one must look not only at 

attendance of professional programs, but also at 

participatory activities such as singing in a choir or 

writing poetry. This perspective also might 

encompass more basic aspects of cultural literacy 

such as reading books or magazines and preparing 

traditional cuisines. Notably, the framework 

suggests that professional arts programs cannot be 

sustained without a constituency that actively 

engages in other forms of cultural practice. The key 

notion we take from this model is that cultural life in 

a community cannot flourish without all three 

spheres of activity.

Internationally, arts and cultural researchers have 

raised questions about the connections between

these spheres of activity, and especially how 

personal practice relates to attendance.17 To address 

this question, we analyze SPPA data and look 

for patterns and relationships between personal 

arts creation and performance, arts attendance, 

and electronic media-based participation. In order 

to interpret these findings and gain a deeper 

understanding of their interrelationships, however, 

we must move beyond discipline-based activity 

categories and consider some overriding variables 

that occur in arts participation. Four key constructs 

of arts participation emerged from our literature 

review. They are:

1. the skill level of the artist or participant, 

2. the form of artistic expression, 

3. the setting in which the activity occurs, and 

4. the degree to which the individual exercises 

creative control over the activity.18

The skill level of the artists or participants

The distinctions between professional and 

amateur19 artists are blurring. “Amateur” has been 

used to refer to “informal” arts, or arts activities that 

fall outside the nonprofit arts infrastructure and 

commercial arts (Wali et al., 2002; McCarthy et al., 

2001). But the high level of competency, dedication, 

and resourcefulness of many individuals engaging 

in such arts activities and forms challenge the 

pejorative connotation of “amateur arts.” Researcher 

Charles Leadbeater (2004) argues that professional 

amateurs will greatly shape the 21st century. He 

has termed this social phenomenon the “Pro-Am 

Revolution,” as it is comprised of individuals who are 

not professionals (because they earn their livelihood 

through other means), but who work in fields such 

as the arts at a professional standard. Not being 

connected to a professional arts organization does 

not mean that “amateur” artists lack significant 

network-organizing mechanisms. In a similar vein, 

Maria Rosario Jackson of the Urban Institute is 

leading a study of artists with “hybrid careers” —

artists working outside of mainstream performance 

and presentation traditions, whose artistic 

expression may take several forms, and who may 

choose to work at several jobs that satisfy their 

artistic and other aspirations.20

The widespread availability of easily used 

artistic tools creates opportunities for millions of 

Americans to experiment with arts creation, not 

all of which might be termed “artistic expression.” 

From a policy perspective, this raises a sticky 

question about when an activity crosses the line 

between amusement and arts participation. For 

example, when does selecting a digital image to use 

as wallpaper on your computer desktop become 

“arts participation?” Does it matter if the individual 

consciously goes about the activity with “artistic 

intentions?” Or, is it sufficient to assume that 

the artistic benefits are inherent in the activity, 

regardless of intent? And how does one ascertain 

“artistic intent?” The 2008 SPPA brought back a 

question used in the 1982 wave to address this issue: 

“Did you make photographs, movies, or videotapes 

as an artistic activity?” (emphasis added). In this 

case, it is left to the respondent to ascertain artistic 

intent. As more and more Americans gain access 

to low-cost tools of creativity, these issues will only 

grow in importance.
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 29

The standard of quality for amateur involvement 

in the arts has been bolstered by greater accessibility 

to technology. This trend may also be attributed 

to the prevalence of technologies driving down 

production costs and lowering hurdles to attracting 

and serving audiences (Tepper, 2008, 370). But 

what is the distinction between professional and 

amateur? Whether or not one is paid for his or 

her work? This is a difficult definitional line to draw, 

given that many artists do not receive pecuniary 

compensation for their work.21

The distinction between amateur and professional 

in general use has also implied the pursuit of a 

livelihood. Sources such as the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics’ Current Employment Statistics22 capture 

whether or not an individual earned money from 

involvement with the arts. But payment for time and 

services does not necessarily indicate the artist’s 

skill level, passion, or even the artist’s own definition 

of “success.” Which is more important to know —

whether an artist earns a portion of his or her income 

from producing art, or the artist’s skill level or the 

centrality of art-making to the artist’s life, regardless 

of whether or not that activity is coupled with 

pecuniary benefits? 

In querying arts creation and arts attendance, the 

SPPA does not distinguish between amateur and 

professional, although school performances are 

excluded (i.e., “with the exception of elementary or 

high school performances...”). In other words, 

when asked if “during the last 12 months did you do 

any painting, drawing, sculpture, or printmaking 

activities” — an individual who doodles during 

business meetings may be as likely to respond 

“yes” as a professional sculptor. We do not mean to 

deny the value or meaning of such questions, but 

their phrasing does lead us to challenge what is 

being measured (e.g., incidence and frequency 

of participation) versus what is not being measured 

(skill level, centrality, or salience of the activity). 

Future efforts to characterize the arts-creation 

activities of Americans might benefit from a more 

dimensional analysis. 

The form of artistic expression

Many forms of arts and cultural expression 

extend far beyond those traditionally included in 

surveys of arts participation,23 and they are 

becoming increasingly diverse, in keeping with 

changes in public tastes (e.g., watching dance 

competitions on television) and new technologies 

that have facilitated the proliferation of artistic 

content (e.g., cable television and satellite radio).

Public perception is shifting the boundaries of 

what we mean by “classical” in relation to other art 

forms.24 Consider, for example, the likely effect 

that the “classical crossover”25 phenomenon has 

had on the public definition of classical music 

(e.g., Charlotte Church, Andrea Bocelli, the Three 

Tenors, etc.). Does “classical music” today mean the 

same thing it meant to the American public of 1982? 

This raises the question of whether increases or 

declines in classical music participation might be 

due, in part, to a change in the definition of 

“classical music” in the public consciousness. 

We also observe a greater blurring of lines between 

artistic genres, and, within genres, uncertainty 

about what constitutes “original” work. Within the 

realm of music, for example, the “iPod shuffle”26

approach to music-listening, in which the listener is 

never sure what comes next, and the complete 

control that digital audio-players afford to listeners, 

promote a breakdown in the distinction between 

music genres. We have observed this phenomenon 

anecdotally in focus-group research on the 

music preferences of young adults, some of who 

completely refuse to categorize their tastes 

in music, and who insist that they are as equally 

pleased with Ella Fitzgerald as with Radiohead.27

We hypothesize a similar breakdown with regard to 

dance forms, given the blending of Latin, jazz 

and tap, hip-hop, and modern forms on television 

shows such as So You Think You Can Dance and 

Dancing with the Stars. 

CHAPTER 1
30 National Endowment for the Arts

The aesthetic landscape is continuously changing 

as new artistic and cultural forms come to the fore. 

Moreover, as immigrant populations have grown 

and become acculturated, more aesthetics and 

cultural forms have been introduced into the arts 

participation landscape, emphasizing the role 

and meaning of participatory art forms (Moriarty, 

2008).28 Considering the multitude of changes, 

cultural anthropologist Dr. Maribel Alvarez writes in 

There’s Nothing Informal About It, “Out of these 

observations grows a recognition among some of the 

more progressive cultural policy-makers in the 

United States that other forms of ‘artistic expression, 

arts enjoyment and arts discourse,’ beyond the 

traditional definitions are taking shape both apart 

from, and in conversation with, the established 

nonprofit arts field” (2005, 13).

Any quantitative survey of public participation 

in the arts is necessarily limited by fixed and 

ambiguous definitions of art forms. To limit survey 

length, in some cases multiple types of activities are 

collapsed into a single survey item (e.g., “During the 

last 12 months did you do any weaving, crocheting, 

quilting, needlepoint, or sewing?”). Given the 

rapidly changing landscape, however, we wonder if 

periodic additional research might be necessary 

to better establish how the forms themselves are 

evolving, so that participation research can 

remain relevant and can keep up with the pliable 

imagination of the American public.

The setting in which the activity occurs

All arts activities occur in the context of a physical 

or virtual setting, whether it is an automobile,29

a concert hall, or Second Life.30 The settings 

in which one participates in arts activities have 

many symbolic, practical, social, and behavioral 

connotations. Consider, for example, the differences 

between seeing a great work of art in a museum 

versus seeing a reproduction of the same artwork 

on the kitchen wall every day for 20 years. Both are 

acts of viewing art, and surely both have meaning 

to the viewer, but only visiting museums is covered 

in the SPPA.31 Does art-viewing at home qualify 

as “arts participation?” If it does, what are the 

implications for cultural policy? Would museums 

take more interest in what hangs on the walls 

in people’s homes? While a detailed analysis of the 

settings in which arts activities occur is beyond 

the scope of this monograph, the overall importance 

of setting to understanding patterns of arts 

participation is sufficiently important to merit a 

brief discussion here. 

One element of “setting” is the ambiance, comfort, 

and convenience of the venue. In focus groups, arts 

patrons characterize arts facilities as “friendly,” 

“welcoming,” “cold,” or “intimidating” — attributes 

often ascribed to people.32 Consumers have deeply 

entrenched emotional feelings about arts spaces, 

which may relate to the aesthetics of the architecture 

and design, physical attributes such as accessibility, 

acoustics and temperature, as well as the way 

that they are treated by ushers, ticket-sellers, and 

other staff.

This physical setting also reflects a set of cultural 

norms, either based on actual experience or 

transmitted through social networks. To some 

young people, theaters, museums, and concert halls 

evoke their parents’ and grandparents’ culture, 

which they often reject. One young man put it this 

way: “Sitting in a dark room for two hours and not 

being able to talk to my girlfriend is not my idea 

of an enjoyable evening.”33 As a result, arts groups’ 

efforts to attract younger ticket-buyers, even when 

successful, are sometimes thwarted by the actual 

experience that young people have when they 

attend and do not see their peer group in attendance. 

Thus it seems that younger adults attach greater 

importance to setting, although this assertion is 

based solely on anecdotal evidence. 
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 31

In research conducted in California for the 

James Irvine Foundation, the home and places of 

worship emerged as important settings for arts 

participation. For example, African Americans were 

significantly more likely than whites and Hispanics 

to cite places of worship as settings for cultural 

activities. With respect to race/ethnicity, significant 

differences were observed in terms of incidence 

of use of conventional arts facilities (i.e., theaters 

and concert halls, and museums and galleries). 

Whites reported significantly higher levels of use 

of conventional arts facilities across all four 

disciplines (music, dance, theater, and visual arts) 

— at approximately three times the rate of 

Hispanics (Brown et. al., 2008). Many factors may 

contribute to this finding, and further research is 

needed to better understand how different 

communities construct belief sets around cultural 

facilities. The implications for both policy and 

practice are enormous.

Further evidence of the home as a key setting for 

the creative development of children was found in a 

2008 study of Dallas Independent School District 

students. For example, 63% of all students in grades 

4–12, on average, reported drawing or painting at 

home, and 50% reported dancing for fun at home. 

A third of students in grades 4–12 reported little 

or no in-school activity (zero or one mention of any 

activity done in-school, of the 71 activities tested). 

This rate compares with 98% of all students who 

reported doing at least two arts activities at home. 

The average student cited the home as a setting for 

12 arts activities, and cited friends’ homes as a 

setting for five activities. This figure compares with 

four activities, on average, in school and just one 

activity, on average, after-school (Brown, et al., 2008). 

If the home is the cradle of the imagination and 

the most common setting for creative expression 

among school-age children, then who is designing 

home-based arts activities for children and their 

caregivers?

Setting is a critical backdrop to arts participation; 

it forms a rich topic for further research, mainly 

because so much rides on this variable in terms of 

future attendance patterns. We hypothesize 

that symbolic identification with different types of 

venues plays an important role in decisions that 

Americans make about arts attendance. Moreover, 

setting is one of the few variables that arts presenters 

and producers might be able to control.

The degree of creative control exercised by 

the individual

Existing literature has framed the extent to which 

an individual engages with art as either active 

or passive. However, this framework increasingly 

has been challenged with concerns that it is too 

simplistic or implies negative value judgments 

about “passive attendance” when many people who 

sit quietly through arts programs are vigorously 

engaged. Looking past “active or passive,” we find 

an underlying continuum of creative control. 

In stitching a quilt, for example, the individual might 

exercise substantial, if not complete, creative 

control, depending on whether or not a pattern is 

used. In contrast, listening to music might involve no 

creative control, except perhaps to the extent that the 

participant selects the music. This distinction does 

not imply that people lack imaginative experiences 

when viewing art or listening to music. Rather, the 

focus here is on the degree to which an individual is 

involved in the process of creating the art. 

One way of thinking about creative control is the 

“Five Modes of Art Participation” framework 

developed by Alan Brown in The Values Study

(2004). The framework identifies five categories of 

arts activities based on the level of creative control 

exercised by the participant, ranging from total 

control (inventive participation) to no control 

at all (ambient participation). (See Figure 2.) 

The underlying hypothesis is that different sets of 

personal benefits are associated with different 

modes of engagement. For example, certain benefits 

that can accrue from creating an original work 

of art are not attainable from watching someone else 

make art, regardless of the artistic discipline or the 

artist’s level of technical skill. Conversely, it is also 

true that certain benefits that can result from 

observing a work of art are not attainable from the 

act of creating a work of art.

CHAPTER 1
32 National Endowment for the Arts

FIGURE 2

Five modes of arts participation framework

Ambient Observational

Curatorial

Interpretive

Inventive

None Amount of creative control Total Amount of creative control None

The five modes are defined briefly as follows:

1. Inventive Participation engages the mind, 

body, and spirit in an act of artistic creation that 

is unique and idiosyncratic, regardless of skill 

level (e.g., composing music, writing original 

poetry, painting).

2. Interpretive Participation is a creative act of 

self-expression that brings alive and adds value to 

pre-existing works of art, either individually or 

collaboratively, or engages one in arts learning 

(e.g., playing in a band, learning to dance).

3. Curatorial Participation is the creative act of 

purposefully selecting, organizing, and collecting 

art to the satisfaction of one’s own artistic 

sensibility (e.g., collecting art, downloading 

music, and burning CDs).

4. Observational Participation occurs when 

you see or hear arts programs or works of art 

created, curated, or performed by other people 

(e.g., attending live performances, visiting 

art museums). We define two sub-types of 

observational participation: 1) participation in 

live events, and 2) electronic media-based 

participation. 

5. Ambient Participation includes encounters 

with art that the participant does not select 

(e.g., seeing architecture and public art, hearing 

music in a store).

The Five Modes framework is an attempt to move 

beyond simplistic characterization of arts activities 

as being either “active” or “passive.” It provides a 

more nuanced framework to think about forms of 

participation captured in the SPPA and discussed 

throughout this report.34,35 For example, the 

SPPA’s questions about personal arts creation and 

performance capture a wide range of inventive 

and interpretive forms of participation.36 Similarly, 

the survey’s questions about arts attendance and 

electronic media-based participation capture a wide 

range of observational activities. The 2008 SPPA 

even includes two questions that provide insight 

on ‘curatorial’ activities — “Do you own any 

original pieces of art, such as paintings, drawings, 

sculpture, prints, or lithographs?” and “Did you 

purchase or acquire any of these pieces during the 

last 12 months?”

In this section we have discussed four underlying 

aspects of arts participation: 1) the skill level 

of the artist or participant, 2) the form of artistic 

expression, 3) the setting in which the activity 

occurs, and 4) the extent of creative control. They are 

key drivers of both arts creation and arts attendance, 

and thus might be useful to policymakers, artists, 

and arts administrators in reflecting on current 

and potential arts programs and activities, and the 

likely audiences and participants those activities 

will serve. The Five Modes framework might also 

be useful in considering options for future research 

on arts participation.
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 33

CONSIDERATIONS OF POLICY AND 

PRACTICE THROUGHOUT THIS REPORT

Throughout this monograph, we discuss 

implications both for arts organizations’ 

practices and for cultural policy. In terms of 

arts organizations’ practices, there are 

currently two prominent lines of questioning 

about the relationship between personal 

practice and attendance. The first line 

of questioning considers how existing audiences 

can be engaged more deeply through increased 

personal interaction with the arts. Artists, 

arts producers, and arts presenters are broadening 

the ways in which they seek to engage their 

audiences and are experimenting with new 

approaches (Farrell, 2008). These approaches 

provide opportunities for individuals to 

directly interact with the arts through more 

contextualized and personal experiences, both 

inside and outside traditional arts venues.37

The second line of questioning concerns how 

personal practice drives or enhances audience 

participation. Recently released data on cultural 

engagement in Philadelphia and in the UK (Martin 

et al., 2010) demonstrate how personal practice 

correlates with attendance and the use of arts 

facilities. While these analyses are exploratory, 

they suggest that more frequent arts practice38

increases the likelihood of attendance in the same 

discipline (WolfBrown, 2009, 72). Likewise, social 

frameworks indicate that those engaged in the arts 

are more likely to be engaged in their communities 

and that social networks, including spousal status 

(NEA, 2007) and peers, influence attendance rates. 

These studies add to a growing body of evidence 

that arts and culture contribute to the overall health 

and welfare of communities by stimulating civic 

participation, building social and human capital, 

and serving as assets that contribute to local 

economies and support other community-building 

processes (NEA, 2009a; Jackson et al., 2002). 

In terms of policy, we invite readers to consider 

the following policy questions as they read this 

monograph:

■ With limited resources, where does one invest 

in the “cultural ecology” and what should be 

policy priorities? 

■ How do we understand the public value 

generated from different types of arts 

participation?39

■ How do we understand the relationship 

between the instrumental benefits of arts 

participation, such as community-building, 

and the intrinsic benefits stemming from 

support for individual creative and artistic 

expression and engagement?40

While these policy questions are not directly 

addressed in this monograph, we hope the 

following chapters stimulate discussion of these 

and other foundational issues pertaining to arts 

participation in the U.S.

CHAPTER 1
34 National Endowment for the Arts

NOTES

13 In its research on patterns of arts engagement in the UK, Arts 

Council England uses the phrase “arts participation” to refer 

specifically to active forms of arts creation such as photography, 

making films, or playing an instrument, and considers attendance 

separately. From Indifference to Enthusiasm: Patterns of Arts 

Attendance in England, Catherine Bunting, Tak Wing Chan, 

John Goldthorpe, Emily Keaney, and Anni Oskala (London: Arts 

Council England, 2008), 13, available online, www.artscouncil.

org.uk/publication_archive/from-indifference-to-enthusiasmpatterns-of-arts-attendance-in-england.

In the U.S., the NEA opts to use the phrase “arts creation” to 

describe this milieu of activity. The most recent analysis of arts 

participation in Australia uses the term “creative participation” to 

describe similar activities. See More than bums on seats: 

Australian participation in the arts, Australia Council for the 

Arts (Sydney, Australia: Australia Council for the Arts, 2010).

14 Earlier SPPA waves included questions such as “During the 

last 12 months, did you play a musical instrument in a public 

performance or rehearse for a public musical performance?” 

(1985, 1982 SPPAs), and about playing a specific genre of music on 

an instrument, “During the last 12 months, did you play any jazz?” 

(1985, 1982 SPPAs). The 1992 SPPA included questions about 

performing and rehearsing music, but did not directly address 

whether someone played an instrument.

15 This diagram is adapted from Creative Community Index: 

Measuring Progress toward a Vibrant Silicon Valley, 

John Kreidler and Philip J. Trounstine (San Jose, CA: 

Cultural Initiatives Silicon Valley, 2005), 6, available online, 

www.ci-sv.org/pdf/Index-2005.pdf. 

16 Electronic media-based arts participation is not directly 

addressed in the Kreidler and Trounstine model, but seems to cut 

across the three spheres given the range of activities permitted 

by electronic media — accessing artistic content online, creating 

and posting content online, and accessing information.

17 The international discourse about the connections between 

the spheres grounds the conversation in the idea of individuals’ 

“expressive lives” and, with that as a priority, how arts 

organizations approach their work. See Expressive Lives, ed. 

Samuel Jones (London: DEMOS, 2009), available online, 

www.demos.co.uk/publications/expressive-lives; and Arts, Inc. 

How Greed and Neglect Have Destroyed Our Cultural Rights, 

Bill Ivey (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2008).

18 Of the four key constructs, the 2008 SPPA captures data on 2) 

form of artistic expression, and some data on 3) setting. 

19 Non-professional arts have also been referred to as “informal arts” 

and “advocational,” among other terms.

20 Maria Rosario Jackson, “Revisiting Selected Themes from the 

‘Investing in Creativity’ Study: Support for Artists Pursuing 

Hybrid Work,” presented as an interim report at the NEA in 

November 2009, available online, www.nea.gov/research/

Workforce-Forum/PDF/Jackson.pdf. The work is cited with the 

researcher’s permission.

21 For brief but lively thoughts on the distinctions between 

professional and amateur see Andrew Taylor, “Amateur vs. 

professional,” theArtfulmanager (blog), June 18, 2009, 

www.artsjournal.com/artfulmanager/main/amateur-vsprofessional.php.

22 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, 

www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm.

23 The arts disciplines considered in arts participation research have 

been those traditionally in concert halls, venues, and institutions. 

“Engaging Art: What Counts?” Steven Tepper and Yang Gao, in 

eds. Steven J. Tepper and Bill Ivey, Engaging Art: The Next 

Great Transformation of America’s Cultural Life (New York, 

NY: Routledge, 2007), 25–26. 

24 See “A Conversation about the 2008 Survey of Public 

Participation in the Arts,” National Endowment for the Arts 

webcast, December 10, 2009, www.nea.gov/research/

SPPA-webcast.html.

25 A Grammy has been awarded for the category of Best Classical 

Crossover Album since 1999.

26 iPod and iPod shuffle are registered trademarks of Apple Inc. 

27 Focus group research for SFJAZZ, 2009 was conducted by 

WolfBrown. 

28 For example, at the January 2010 open auditions for the San 

Francisco Ethnic Dance Festival, 136 groups and individual artists 

representing many different cultures vied for a coveted spot 

in the festival program, an increase of 28% over the previous 

year. Julie Mushet, executive director of World Arts West, which 

presents the festival, says the forms themselves are evolving, 

especially with the rise of “fusion” dance forms that amalgamate 

two or more different dance traditions. 

29 In the Classical Music Consumer Segmentation Study, 

the automobile was identified as the dominant setting for 

experiencing classical music, followed closely by the home. 

Classical Music Consumer Segmentation Study, Audience 

Insight (Miami, FL: John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, 

2002), 51, available online, www.knightfoundation.org/

dotAsset/131779.pdf.

30 Second Life is a virtual world developed by Linden Lab that 

launched in 2003, www.secondlife.com.

31 The 2008 SPPA asks, “During the last 12 months, did you visit 

an art museum or gallery?” It does not investigate art-viewing 

in other settings, other than “crafts fairs and visual arts festivals,” 

but does include questions about personally owning and 

buying artwork.

32 In the context of a larger, proprietary study of student attitudes 

and perceptions of the arts, WolfBrown conducted experiential 

tours of the Hopkins Center for the Arts with Dartmouth College 

students in 2007. Results are not publicly available, but may be 

requested from the Hopkins Center. http://hop.dartmouth.edu.

33 Ibid. 

34 Tepper and Gao suggest that different forms of participation 

could be added to the framework, such as giving, membership, 

and literacy. “What Counts?” Tepper and Gao, in Tepper and Ivey, 

Engaging Art, 36.

35 Recognizing that the specific wording of some SPPA survey 

questions does not allow for unambiguous categorization 

into one of the five proposed modes, we do not impose this 

framework directly on the SPPA data, but rather propose it as a 

framework for understanding participation. WolfBrown’s 

Observational-Live mode corresponds to the SPPA questions that 

address attendance at arts events, and the Observational-Media 

mode includes watching, listening, and downloading art via some 

form of electronic media. This framework does not contradict 

previous frames used in NEA monographs, but aims to contribute 

deeper understanding of how individuals create and participate 

in the arts. The SPPA does not include indicators of ambient 

engagement. 

36 The question wording in the 2008 SPPA does not enable the 

distinction between “inventive” or “interpretive” participation. 

Both those modes imply greater personal creative control than 

observational participation, which includes both attendance and 

electronic media-based observation (applying Brown’s theoretical 

framework for modes of arts participation — refer to Figure 2). 

Some previous SPPA questions do enable the distinction between 

inventive and interpretive modes, however. For example, in 1992 

and 2002, the question “Did you write or compose any music 

during the last 12 months?” would serve as a measure of strictly 

“inventive” participation. 
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 35

37 Research on the intrinsic impacts of live performances has 

developed measurement systems that bring to light whether, 

and how, engagement with the arts experience is being 

deepened for audiences. Assessing the Intrinsic Impacts of 

a Live Performance, Alan S. Brown and Jennifer L. Novak 

(San Francisco, CA: WolfBrown, 2007), available online, 

www.wolfbrown.com/mups_downloads/Impact_Study_

Final_Version_full.pdf. 

38 The SPPA does not collect data on the frequency of participation 

in arts-creation activities, so we are unable to test this hypothesis 

with the SPPA data.

39 The CASE program in the UK (the culture and sport evidence 

programme) is undertaking a large-scale initiative to articulate the 

impacts of both arts and sports activities, for the express purpose 

of informing policy. See www.culture.gov.uk/case/case.html.

40 For discussion of instrumental and intrinsic benefits see Gifts of 

the Muse: Reframing the Debate About the Benefits of the 

Arts, Kevin F. McCarthy, Elizabeth H. Ondaatje, Laura Zakaras, 

and Arthur Brooks (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2004).

CHAPTER 1
36 National Endowment for the Arts

Attendance patterns 

suggest that Americans with 

different demographic 

backgrounds have different 

needs and interests, and 

that educational attainment and 

family income are significant 

barriers to attendance.
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 37

CHAPTER 2

A LOOK WITHIN THE THREE MODES 

OF PARTICIPATION

This chapter looks within each mode of participation 

— live attendance, personal arts creation, and 

electronic media-based participation — to explore 

patterns of participation. Specifically, we: 

■ Revisit published analyses on rates of 

participation to establish baseline knowledge

■ Expand upon existing analysis by considering 

the implications of a broader set of demographic 

variables 

■ Explore patterns of participation within each 

participation mode

This chapter reviews some analyses of participation 

rates originally published in the NEA’s Research 

Report #49 (2009a). Throughout this report, rates of 

arts participation are determined by the percentage 

of adults in the U.S. who participated at least once 

in a given activity during the 12 months between 

May 1, 2007 and May 1, 2008. 

This chapter reports new analysis of participation 

rates by previously unreported demographic 

variables and explores underlying factors — other 

than demographics — that explain observed 

differences in arts participation in the SPPA.

MODE OF PARTICIPATION: ATTENDANCE

Rates of attendance 

The SPPA captures self-reported data on attendance 

for a range of performing arts events, as well as 

visits to art museums, galleries, fairs, festivals, and 

historic sites. The SPPA categories used to measure 

attendance have been updated over the years to 

reflect cultural shifts and changing preferences. 

For example, in 2008, the SPPA expanded the range 

of events to include “Latin, Spanish, or salsa music” 

and “Outdoor festival that featured performing 

artists.” In 2008, 49.1%41 of U.S. adults reported 

attending an arts event or performance at least once 

in the 12 months ending in May 2008. 

The SPPA balances the expansion of categories 

with maintenance of comparable attendance 

measures to allow trend analysis over the years. 

The attendance measures most commonly utilized 

for trend analysis are referred to as “benchmark” 

activities.42 In addition to the benchmark activities, 

the SPPA includes two additional measures that 

are comparable across its waves — attendance 

at arts or craft fairs and festivals, and attendance 

at historical parks or monuments, or touring 

of buildings or neighborhoods for their historic or 

design value. Because this monograph aims to 

examine the breadth of arts participation activity 

captured by the SPPA, we include these two 

measures in addition to the benchmark activities 

to examine aggregate arts attendance rates 

over time; this aggregate measure is presented 

as “All Comparable Attendance Activities” 

in Table 1.43,44
38 National Endowment for the Arts

TABLE 1

Percentage of U.S. adults reporting arts attendance in 

the past 12 months: 1982, 1992, 2002, and 2008

Percent of adults attending/visiting/reading

1982 1992 2002 2008

Aggregate measures

All comparable attendance activities 44.6% 59.5% 54.2% 46.4%

% change from prior year 14.9^ -5.3^ -7.8^

Benchmark arts activities 39.2 41.2 39.5 34.6

% change from prior year 2.0 -1.7 -4.9^

Attendance activities

Performing arts

Music Jazz* 9.6% 10.6% 10.8% 7.8%

% change from prior year 1.0 0.2 -3.0^

Classical music* 13.0 12.5 11.6 9.3

% change from prior year -0.5 -0.9 -2.3^

Opera* 3.0 3.3 3.2 2.1

% change from prior year 0.3 -0.1 -1.1^

Latin music na na na 4.9

Performing arts festivals na na na 20.8

Plays Musical plays* 18.6 17.4 17.1 16.7

% change from prior year -1.2 -0.3 -0.4

Non-musical plays* 11.9 13.5 12.3 9.4

% change from prior year 1.6 -1.2 -2.9^

Dance Ballet* 4.2 4.7 3.9 2.9

% change from prior year 0.5 -0.8 -1.0^

Other dance na 7.1 6.3 5.2

% change from prior year -0.8 -1.1

Visual arts

Art exhibitions Art museums/galleries* 22.1 26.7 26.5 22.7

% change from prior year 4.6^ -0.2 -3.8^

Art/craft fairs and festivals 39.0 40.7 33.4 24.5

% change from prior year 1.7 -7.3^ -8.9^

Parks and historic sites

Parks/monuments/historical 

buildings/neighborhoods

37.0 34.5 31.6 24.9

% change from prior year -2.5 -2.9 -6.7^

Other attendance and participation

Literature

Literature (plays, poetry, novels, short stories) 56.4% 54.2% 46.7% 50.2%

% change from prior year -2.2 -7.5^ 3.5^

Community venues (for music, theater, or dance)

School na** na na 23.7

Religious Institution (e.g. church or synagogue) na** na na 19.1

^ Significant at 95% confidence

* Benchmark activity

** Survey protocol included questions about community venues, but changes in 

question wording do not allow for comparison
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 39

Table 1 reports the percentages of U.S. adults 

attending an arts program or activity, for 1982, 1992, 

2002, and 2008. The top rows include rates of 

participation across the years, using both the broader 

set of comparable attendance measures, and 

the benchmark activities alone, for comparison. 

The changes between years for all comparable 

activities are statistically significant at the 95% 

confidence level, whereas attendance at benchmark 

activities held relatively stable until the statistically 

significant decline to 34.6% in 2008.45,46,47

Other arts activities in Table 1 include literary 

reading and attendance at community venues 

(i.e., schools and religious institutions). While both 

attendance and literary reading involve an 

individual’s consumption of another’s creative or 

artistic work, reading literature connotes a different 

type of arts experience than attendance. For the 

purpose of the analyses throughout this monograph, 

we consider reading literature as separate from 

attendance at live events.48 Reading literature, unlike 

any of the individual attendance activities, shows a 

significant increase in the rate of participation from 

2002 to 2008, from 46.7% to 50.2% of U.S. adults.

Two new questions were added to the 2008 SPPA, 

inquiring about attendance at performing arts events 

at community venues, specifically at schools and 

religious institutions.49 In contrast, the other SPPA 

questions about attendance at performing arts events 

do not specify the venue type or location of the 

performance, but they do exclude performances at 

elementary or high schools. Due to this exclusion, 

some might infer that these questions imply a 

venue specifically intended for the arts, but the data 

do not permit determinations about what venues 

respondents actually considered when answering 

these attendance questions. 

In 2008, 23.7% of U.S. adults reported attendance 

at a music, theater, or dance performance at a school, 

and 19.1% reported attending such a performance 

at a religious institution. These percentages are 

among the highest rates of attendance for a single 

attendance activity captured by the 2008 SPPA. 

Specific rates of attendance, by demographics 

Other SPPA reports50 discuss demographic 

differences in the attendance patterns captured in 

the SPPA 2008. In this section, we review some 

of those findings and make additional observations 

about the rates of attendance across demographic 

cohorts. Table 3 presents detailed rates of attendance 

by gender, race/ethnicity, age, educational 

attainment, family income, and citizenship status.

Gender

Females attended arts activities at higher rates 

than males in 2008. The largest difference between 

rates of participation by gender is for attendance at 

benchmark activities generally, and specifically at 

musical plays, art fairs and festivals, and literary 

reading (see ranges in Table 3). However, there is a 

<1% difference between rates of attendance by 

gender for attendance at live jazz performances; 

Latin, Spanish, or salsa music performances; and 

attendance at outdoor festivals featuring performing 

artists. These types of activities, apparently, tend to 

attract men and women in more equal proportions.

Race/ethnicity

Other research utilizing the SPPA (DiMaggio 

and Ostrower, 1992) has established that arts 

attendance rates vary across race and ethnicity 

cohorts. Table 2 contains the distribution of 

race/ethnicity cohorts in the 2008 SPPA.

TABLE 2

Distribution of U.S. adults’ self-reported race/ethnicity: 

2008

U.S. population

Millions Percent

Race/ethnicity

White, Non-Hispanic 154.4 68.7%

African American, Non-Hispanic 25.6 11.4

Hispanic 30.3 13.5

Asian, Non-Hispanic 10.3 4.6

American Indian/Alaskan native, 

Non-Hispanic

1.2 0.5

2 or more races, Non-Hispanic 2.8 1.3

Total 224.8 100.0%

CHAPTER 2
40 National Endowment for the Arts

TABLE 3

U.S. adults’ arts attendance rates between 

May 2007–May 2008, by demographic group

Any arts attendance activity in 2008 

Benchmark arts activities 

Any arts 

attendance 

activity

Any 

benchmark 

activity

Jazz Classical 

music Opera Musicals

Nonmusical 

plays

Ballet Art 

museum

All adults

49.1% 34.6% 7.8% 9.3% 2.1% 16.7% 9.4% 2.9% 22.7% 

Gender

Male 47.0% 32.3% 7.7% 8.5% 1.8% 14.4% 8.2% 2.2% 21.4% 

Female 51.1 36.8 7.9 10.0 2.4 18.9 10.6 3.6 24.0 

Range 4.1% 4.5% 0.2% 1.5% 0.6% 4.5% 2.4% 1.4% 2.6% 

Race/ethnicity

White, Non-Hispanic 55.1% 39.7% 8.8% 11.3% 2.6% 20.0% 11.4% 3.5% 26.0% 

African American, Non-Hispanic 31.1 21.5 8.6 4.3 0.7 8.6 5.5 1.1 12.0 

Hispanic 36.7 21.0 3.9 3.8 1.1 8.1 4.3 2.2 14.5 

American Indian, Non-Hispanic 54.1 23.8 7.6 6.2 3.3 10.6 3.7 0.3 18.3 

Asian, Non-Hispanic 41.1 32.7 3.1 9.7 1.4 13.6 6.0 1.9 24.0 

2 or more races, Non-Hispanic 45.0 32.4 5.8 6.3 4.8 14.2 7.3 1.9 23.5 

Range 24.0% 18.7% 5.7% 7.5% 4.1% 11.9% 7.7% 3.2% 14.0% 

Age

18–24 46.4% 32.7% 7.3% 6.9% 1.2% 14.5% 8.2% 2.5% 22.9% 

25–34 51.6 36.0 7.7 7.0 1.7 16.0 9.2 2.3 24.3 

35–44 52.9 37.2 7.2 8.9 2.5 18.2 8.9 3.4 25.7 

45–54 53.1 36.1 9.8 10.2 2.4 17.4 8.7 3.2 23.3 

55–64 51.5 36.9 9.7 11.6 2.4 19.5 12.3 3.1 24.3 

65–74 44.9 33.4 6.1 12.2 2.9 18.0 11.0 4.3 19.9 

75+ 28.8 21.3 4.0 9.7 1.8 10.0 7.4 1.4 10.5 

Range 24.3% 15.9% 5.8% 5.3% 1.7% 9.5% 4.9% 2.9% 15.2% 

Education

Grade school 14.7% 6.5% 1.5% 1.8% 0.2% 1.7% 0.7% 0.1% 3.8% 

Some high school 28.4 14.5 2.4 2.3 0.5 5.2 2.8 0.6 9.2 

High school graduate 35.0 19.0 3.9 3.1 0.7 8.1 4.0 1.0 9.6 

Some college 55.6 38.1 8.1 9.1 1.7 17.1 9.0 3.0 23.8 

College graduate 69.3 57.2 13.7 16.7 4.1 30.1 17.5 5.4 40.6 

Graduate school 77.1 67.3 17.4 27.1 7.3 37.9 24.3 8.2 52.2 

Range 62.4% 60.8% 15.9% 25.3% 7.1% 36.2% 23.6% 8.1% 48.4% 

Family income

<$10,000 27.0% 16.1% 4.3% 4.0% 0.3% 6.6% 4.2% 0.9% 9.4% 

$10,000–19,999 29.3 16.8 3.6 3.9 0.9 6.3 3.7 0.6 10.3 

$20,000–29,999 34.6 19.3 4.1 4.4 1.5 7.7 4.1 1.4 11.9 

$30,000–39,999 42.5 27.0 7.1 6.8 1.1 11.0 6.7 2.6 16.3 

$40,000–49,999 48.8 31.8 8.9 8.7 1.6 15.4 7.4 1.7 20.2 

$50,000–74,999 52.9 36.2 7.6 9.5 2.1 15.4 8.6 3.4 23.9 

$75,000–99,999 61.9 46.2 8.7 11.7 2.1 21.8 13.4 3.7 31.3 

$100,000–149,999 70.0 55.0 13.4 14.8 3.3 32.0 14.1 5.0 34.4 

$150,000+ 77.9 68.1 15.4 22.8 6.8 40.1 24.2 7.8 51.9 

Range 50.9% 52.0% 11.8% 18.9% 6.5% 33.8% 20.5% 7.2% 42.5% 

Citizenship status

Native 51.4% 36.4% 9.6% 9.6% 2.2% 18.1% 10.3% 3.0% 23.7% 

Naturalized 39.0 28.6 3.8 9.2 2.4 11.4 6.0 2.7 19.8 

Non-citizen 33.9 21.0 3.5 5.9 0.9 7.3 3.4 2.6 15.3 

Range 17.5% 15.4% 6.1% 3.7% 1.5% 10.8% 6.9% 0.4% 8.4% 

Note: “Any arts attendance activity” includes all benchmark activities and attendance at Latin, Spanish, or salsa music events, non-ballet dance events, arts fairs and festivals, 

outdoor artists festivals, and visits to historic locations.
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 41

Any arts attendance activity in 2008

Performances at 

community venues

Latin/salsa 

music

Other 

dance

Art fairs 

and 

festival

Outdoor 

artists 

festival

Historic 

location

Literary 

reading

Performance 

at school

Performance 

at religious 

institution

4.9% 5.2% 24.5% 20.8% 24.9% 50.2% 23.7% 19.1%

4.8% 4.4% 20.5% 20.6% 24.4% 41.9% 20.4% 17.1%

4.9 5.9 28.3 20.9 25.4 58.0 26.7 21.0

0.1% 1.5% 7.8% 0.3% 1.0% 16.1% 6.3% 3.9%

3.1% 5.9% 29.3% 23.1% 29.5% 55.7% 26.2% 19.3%

1.6 3.0 12.2 15.4 12.6 42.6 17.3 26.3

17.4 3.2 13.7 14.8 14.0 31.9 17.5 14.2

5.2 2.2 30.9 28.0 19.4 45.2 23.3 15.2

1.8 4.7 13.4 15.8 19.6 41.6 19.2 14.9

4.9 7.3 24.1 20.7 21.9 51.6 21.9 18.0

15.8% 5.1% 18.7% 13.2% 16.9% 23.8% 8.9% 12.1%

7.0% 5.7% 17.8% 21.6% 21.9% 51.7% 20.5% 14.4%

5.9 4.7 22.7 22.8 25.7 50.1 21.6 17.3

6.1 4.7 27.2 24.1 26.8 50.8 35.2 21.3

4.4 5.2 29.1 23.4 28.0 50.3 26.9 21.9

4.6 6.6 28.9 20.5 27.6 53.1 19.9 20.0

2.0 6.1 24.8 15.4 24.1 49.1 18.8 20.5

0.8 2.6 12.7 6.8 11.2 42.3 10.8 16.1

6.2% 4.0% 16.4% 17.3% 16.8% 10.8% 24.4% 7.5%

8.5% 1.2% 4.9% 6.0% 3.8% 18.5% 8.1% 12.0%

5.5 2.2 11.2 11.6 9.1 34.3 17.6 13.2

3.3 2.2 17.3 14.6 14.6 39.1 18.8 15.0

4.0 5.8 27.5 23.4 28.4 56.2 26.2 21.2

6.8 8.0 35.8 30.6 39.4 66.6 30.6 23.5

5.8 12.7 41.6 31.7 48.1 71.2 33.2 27.7

5.2% 11.5% 36.7% 25.7% 44.3% 52.7% 25.1% 15.7%

6.7% 2.0% 10.7% 12.8% 10.3% 38.6% 10.8% 12.0%

3.4 2.5 13.0 11.2 11.4 38.3 13.2 15.1

5.5 2.6 15.5 14.0 13.9 41.7 18.3 15.2

6.1 3.8 21.8 18.7 19.9 43.2 19.7 17.6

5.9 4.1 24.7 20.7 23.2 51.9 24.2 19.5

4.8 5.3 26.2 22.5 26.8 50.1 24.7 19.9

4.2 6.8 33.8 28.1 32.6 59.1 31.9 22.7

5.6 8.3 34.5 28.4 41.2 62.1 36.2 26.2

5.3 12.5 37.5 32.3 47.3 71.2 33.6 23.5

3.3% 10.5% 26.8% 21.1% 37.0% 32.9% 25.4% 14.2%

4.0% 5.5% 26.6% 22.1% 26.7% 52.7% 24.7% 19.7%

7.7 4.4 15.4 15.1 16.9 39.3 21.0 19.1

11.3 2.9 10.4 12.2 12.8 34.1 15.0 12.9

7.3% 2.6% 16.2% 9.9% 13.9% 18.6% 9.7% 6.8%

CHAPTER 2
42 National Endowment for the Arts

There are distinct differences between the race/

ethnicity cohorts among the arts attendance rates: 

■ The rate reported by African Americans for 

attending performances at religious institutions 

(26.3%) is almost twice as high as attendance at 

any other single activity. Only the rate for literary 

reading participation is higher for African 

Americans (42.6%). Moreover, the rate at which 

African Americans attend performances at 

religious institutions is significantly higher than 

the rates observed for other race cohorts. The 

next highest rate is 19.3% among non-Hispanic 

whites. These findings illustrate the key 

role that religious institutions play in the arts 

experiences of many Americans, especially 

African Americans. Aside from attendance at 

religious institutions, the next highest 

participation rate for African Americans is 

for attendance at outdoor festivals (15.4%). 

■ The highest attendance rates for self-identified 

Hispanics are: Latin, Spanish, or salsa music 

(17.4%), art museums and galleries, art or 

craft fairs and festivals, outdoor performing 

arts festivals, and historic locations — all at 

approximately 14%. The addition of the “Latin, 

Spanish, or salsa music” question to the 2008 

SPPA protocol illustrates how dramatically the 

overall picture of arts participation can change 

when new or different arts activities 

are considered.

■ Among adults who self-identified as American 

Indian, an emphasis was observed on festival 

activities, with 30.9% attending art or craft 

fairs and festivals, and 28.0% attending outdoor 

performing arts festivals — the highest rates 

observed across the race/ethnicity cohorts. 

Asians reported above-average rates of 

participation in classical music (9.7%) and art 

museums and galleries (24.0%). 

■ With the exception of visiting art museums, 

African Americans, Hispanics, and American 

Indians reported relatively higher rates of 

attendance at non-benchmark activities, 

compared to whites. Overall, the most popular 

non-benchmark arts activities are arts or 

craft fairs and festivals, outdoor arts festivals 

featuring performing artists, and visits to 

historic locations and parks, suggesting the key 

role that these events and facilities play in 

the cultural lives of Americans as a whole. 

Overall, many significant differences in 

participation rates across the race/ethnicity 

cohorts were observed, suggesting that Americans 

with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds 

have different experiences with the arts. Of course, 

many other factors apart from racial/ethnic 

identity may influence participation rates, such 

as mobility, setting preferences, cultural customs, 

and, of course, supply.

Age

Rates of attendance at art or craft fairs and festivals, 

outdoor performing arts festivals, and historic 

locations and parks, are higher for Americans under 

age 64, while attendance tends to be highest among 

those aged 55 and older. Attendance rates for Latin, 

Spanish, or salsa music are inversely related to age 

— the lower the age, the higher the attendance rate. 

Educational attainment

Educational attainment is positively associated 

with arts attendance, as discussed in numerous 

other SPPA reports. Mirroring prior research, higher 

levels of education are associated with higher 

levels of attendance for each of the activities, except 

for attendance at Latin, Spanish, or salsa music 

concerts, for which the highest rate of attendance 

is observed among individuals reporting a gradeschool education level (8.5%). 

Looking at the percentages in Table 3, there is a 

noticeable jump in rates of attendance between those 

having graduated from high school and those having 

had some college education. For many activities, 

there is another jump in attendance rates for college 

graduates. This pattern may suggest something like a 

“Sheepskin Effect” in the data — attendance rates 

may not necessarily increase incrementally with an 

additional year of education, but surpassing certain 

educational milestones, like graduation from high 

school, attending college and completing college, are 

significant correlates with higher attendance rates. 

Family income

Participation rates by family income level generally 

mirror those observed for educational attainment —

Americans with higher income levels tend to report 

higher rates of attendance. Again, the one exception 

is attendance at Latin, Spanish, or salsa music 

events, for which participation rates do not vary 

significantly by income level. 
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 43

Citizenship status

Prior research has also explored the types 

of arts and cultural activities that have meaning to 

immigrant communities (Moriarty, 2004). 

We include citizenship status as a rough proxy for 

personal connection to cultural heritage in the 

SPPA. While there are a multitude of legal and other 

reasons that a person takes into consideration 

when choosing whether to become a naturalized 

U.S. citizen when eligible, the immigration literature 

cites ties to cultural heritage as one of them. 

Almost uniformly, native-born citizens report 

the highest rates of attendance, while naturalized 

citizens report the second highest rates, and 

non-citizens report the lowest rates, with the 

exception of Latin, Spanish, or salsa music, for which 

non-citizens report almost three times the level of 

activity of native citizens (11.3% vs. 4%, respectively).

Overall, the attendance patterns observed across the 

SPPA demographic cohorts suggest that Americans 

with different demographic backgrounds have 

different needs and interests, and that educational 

attainment and family income are significant 

barriers to attendance for almost all of the activities 

measured in the SPPA, including outdoor events. 

Likelihood of attendance 

Table 4 examines the marginal differences in 

the likelihood of attendance51 at benchmark 

activities and attendance at any arts activities52 by 

demographic group. Prior NEA research reports 

have included similar analysis on benchmark 

activities, but not on the broader set of attendance 

activities captured in the SPPA. The comparison of 

these sets of activities reveals different information 

about arts participation in terms of who participates.

The analysis isolates the marginal effects of specific 

demographic characteristics while controlling for 

the effects of other demographics. The demographic 

categories listed in the table at “0%” serve as the 

comparison group within each category. For 

example, individuals who attended graduate school 

were 44.2% more likely than individuals with a 

grade-school education to attend a benchmark arts 

activity in the 12 months ending in May 2008. 

Asterisks denote statistically significant marginal 

effects. While statistically significant and positive, 

the marginal effects of higher levels of education are 

not as large for attendance at any arts activities as 

they are for attendance at benchmark arts activities. 

As reported in the right-hand columns of Table 4, 

individuals who have had any experience with 

an arts lesson are 22% more likely than those with 

no history of arts lessons to have attended a 

benchmark activity within the last 12 months, and 

29% more likely to have attended any type of arts 

activity. Controlling for participation in arts lessons 

increases the differences between genders: women 

are 8.8% more likely than men to attend a benchmark 

activity. Also, controlling for arts lessons slightly 

reduces the impact of income and education on 

attendance at benchmark activities. 

The preceding analyses demonstrate that attendance 

patterns differ significantly across demographic 

cohorts and across the various types of events 

attended. However, these demographic variables 

account for less than 20% of the variation in 

attendance at benchmark arts attendance activities.53

Earlier NEA monographs have also looked at the 

extent to which demographics explain reported 

attendance, and prior results also hover around 20% 

(Peterson et al., 2000, 53; Peterson et al., 1996, 40–45). 

Can the SPPA provide insight into what explains the 

remaining 80% of the variability in attendance?

Underlying characteristics: an exploratory 

analysis

This section describes the results of an exploratory 

factor analysis to ascertain what underlying 

elements may help to explain the patterns of 

participation via attendance. Factor analysis looks 

at the variability of participation in the attendance 

data captured in the SPPA 2008 to explore 

underlying, unobserved characteristics within the 

data. We know that the SPPA captures data on 

self-reported behavior for specific art forms, and we 

hypothesize that it also indirectly captures other 

aspects of the arts participation experience. For 

example, we hypothesize that analysis of attendance 

patterns may reveal something about preferences 

for different settings or venues for participation.

Applying factor analysis to the attendance 

variables,54 two factors emerge relating to the settings 

in which arts activities take place, and account 

for over 30% of the variance among the attendance 

activities included. The results of the exploratory 

factor analysis are included in Table 5.55 Based on the 

theoretical frameworks discussed in the earlier 

Context section of this monograph, the factors 

CHAPTER 2
44 National Endowment for the Arts

TABLE 4

Marginal impact of demographics on U.S. adults’ 

likelihood of arts participation via attendance: 2008

Any arts lessons

Attend benchmark 

activity

Attend any arts 

activities

Attend benchmark 

activity

Attend any arts 

activities

Gender

Male 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Female 6.4** 5.8** 8.8** 5.6**

Race/ethnicity

White, Non-Hispanic 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

African American, Non-Hispanic -10.5** -16.2** -10.7** -17.4**

Hispanic -4.1* -3.9* 0.1 1.3

American Indian, Non-Hispanic -4.1 8.2 -20.9 22.0

Asian, Non-Hispanic -10.5** -17.3** 0.6 -7.4

2 or more races, Non-Hispanic -5.0 -7.8 -0.9 -9.1

Age

18–24 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

25–34 8.8** 6.2* 15.4** 9.7

35–44 7.0* 5.3 16.5** 9.6

45–54 7.3** 9.0** 15.1** 15.0**

55–64 6.5* 6.3* 10.0 10.0

65–74 13.5** 7.9** 22.4** 15.3**

75+ 2.0 -6.1 10.6 -0.1

Education

Grade school 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Some high school -0.2 2.2 2.5 0.8

High school graduate 6.9* 9.3** 7.6 6.8

Some college 21.1** 23.0** 21.3** 18.9**

College graduate 36.2** 31.8** 29.7** 24.1**

Graduate school 44.2** 37.0** 35.2** 29.2**

Family income

Less than $10,000 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

$10,000–19,999 -0.9 0.6 -4.1 -4.5

$20,000–29,999 -2.9 1.6 -4.9 -0.9

$30,000–39,999 6.3 7.7* 4.6 5.1

$40,000–49,999 7.9* 10.8** 1.5 4.5

$50,000–74,999 12.1** 13.9** 11.8* 9.9

$75,000–99,999 20.8** 21.3** 18.3** 18.3**

$100,000–149,999 24.7** 23.6** 18.9** 17.4**

$150,000+ 33.8** 28.1** 32.9** 24.7**

Citizenship status

Native 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Naturalized -5.5** -9.6** -1.8 -2.5

Non-citizen -5.7** -6.5** -1.3 -0.2

Other

Married 0.1% 4.0%** 0.4% 6.0%*

No child or child under 18 0.0 -5.2** 2.3 -5.8**

Reside in metropolitan area 5.9** 2.0 4.2* 2.0

Any arts lessons – – 22.0** 28.7**

* Statistically significant at the 90% confidence level

** Statistically significant at the 95% confidence level 
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 45

appear to separate the attendance activities based 

on the types of settings implied by the activities. 

Regarding Factor 1, musical and non-musical 

stage plays, classical music, jazz, and dance are 

all types of live performances. These activities are 

usually one-off, temporal events, meaning that 

they occur sometimes only once, and usually at 

a specific time and place. Attending such an event 

requires prior planning (to get tickets if required, 

to research what is being offered, etc.). This 

behavior contrasts with the type associated with 

Factor 2 activities — attendance at art or craft fairs 

and festivals or outdoor performing arts festivals, 

and visits to historic locations — which might be 

considered to be “destination activities.” They may 

or may not require advance information-gathering, 

and may or may not involve an admission price. 

For these “destination” activities, attendees often can 

decide what specific programs and exhibits they 

want to see after they arrive, allowing themselves 

an additional level of control over the experience. 

Art museums are uniquely, and equally, associated 

with each of the two factors, suggesting that they 

incorporate both “event” and “destination” qualities. 

MODE OF PARTICIPATION: ARTS CREATION 

Rates of arts creation

In 2008, 45.3% of U.S. adults reported participating 

in an arts-creation activity as measured by 

the SPPA. Table 6 reports rates of participation in 

arts-creation activities for 1992, 2002, and 2008.56

Among the highest rates of individual arts-creation 

activities were the rates for “weaving, crocheting, 

quilting, needlepoint, or sewing” (13.1%) and making 

“photographs, movies, or videotapes as an artistic 

activity” (14.7%). For the first time, the 2008 SPPA 

included a question about “creating and posting you 

own art online” (7.3%). 

The SPPA first included questions about arts creation 

in 1982; however, changes in question-wording 

limited trend analysis between 1992, 2002, and 

2008.57 Using questions that have remained constant 

over time, U.S. adults reported lower rates of 

participation in arts creation and performance 

activities in 2002, compared to the 1992 rates. Yet the 

rate of participation in arts-creation activities 

reported in 2008 (41.1%) is not statistically different 

from the 2002 rate (42.2%). Although these data 

originated from only two points in time, spanning 

six years, they suggest that U.S. adult participation in 

personally creating and performing arts is holding 

steady, albeit at a rate lower than in 1992.58

The curatorial act of owning original art is among 

the highest of the personal participation rates, 

at 20.4% in 2008.59 The participation rate for 

purchasing art within the prior 12 months is 5.9%. 

CHAPTER 2

TABLE 5

Factor analysis results for arts attendance activities: 

2008

Factor loading

Attendance activity 1 2 Communality

Art museum 0.47 0.47 0.37

Art or craft fairs and festivals 0.72 0.35

Outdoor performing artists 

festival

0.66 0.32

Historic location 0.36 0.46 0.30

Musical stage play 0.51 0.27

Classical music 0.54 0.26

Non-musical stage play 0.47 0.22

Jazz 0.40 0.19

Other dance 0.41 0.16

Ballet 0.39 0.11

Opera 0.37 0.11

Latin, Spanish, or salsa music 0.06

Eigen values 3.59 1.21

% of variance 29.90 10.04

Note: Loadings < 0.30 are suppressed
46 National Endowment for the Arts

TABLE 6

Rates of U.S. adult participation in arts creation 

activities: 1992, 2002, 2008

Percent of adults personally performing or creating

1992 2002 2008

Total comparable creative activities 54.7% 42.2% 41.1%

% change from prior year -12.5^ -1.1

Performing

Music Jazz 1.7% 1.3% 1.4%

% change from prior year -0.4 0.1

Classical music 4.2 1.8 3.1

% change from prior year -2.4^ 1.3^

Opera 1.1 0.7 0.4

% change from prior year -0.4 -0.3

Choir/chorale 6.3 4.8 5.2

% change from prior year -1.5 0.4

Playing a musical instrument na na 12.6

Plays Musical plays 3.8 2.4 0.9

% change from prior year -1.4 -1.5^

Non-musical plays 1.6 1.4 0.8

% change from prior year -0.2 -0.6

Dance Ballet 0.2 0.3 na

Other dance 8.1 4.2 na

All dance na na 2.1

Creating

Visual arts Painting/drawing/sculpture 9.6% 8.6% 9.0%

% change from prior year -1.0 0.4

Pottery/jewelry 8.4 6.9 6.0

% change from prior year -1.5 -0.9

Weaving/sewing 24.8 16.0 13.1

% change from prior year -8.8^ -2.9^

Photography/movies 11.6 11.5 14.7

% change from prior year -0.1 3.2^

Literature Creative writing 7.4 7.0 6.9

% change from prior year -0.4 -0.1

Online Created/posted own art** na na 7.3

Curatorial activities

Own original art 22.1% 19.3% 20.4%

% change from prior year -2.8 1.1

Purchased art in the last 12 

months*

7.3 5.7 5.9

% change from prior year -1.6 0.2

^ Significant at 95% confidence

* Not utilized in Total Comparable Activities because the activity is a subset of 

“Own original art”

** Not utilized in Total Comparable Activities because of weighting differences in 

SPPA08
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 47

Rates of arts creation, by demographics 

Generally, significant differences were observed 

across the demographic cohorts for arts-creation 

activities, as reported in Table 7. In other words, 

different arts-creation activities appeal to different 

groups of people. Although seemingly obvious, this 

general fact reveals interesting sub-results.

Gender

Women report participation in the arts via 

creation and performance at generally higher rates 

than men. The exceptions are “create/post own 

art online” (males 7.9% and females 6.5%) and 

“play a musical instrument” (males 14.5% and 

females 11.0%). Males also appear to play jazz music 

themselves at higher rates than women (2.1% vs. 

0.7%). There is a 20%+ difference in rates between 

men (2.3%) and women (23.2%) for participation 

levels in stitchery activities.

Race/ethnicity

Some arts-creation activities seem highly 

correlated with race/ethnicity and might be part of 

cultural traditions and heritage. The highest rate 

of participation for African Americans across the 

creation activities encompassing the performing and 

visual arts is 10.3% — for “singing with a chorale, 

choir, or glee club or other type of vocal group.”60

Although the survey’s sample size for American 

Indians is too small to determine whether their 

participation rates are different from those of other 

racial/ethnic groups, they do appear to have the 

highest rates of participation for painting, drawing, 

and sculpture, for pottery and jewelry-making, 

and for weaving and sewing. If one subscribes to a 

philosophy of equitable access, and if one accepts 

that certain forms of arts creation are more likely 

to engage certain ethnic groups, then one can 

reasonably infer from the SPPA that investments 

in specific types of activities among distinct 

communities (e.g., supporting vocal music activities 

in predominantly African American communities) 

are likely to improve cultural equity. 

Age

Differences in patterns of arts creation are also 

observed with respect to age. Generally, younger 

people are more active in arts creation. Specific 

activities for which younger adults reported higher 

rates, compared with older adults, include: playing 

an instrument; painting, drawing, and sculpture; 

photography and video-making; creative writing; 

and creating or posting artwork online. However, 

weaving/sewing, owning art, and gardening tend to 

have higher participation rates for Americans in 

older-age cohorts.

Two policy implications arise. First, arts-creation 

activities appear to be a pathway into the arts for 

young adults. Hence, investments in participatory 

arts programs for young adults may lead to higher 

attendance levels as they age. The second policy 

issue relates to keeping older adults productively 

engaged in creative activities. If, as the data suggests, 

participation in arts creation falls off sharply for 

adults in the 65+ age cohort, what policies and 

programs might be put in place to encourage and 

allow older Americans to remain active artistically? 

This would seem to be an urgent question given the 

growing percentages of older Americans. 

Educational attainment

As with attendance, the gap in arts creation rates 

between SPPA respondents with grade-school 

and graduate-school educations is wide for some 

activities. Some of the largest differences emerge for 

the following activities:

Highest level of educational attainment 

Grade school Graduate school

Owning original art 4.1% 44.7%

Painting/drawing/

sculpting

3.2 13.3

Photographs, movies, 

videotapes

3.2 23.7

Play a musical 

instrument

3.4 21.3

Creative writing 1.5 12.7

CHAPTER 2

Smaller gaps were observed for singing in a 

choir or chorale, making pottery or jewelry, and 

doing stitchery.

Family income

Respondents with higher incomes reported 

somewhat higher participation rates for playing 

an instrument, creating photography/movies/

videotapes, and owning art. On the whole, however, 

the income ranges indicate little disparity for 

rates of participation in creative activities. In other 

words, levels of income disparity (as indicated 

by the “range” measure in the Table 7) are less 

pronounced across arts-creation activities, 

compared with attendance activities, suggesting 

that art-making is more accessible and relevant 

to a wider spectrum of Americans. 
48 National Endowment for the Arts

TABLE 7

U.S. adult participation rates in arts creation 

activities, by demographic group: 2008

Arts creation 

Music Theater 

Any activity 

(2008)

Play a 

musical 

instrument

Play jazz

Play 

classical 

music

Sing opera

Sing 

in choir/

chorale

Perform in 

musical play

Perform in 

non-musical 

play

All adults

45.3% 12.6% 1.4% 3.1% 0.4% 5.2% 0.9% 0.8% 

Gender

Male 40.1% 14.5% 2.1% 3.0% 0.3% 3.9% 0.7% 0.7% 

Female 50.2 11.0 0.7 3.2 0.4 6.3 1.1 0.8 

Range 10.1% 3.5% 1.3% 0.2% 0.1% 2.4% 0.4% 0.1% 

Race/ethnicity

White, Non-Hispanic 50.5% 14.3% 1.5% 3.5% 0.3% 4.9% 1.0% 0.8% 

African American, Non-Hispanic 34.2 6.6 1.5 2.0 0.8 10.3 0.9 1.2 

Hispanic 30.1 8.4 0.8 1.1 0.0 2.2 0.4 0.7 

American Indian, Non-Hispanic 36.6 12.7 3.0 3.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 

Asian, Non-Hispanic 39.6 12.4 0.1 3.7 0.0 4.7 0.6 0.0 

2 or more races, Non-Hispanic 55.9 25.5 6.5 9.3 2.7 8.7 0.1 0.1 

Range 25.8% 18.9% 6.3% 5.6% 2.7% 8.1% 1.0% 1.2% 

Age

18–24 43.9% 19.7% 2.9% 5.9% 0.5% 6.1% 2.1% 2.7% 

25–34 44.1 14.4 1.0 3.7 0.2 3.8 0.7 0.6 

35–44 45.7 12.4 1.6 3.0 0.5 4.3 0.5 0.5 

45–54 48.1 12.4 1.3 2.5 0.2 6.8 0.9 0.4 

55–64 48.5 11.3 1.3 2.4 0.2 5.3 0.4 0.3 

65–74 43.8 8.4 0.6 1.8 0.5 6.2 1.3 0.9 

75+ 38.6 5.7 0.5 1.4 0.7 3.6 0.6 0.4 

Range 9.9% 14.0% 0.1% 0.5% 0.5% 3.2% 1.7% 2.4% 

Education

Grade school 21.5% 3.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.3% 2.6% 0.5% 0.0% 

Some high school 30.2 10.6 1.6 2.9 0.5 5.4 1.0 1.1 

High school graduate 33.9 8.2 0.5 0.9 0.3 3.9 0.4 0.6 

Some college 52.0 14.6 1.6 3.4 0.4 5.7 1.1 0.9 

College graduate 57.1 16.2 2.1 4.6 0.3 5.6 1.2 0.8 

Graduate school 67.4 21.3 2.6 8.0 0.4 7.8 1.1 0.9 

Range 45.9% 17.9% 0.5% 3.5% 0.2% 5.2% 0.8% 1.1% 

Family income

<$10,000 32.6% 8.3% 1.0% 1.3% 0.3% 3.1% 0.0% 0.0% 

$10,000–19,999 34.0 8.6 0.4 1.1 0.0 3.9 0.7 0.3 

$20,000–29,999 37.6 9.8 1.0 2.0 0.4 5.9 0.4 0.5 

$30,000–39,999 40.2 11.4 1.0 2.1 0.1 6.3 0.2 0.5 

$40,000–49,999 44.4 13.5 1.7 2.8 0.4 4.4 0.9 0.7 

$50,000–74,999 46.8 13.6 1.6 3.7 0.1 6.1 0.8 1.4 

$75,000–99,999 54.6 17.1 1.9 4.4 0.1 5.3 2.2 1.6 

$100,000–149,999 58.3 16.9 2.2 4.9 0.8 5.3 1.2 0.2 

$150,000+ 64.0 17.2 1.3 5.3 0.6 3.6 0.4 0.5 

Range 31.4% 8.9% 1.0% 0.4% 0.8% 3.2% 2.2% 1.6% 

Citizenship status

Native 47.5% 13.5% 1.5% 3.3% 0.3% 5.6% 1.0% 0.8% 

Naturalized 35.9 9.0 0.7 2.8 0.5 2.5 0.2 0.0 

Non-citizen 30.5 6.8 2.1 3.0 0.4 2.8 0.5 0.8 

Range 17.0% 6.7% 1.4% 0.2% 0.2% 3.1% 0.8% 0.8% 

Notes: “Play jazz” and “Play classical music” were only asked of individuals who reported playing a musical instrument at all. The percents in the table are calculated based on 

the entire population. Therefore, 1.4% of the adult US population reported playing jazz May 2007-May 2008; 10.9% of individuals who played an instrument within the designated 

12 months, played jazz music. We do not include “gardening” in our aggregates arts creation measure, but include it here for comparative purposes.
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 49

Arts creation

Dance Visual arts Literature Curation Other

Dance Paint/draw/

sculpt

Make 

pottery/

jewelry

Weave/sew

Photography/

make 

movies

Creative 

writing

Own 

original 

art

Acquire 

art

Create/post 

own art 

online

Gardening

2.1% 9.0% 6.0% 13.1% 14.7% 6.9% 20.4% 5.9% 7.2% 41.6%

1.4% 7.1% 4.5% 2.3% 13.3% 6.2% 19.7% 5.8% 7.9% 33.6%

2.8 10.7 7.4 23.2 16.1 7.5 21.1 5.9 6.5 48.9

1.4% 3.6% 2.9% 20.9% 2.8% 1.3% 1.4% 0.1% 1.4% 15.3%

2.2% 9.4% 6.9% 15.5% 16.1% 7.0% 25.1% 7.7% 7.1% 47.2%

1.6 6.8 3.5 7.6 10.0 7.5 9.0 1.8 5.8 24.4

1.5 7.4 3.6 7.1 10.9 5.3 9.1 2.8 7.2 28.0

0.7 13.9 12.3 14.2 7.9 14.0 16.3 3.8 10.8 23.7

3.7 9.3 2.8 8.0 14.0 7.6 12.7 1.4 10.4 41.9

4.1 21.9 17.1 17.0 29.1 8.2 18.1 5.0 11.3 40.5

3.4% 15.1% 14.3% 9.9% 21.2% 8.7% 16.1% 6.3% 5.5% 23.5%

2.9% 14.7% 6.4% 9.0% 17.8% 11.3% 11.5% 4.3% 12.5% 15.1%

2.2 11.3 6.1 10.0 16.1 9.7 17.6 6.9 9.4 34.8

1.8 9.9 7.5 11.4 18.6 6.2 20.6 5.6 7.2 43.9

2.1 7.4 7.0 15.4 14.6 6.4 23.7 6.6 3.7 49.1

1.8 6.8 5.4 15.7 13.0 4.4 26.7 6.8 5.1 52.4

3.1 5.0 4.1 17.7 10.4 5.2 21.0 6.0 4.4 54.5

1.5 4.4 2.1 15.4 5.5 3.1 20.2 2.9 1.2 41.0

1.6% 10.3% 5.4% 8.7% 13.1% 8.2% 15.2% 4.0% 11.3% 39.4%

0.6% 3.2% 2.3% 9.5% 3.2% 1.5% 4.1% 0.5% 0.0% 30.3%

0.8 9.1 4.4 7.6 10.0 4.5 5.5 0.5 5.8 29.5

1.6 5.0 4.0 11.2 8.3 3.4 10.7 2.6 4.1 37.7

2.8 11.3 7.5 15.9 17.0 8.8 23.1 6.2 8.0 43.2

2.4 11.1 7.9 15.0 22.7 9.5 32.3 10.5 9.3 49.0

3.5 13.3 7.8 15.2 23.7 12.7 44.7 14.6 9.1 53.3

2.9% 10.1% 5.6% 8.3% 20.5% 11.2% 40.6% 14.2% 9.3% 23.8%

1.7% 8.0% 4.0% 12.3% 10.1% 8.8% 10.9% 3.9% 13.7% 25.3%

1.8 7.4 3.6 13.5 9.6 5.4 9.0 1.2 5.4 30.4

1.9 8.5 5.0 13.6 9.1 7.7 11.5 2.1 9.0 35.4

2.5 8.4 6.0 13.1 12.1 6.2 13.4 2.8 5.3 37.7

2.3 9.1 5.1 14.1 13.8 7.1 19.5 6.4 4.8 44.9

1.5 10.5 6.7 13.6 15.2 5.9 21.2 6.3 7.7 42.8

2.8 10.3 7.7 13.7 20.7 9.3 26.3 6.8 8.0 50.2

2.9 10.0 8.5 13.1 22.3 8.6 32.1 11.5 8.4 54.0

2.4 9.8 8.2 13.8 21.3 6.6 44.5 14.4 7.0 50.9

1.4% 3.1% 4.9% 1.8% 13.2% 3.9 35.5% 13.2% 8.9% 28.7%

2.2% 9.5% 6.5% 13.7% 15.4% 7.3% 22.0% 6.6% 7.3% 42.7%

3.6 7.3 4.7 10.4 12.0 5.0 12.3 2.0 8.0 43.2

0.8 5.0 1.8 9.1 9.7% 4.5 10.2 1.1 4.5 27.9

2.8% 4.5% 4.7% 4.6% 5.7% 2.8% 11.8% 5.5% 3.5% 15.3%

CHAPTER 2
50 National Endowment for the Arts

TABLE 8

Marginal impact of demographics on U.S. adults’ 

likelihood of participating via arts creation: 2008

Participate in 

arts creation activity

Controlling for 

any arts lessons

Gender

Male 0.0% 0.0%

Female 15.5** 14.9**

Race/ethnicity

White, Non-Hispanic 0.0% 0.0%

African American, Non-Hispanic -7.2** 3.8

Hispanic -4.4 -0.4

American Indian, Non-Hispanic -13.1 0.1

Asian, Non-Hispanic -5.3 -4.8

2 or more races, Non-Hispanic 5.1 22.0

Age

18–24 0.0% 0.0

25–34 -1.7 3.3

35–44 0.7 4.0

45–54 3.1 8.7

55–64 0.8 8.1

65–74 3.2 9.2

75+ -1.7 14.0

Education

Grade school 0.0% 0.0%

Some high school -1.0 2.2

High school graduate -2.4 -7.7

Some college 12.8** 2.0

College graduate 15.6** 1.2

Graduate school 23.3** 9.1

Family income

Less than $10,000 0.0% 0.0%

$10,000–19,999 -2.3 7.2

$20,000–29,999 3.7 11.0

$30,000–39,999 3.1 5.2

$40,000–49,999 7.2 13.2

$50,000–74,999 4.8 14.9

$75,000–99,999 10.3** 18.9*

$100,000–149,999 9.9* 15.1

$150,000+ 1.3 15.9

Citizenship status

Native 0.0% 0.0%

Naturalized -8.3** -4.4

Non-citizen -6.5* 6.4

Other

Married 3.3% 0.3%

No child or child under 18 -5.6** -5.4

Reside in metropolitan area -5.7** -10.2**

Any arts lessons 32.1**

* Statistically significant at the 90% confidence level

** Statistically significant at the 95% confidence level

“Who” is likely to create? 

Demographic characteristics play a minor role 

in predicting “who” is likely to participate in 

arts-creation activities at least once in the past 

year. When we control for the respondent’s history 

of taking arts lessons, the role of demographic 

characteristics diminishes. In 2008, SPPA 

respondents who had taken arts lessons at any 

point in their lives were, on average, 32% more 

likely than adults who had not to participate 

in arts-creation activities that year. In addition 

to arts lessons, two demographic characteristics 

significantly predict the likelihood that someone 

participates in arts-creation activities: females 

(15% more likely than males to participate), 

and people living in metropolitan areas (10% less 

likely to participate in arts-creation activities). 

(See Table 8.)

Underlying characteristics

Overall, the demographic variables explored 

in these analyses account only for 6% of the 

variability observed in the participation rates for 

arts creation.61 What other factors might explain 

more of the variability? The following section 

uses exploratory factor analysis to look at 

what underlying characteristics may be derived 

from patterns of participation via arts creation. 

(See Table 9.) We hypothesize, for example, that 

creative activities may naturally group together 

based on the implied settings for those activities. 

The arts-creation activities included in this 

analysis group into two underlying dimensions. 

The first grouping includes: painting, drawing, 

and sculpting; photography, film- and video-making; 

creative writing; and pottery, jewelry-making, and 

ceramics. The second grouping includes performing 

in plays and musicals. We suggest three possible 

interpretations of this exploratory analysis: 
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 51

■ A difference in terms of social versus solitary 

activities. For example, consider participation in 

theater (i.e., “sing or act in a musical play” or 

“act in a non-musical play”) — activities that are 

fundamentally social in nature (i.e., working with 

other singers, actors, directors, designers, etc.). 

In 2008, less than 1% of the population creatively 

participated in theatrical performances; whereas 

participation rates for other activities that could 

be done in solitude tended to be higher, such 

as playing a musical instrument and painting, 

drawing, and sculpture work. (See Table 6.)

■ A difference between activities taking place 

in public performance spaces versus private 

spaces, such as the home. The distinction 

between public and private contexts is worthy 

of further consideration. The 1992 SPPA protocol 

asked follow-up questions about arts creation 

specifically related to public performance, and 

demonstrated that participation rates were 

lower for displaying or performing arts in public 

(NEA, 1993). The comfort level and accessibility 

that some people associate with private settings 

may stimulate participation in certain activities, 

while it may preclude participation in other 

activities that are more public in nature, such as 

singing or acting in a musical play.

■ A difference between activities involving 

vocal and verbal expression (singing, acting) and 

activities involving other forms of creative 

expression (painting, writing).

Although the SPPA measures behavior in a specific 

categories of artistic discipline, this exploratory 

factor analysis does not necessarily suggest that 

arts-creation activities cluster by discipline. Beyond 

artistic discipline, future research might focus on 

issues related to accessibility of the form (are formal 

classes or equipment needed or can anyone readily 

participate?), preferences for settings, whether an 

individual can engage in the activity alone or must 

join a social group, and other contexts for being 

involved in arts-creation activity. 

TABLE 9

Factor analysis results for arts creation activities: 2008

Factor loading

Arts creation activity 1 2 Communality

Musical play 0.76 0.20

Paint/draw/sculpt 0.59 0.19

Non-musical play 0.49 0.17

Photo/movies/video 0.50 0.15

Creative writing 0.45 0.14

Pottery/ceramics/jewelry 0.41 0.11

Played a musical instrument 0.32 0.10

Sang with a vocal group 0.32 0.10

Weave/needlework/sewing 0.33 0.08

Sang music from an opera 0.04

Danced 0.03

Eigen values 2.23 1.45

% of variance 20.31 13.20

CHAPTER 2

Note: Loadings < .30 are suppressed
52 National Endowment for the Arts

MODE OF PARTICIPATION: ELECTRONIC 

MEDIA-BASED 

The SPPA has included questions about viewing and 

listening to arts programming since 1982, although 

the technologies to which the questions refer 

have changed over the years, in effort to keep up 

with technological advances. In 1982, questions were 

asked about watching a program on TV; today the 

questions ask about watching and listening via 

iPods, cell phones, and portable DVD players, in 

addition to TV and radio. Questions about Internet 

usage were first included in the 2002 survey. Given 

the changes in question-wording over the years, 

data between 2008 and prior years are not directly 

comparable. Therefore, only 2008 data are presented 

in this report. Further analyses can be found in 

NEA Research Report #50, Audience 2.0: How 

Technology Influences Arts Participation (2010). 

Rates

Approximately 70% of the U.S. adult population 

used the Internet within the 12 months ending in 

May 2008, and 20% of U.S. adults reported using 

the Internet to watch, listen to or download live or 

recorded performing arts, specifically music, 

theater or dance. Fourteen percent of adults used 

the Internet to access visual arts content. In sum, 

approximately four in 10 adults access art via live 

or recorded broadcasts.62

The highest rates of electronic media participation 

were observed for listening to recordings or 

watching broadcasts of music: classical music (17.8%), 

Latin, Spanish, or salsa music (14.9%), and jazz 

(14.2%). Broadcasts about artists, artworks and 

museums, and programs about books and writers 

also garnered participation rates of 15%. However, 

the genres and disciplines that tend to be more 

visual and theatrical in nature (opera, musical plays, 

non-musical plays and dance) each have relatively 

lower electronic media participation rates when 

compared with the other genres and disciplines 

queried.63 What drives these rates is uncertain; it may 

suggest either a limitation in the availability of 

these programs or a limited interest in listening to 

or watching these art forms via recordings or live 

broadcasts. (See Figure 3.)

FIGURE 3

Percentage of U.S. adults who accessed artistic content 

via recorded or live arts broadcasts: 2008

Percentage of U.S. adults

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Opera

Non-musical plays

Musical plays

Dance

Literature

Jazz

Latin music

Programs about

books/writers

Programs about art

Classical music 17.8%

15.1%

15.0%

14.9%

14.2%

10.0%

8.0%

7.9%

6.8%

4.9%
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 53

Rates of electronic media-based participation, 

by demographic group

Gender

In general, men and women participate via 

electronic media at similar rates. Men report higher 

rates for accessing performing arts content online, 

and listening to or watching broadcasts of jazz 

and Latin, Spanish, or salsa music. (See Table 10.)

Race/ethnicity

Hispanics listen to broadcasts of Latin, Spanish, 

or salsa music at levels far above other race/ethnicity 

cohorts (55.2%, compared with the next highest 

reported rate: 12% for American Indians).

Age

Rates of Internet use are negatively correlated 

with older ages; younger respondents reported using 

the Internet at higher rates than older respondents. 

For example, 42.5% of 18- to 24-year-olds reported 

watching, listening to or downloading live or 

recorded music, theater or dance performances, 

compared with 1.3% of respondents aged 75 and 

older. Similarly, 20.2% of 18- to 24-year-olds reported 

viewing visual arts online, compared with 2.7% 

of respondents aged 75 and older. Overall, results 

illustrate a dramatic age skew associated with 

accessing art online. 

Educational attainment

Rates of Internet usage are positively correlated 

with education. Levels of Internet use to access 

performing arts and visual arts are greater with 

higher educational attainment, especially at 

the levels of “some college” and above. Educational 

attainment and rates of accessing the arts through 

recorded and broadcast electronic media are 

positively correlated, except for viewing and/or 

listening to Latin, Spanish, or salsa music through 

media, for which individuals with “grade-school” 

education levels reported the highest rates (25.8%).

Family income

Families with lower incomes report lower rates 

of Internet usage. However, there is less of a range 

of reported rates across income levels, compared 

with rates by education level. Generally, there 

appears to be less of a disparity across income levels 

for electronic media usage than there is in media 

use across education levels.

Citizenship status

Native-born citizens use the Internet at 

significantly higher rates than either naturalized 

or non-citizen U.S. adults. Native-born citizens 

listen to Latin, Spanish, or salsa music at a 

significantly lower rate, compared with naturalized 

and non-citizen U.S. adults. 

“Who” is likely to watch and listen?

People with past exposure to arts lessons (of any 

discipline) at some point in their lives are 33% more 

likely than those without exposure to listen to 

or watch broadcasts or recordings. Again, people 

with any arts lessons are more likely than Americans 

who have not taken art lessons to participate in the 

arts. (See Table 11.)

Adults who self-identify as Hispanic are 

approximately 30% more likely than whites to 

view or listen to recordings or live broadcasts. 

When we control for participation in arts 

lessons, African Americans are 17% more likely 

than whites, and American Indians are 40% more 

likely than whites to watch or listen to an arts 

recording or broadcast.

Individuals who identified as non-citizens are 

significantly more likely than native U.S. citizens 

to listen to or watch an arts recording or broadcast 

(33% more likely, controlling for arts lessons). 

Controlling for arts lessons, individuals with 

at least some college are 22% more likely to view or 

listen to arts recordings or broadcasts, compared 

with adults who have a minimal grade-school 

education. Overall, results of this analysis suggest 

that arts participation via recorded and broadcast 

electronic media is an effective means of reaching 

diverse communities as well as older Americans. 

CHAPTER 2
54 National Endowment for the Arts

TABLE 10

Rates of U.S. adult participation in electronic media and 

internet arts activities, by demographic group: 2008

Online Recordings or broadcasts 

Used internet

Accessed 

theater/dance/

music

Accessed 

visual art Jazz Latin, Spanish, or salsa 

All adults

69.9% 21.0% 14.1% 14.2% 14.9% 

Gender

Male 70.2% 23.0% 13.7% 14.9% 15.8% 

Female 69.6 19.2 14.5 13.6 14.0 

Range 0.6% 3.8% 0.9% 1.3% 1.8% 

Race/ethnicity

White, Non-Hispanic 76.0% 22.3% 16.4% 14.2% 8.8% 

African American, Non-Hispanic 53.7 16.6 8.0 19.6 9.9 

Hispanic 51.6 18.2 7.6 9.6 55.2 

American Indian, Non-Hispanic 57.6 17.3 12.3 12.9 12.0 

Asian, Non-Hispanic 72.3 21.0 12.7 12.5 4.1 

2 or more races, Non-Hispanic 77.3 26.2 22.6 16.4 10.2 

Range 25.7% 9.6% 15.0% 10.0% 51.1% 

Age

18–24 86.7% 42.5% 20.2% 15.0% 18.8% 

25–34 81.2 33.3 19.2 13.2 19.0 

35–44 77.9 23.4 16.5 13.2 16.1 

45–54 72.7 15.7 12.9 15.3 13.6 

55–64 68.6 11.5 12.0 15.8 12.7 

65–74 43.4 4.4 5.6 13.9 10.2 

75+ 18.6 1.3 2.7 11.9 8.3 

Range 68.1% 41.1% 17.5% 3.9% 10.7% 

Education

Grade school 11.1% 1.6% 1.2% 6.1% 25.8% 

Some high school 46.2 15.4 5.2 8.9 18.7 

High school graduate 57.9 12.9 5.9 9.3 11.6 

Some college 82.1 27.3 17.2 15.6 14.5 

College graduate 90.0 29.3 24.0 20.9 15.0 

Graduate school 92.8 31.0 31.2 24.6 17.5 

Range 81.7% 29.4% 30.0% 18.5% 14.2% 

Family income

<$10,000 46.8% 19.5% 10.2% 13.7% 13.8% 

$10,000–19,999 40.9 8.0 5.6 9.8 16.9 

$20,000–29,999 49.9 16.0 8.1 14.0 20.0 

$30,000–39,999 60.7 15.7 10.2 12.2 14.6 

$40,000–49,999 71.5 20.7 14.7 12.8 15.7 

$50,000–74,999 78.1 21.4 14.0 14.5 13.1 

$75,000–99,999 88.9 28.7 20.7 17.1 17.4 

$100,000–149,999 95.3 38.4 25.1 16.6 11.7 

$150,000+ 95.1 34.6 29.2 21.2 14.9 

Range 54.4% 30.4% 23.6% 11.4% 8.3% 

Citizenship status

Native 72.7% 22.4% 15.1% 14.9% 11.3% 

Naturalized 56.5 14.5 10.7 11.1 25.7 

Non-citizen 51.2 12.0 6.5 9.5 43.2 

Range 21.5% 10.4% 8.7% 5.4% 31.9% 
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 55

Recordings or broadcasts

Classical music Opera Musical play Non-musical play Dance

Programs about 

artists, artworks or 

museums

Programs about 

books or writers

17.8% 4.9% 7.9% 6.8% 8.0% 15.0% 15.0%

16.7% 4.2% 6.5% 5.9% 6.0% 14.4% 13.8%

18.9 5.5 9.2 7.6 9.9 15.7 16.1

2.2% 1.3% 2.7% 1.7% 3.9% 1.3% 2.3%

19.6% 5.5% 8.7% 6.4% 9.1% 16.8% 17.1%

10.7 2.5 6.9 8.4 6.6 9.8 10.8

12.1 3.5 5.8 7.4 4.0 11.0 8.3

8.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.2 15.0 15.2

27.0 7.4 6.5 8.5 8.1 14.8 14.2

17.0 1.9 2.3 1.0 5.6 12.8 13.1

18.9% 7.4% 6.5% 8.5% 6.9% 7.0% 8.8%

16.9% 3.9% 6.9% 8.2% 7.5% 14.5% 14.9%

14.3 3.7 6.2 6.1 5.3 12.5 12.8

14.7 2.7 7.7 5.0 5.8 13.3 14.1

17.2 4.3 8.2 7.0 8.7 17.0 15.7

24.7 8.6 9.6 6.9 9.4 20.1 18.2

20.1 7.3 9.9 8.5 13.3 14.8 16.8

21.6 6.6 8.0 7.5 9.9 11.8 12.3

10.4% 5.9% 3.7% 3.5% 8.0% 8.3% 5.9%

8.4% 3.3% 4.2% 4.5% 4.5% 7.9% 4.9%

8.6 2.3 3.6 4.0 3.1 8.4 6.2

9.7 2.3 4.0 5.2 5.3 8.0 6.7

18.9 4.8 9.7 7.8 9.6 16.5 17.0

28.1 7.5 14.1 8.9 10.7 24.2 24.5

39.1 12.8 11.0 9.3 14.8 28.9 35.4

30.7% 10.5% 10.5% 5.3% 11.7% 21.0% 30.5%

11.0% 5.2% 6.4% 5.8% 8.9% 12.2% 11.5%

12.5 4.0 5.1 5.4 6.2 9.0 9.5

14.6 3.9 7.4 8.4 8.8 11.3 10.9

14.2 2.3 4.1 5.8 6.7 11.7 13.3

18.9 4.4 9.3 6.8 9.7 16.8 14.8

16.8 4.8 8.3 6.1 7.1 15.0 13.1

22.0 5.6 8.9 8.4 8.8 18.3 19.7

25.6 7.3 12.4 6.6 11.2 21.7 25.8

32.4 8.7 13.4 10.2 9.9 24.5 24.3

21.4% 6.4% 9.3% 4.8% 5.0% 15.5% 16.3%

17.9% 4.8% 8.0% 6.5% 8.3% 15.5% 15.6%

19.9 7.4 9.3 10.6 6.4 14.2 14.9

15.9 3.9 6.2 6.8 6.4 10.8 8.9

4.0% 3.5% 3.1% 4.1% 1.9% 4.7% 6.7%

CHAPTER 2

Note: Dance here refers to all forms of dance, not just ballet.
56 National Endowment for the Arts

TABLE 11

Marginal impact of demographics on U.S. adults’ 

likelihood of participating via broadcasts or recordings of 

artworks or art programs: 2008

Listen/watch 

broadcasts or recordings of 

artworks or art programs

Controlling for 

any arts lessons

Gender

Male 0.0% 0.0%

Female 2.3 -2.3

Race/ethnicity

White, Non-Hispanic 0.0% 0.0%

African American, Non-Hispanic 4.1 16.7**

Hispanic 27.9** 32.7**

American Indian, Non-Hispanic 3.7 39.7**

Asian, Non-Hispanic -13.8** -4.8

2 or more races, Non-Hispanic -13.8 -10.9

Age

18–24 0.0% 0.0%

25–34 -2.3 9.4

35–44 -0.9 15.8

45–54 3.2 15.1

55–64 6.2 25.4**

65–74 4.3 24.8**

75+ 10.4 23.6*

Education

Grade school 0.0% 0.0%

Some high school 2.4 7.7

High school graduate 9.5 13.2

Some college 24.3** 22.1*

College graduate 32.7** 27.6**

Graduate school 39.5** 24.5*

Family income

Less than $10,000 0.0% 0.0%

$10,000–19,999 -6.1 -1.1

$20,000–29,999 -1.6 10.8

$30,000–39,999 -7.6 6.4

$40,000–49,999 0.3 7.1

$50,000–74,999 -4.1 10.7

$75,000–99,999 -0.9 7.6

$100,000–149,999 -1.3 11.2

$150,000+ 2.1 22.4*

Citizenship status

Native 0.0% 0.0%

Naturalized 5.6 4.0

Non-citizen 16.4** 33.1**

Other

Married 1.7% 2.7%

No child or child under 18 2.6 -2.8

Reside in metropolitan area 5.5** 4.3

Any arts lessons 32.9**

* Statistically significant at the 90% confidence level

** Statistically significant at the 95% confidence level
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 57

NOTES

41 This rate includes all data available in 2008 and listed in Table 1 

on performing arts, visual arts, and parks and historic site 

attendance; this aggregate rate does not include participation in 

literature or attendance specifically at community venues. 

42 “Benchmark” activities include: attendance at a live jazz 

performance, a classical music performance, a live opera, a live 

musical stage play, a live performance of a non-musical stage 

play, a live ballet, and a visit to an art museum or gallery.

43 Attendance at a live dance performance other than ballet is not 

included in the “All Comparable Attendance Activities” rate 

because this activity has been included in the SPPA only since 

1992. We looked at the effect of including this variable in the 

aggregate measures for years 1992–2008 and found the rate of the 

aggregated measures increased by an amount much smaller than 

the margin of error. Thus, we concluded it does not have an effect.

44 See the Technical Appendix for further details.

45 To test significant changes over time we employ procedures as 

outlined in the 2008 SPPA Technical Research Manual (June 

2009), using the average design effect for each survey year. See 

www.cpanda.org/cpanda/documents/a00249/users-guide.pdf. 

46 Further discussion of the trends within each arts attendance 

activity appears in 2008 Survey of Public Participation 

in the Arts, NEA Report #49; and in Arts Participation 2008: 

Highlights from a National Survey (Washington, DC: 

NEA, 2009). Some rates in Table 1 were previously published 

in 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, NEA 

Report #49.

47 There is a notable difference between all comparable attendance 

activities and attendance at benchmark activities between 

1982 and 1992. Because neither attendance at art or craft fairs 

and festivals nor attendance at parks and historic sites (the two 

non-benchmark arts activities included in the aggregate index) 

seems to drive this change in and of itself, the significant 

increase in attendance rates suggests that a broader set of people 

participated at least once in the attendance activities in 1992 

as compared to 1982.

48 In the Australia Council for the Arts national survey of arts 

participation, the authors consider attendance and reading 

together as “receptive” arts participation activities. This 

distinction seems to capture aptly the reduced level of personal 

creative control implied by both types of activities. More than 

bums on seats, Australia Council for the Arts (see n. 12).

49 The questions read: “During the last 12 months, did you (or your 

spouse/partner) attend an elementary, middle or high school 

music, theater or dance performance?”; and “During the last 12 

months, did you (or your spouse/partner) attend a music, theater 

or dance performance at a church, synagogue or other religious 

institution?”

50 The foundation for this discussion appears in 2008 Survey of 

Public Participation in the Arts, NEA Report #49, chapter 3.

51 A marginal effects probit model is used for this analysis.

52 This category includes those attendance activities labeled 

as “Any Arts Attendance” in Table 3; it excludes attendance at 

community venues and reading literature, which are not 

included in this aggregate variable due to the different nature 

of the questions addressing them.

53 Using a linear probability model. Output is available in the 

Technical Appendix.

54 Data on reading literature and attending music, theater, and 

dance performances at schools and religious institutions 

are omitted from this analysis due to differences in the nature 

of the questions addressing them, compared with questions 

addressing other attendance activities. 

55 Correlation table available upon request.

56 2008 is the first year that the SPPA asked about participation 

in dance by using one question combining ballet with 

other genres of dance. This was also the first year that the 

SPPA collected information on individuals who play a musical 

instrument regardless of whether the musician played or 

rehearsed for a public performance. Hence, we omit prior 

years’ data for “all dance” and for playing an instrument.

57 Earlier SPPA waves included questions such as, “During 

the last 12 months, did you play a musical instrument 

in a public performance or rehearse for a public musical 

performance?” (SPPA 1982 and 1985), which the NEA has 

deemed not comparable to 1992 and later waves due to 

the change in wording regarding “public performance.” 

The NEA reports that the inclusion of “public performance” 

in the question appeared to suppress response rates.

58 If owning art is omitted from the index, the aggregate rate for 

arts creation is approximately 6% lower in 1992, 2002, and 2008 

than the currently reported rates.

59 Unlike most core questions in the SPPA, this question asks only 

about the act of owning art, and does not ask about behavior 

undertaken within the 12 months ending in May 2008. 

60 Note that the highest reported rate of attendance for African 

Americans was 26.3% for attending performances at religious 

institutions.

61 Using a linear probability model to examine explained variability.

62 This data was originally published in 2008 Survey of Public 

Participation in the Arts, NEA Report #49, 35.

63 While the electronic media rate for opera is low relative to rates 

for other art forms, the rate of electronic media participation in 

opera is more than double that for live attendance.

CHAPTER 2
58 National Endowment for the Arts

In 2007–2008, one out of 

three U.S. adults participated 

in the arts through both 

creation and attendance.
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 59

CHAPTER 3

A LOOK BETWEEN MODES: 

ATTENDANCE AND ARTS CREATION

Prior studies utilizing the SPPA have looked 

extensively at attendance, and then separately at 

participation via creation. While the SPPA captures 

information on both types of participation, 

relatively little has been studied empirically about 

the relationship between arts creation and 

attendance.64 Regional studies have made strides 

in investigating these relationships,65 but the 

linkage between arts creation and attendance 

activity has not been deeply explored with 

national data — until now. 

RATES

In 2008, 33% of U.S. adults reported participating 

in both creation-based and attendance-based arts 

activities,66 17% reported attendance-based activities 

only, 12% reported participation in the arts via 

creation-based activities only, and 38% of U.S. 

adults reported both no attendance and no creative 

participation, as illustrated in Figure 4.67

In total, 45% of Americans do creative arts 

activities (as defined by the 2008 SPPA), while 50% 

of Americans engage in the arts by attending arts 

events. The overlap is substantial, but there are 

sizeable segments of the population that participate 

only in one mode or the other. While these figures 

do not connote either the frequency with which 

they do these activities or the importance that they 

ascribe to them, the percentages do suggest that a 

majority of Americans find meaning in both modes 

of participation — attendance and creation.

Across the SPPA survey years, the distribution 

of adult activity has changed. Referring to 

Figure 5, proportionally fewer adults in the U.S. 

are participating in both attendance-based 

and arts-creation activities, and more adults are 

reporting no attendance or creative activity. 

In contrast, the percentage of U.S. adults that 

only attends or only creates remained relatively 

constant across SPPA years. 

FIGURE 4

Distribution of U.S. adults, based on participation in arts 

attendance and arts creation: 2008

Attended only

17%

Created and attended

33%

Created only

12%

Neither

38%
60 National Endowment for the Arts

ARTS LESSONS

Figure 6 illustrates the effect of any arts lessons69 on 

attendance, arts creation, and participation via both 

modes. The boxed number in the chart reports the 

ratio of the rates of participation by comparing 

adults who had taken arts lessons to those who had 

not. For example, adults with any arts lessons were 

2.2 times as likely as those without any arts lessons 

to report attending an arts event between May 2007 

and May 2008. Having any arts lessons appears to 

have a slightly larger effect on rates of personal arts 

creation than on attendance rates.

The greatest difference is seen in the ratio for 

adults’ participation in both attendance and creative 

activities. Adults who report ever having an arts 

lesson are 3.8 times more likely than those who 

report no lessons to engage in both attendance-based 

and creative arts activities. One can also see the 

negative correlation of the absence of arts lessons 

with the incidence of participation as an adult 

(i.e., respondents with no past involvement in arts 

lessons were three times more likely than those 

with a history of having taken any arts lessons to 

report no participation in the arts over the last year).

In 2008, adults with any history of taking arts lessons 

reported participating in arts creative activities 

at a rate 2.6 times that reported by adults who 

had not taken any arts lessons. The corresponding 

rate for attendance is 2.2, while the rate for both 

attendance and creation is 3.8. Although this 

analysis does not imply causality, prior arts lessons 

are correlated with higher overall participation 

levels. One might infer a symbiosis between arts 

attendance and arts creation, perhaps stimulated by 

childhood experiences with arts lessons. 

FIGURE 5

Trend analysis of the distribution of U.S. adults, based 

on participation in arts attendance and arts creation: 

1992, 2002, and 2008 Percentage of U.S. adults 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Attended only

Created and attended

Created only

Neither

1992 2002 2008

19.0%

42.1%

12.6%

26.3%

21.6%

32.9%

9.4%

36.0%

17.9%

30.2%

11.0%

41.0%

Note: In this figure, the distribution of modal activity in 2008 differs from that 

presented in the pie chart on the previous page, due to new questions included in 

the SPPA 2008 data that constitute attendance activities. This graph only includes 

comparable measures available in each 1992, 2002, and 2008.68

FIGURE 6

Comparative rates of arts attendance and creation 

among adults who did or did not take arts classes or 

lessons: 2008 Percentage of U.S. adults 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No arts lessons

Any arts lessons

Any attendance Any creation Both creation and attendance

2.2 times more 2.6 times more

3.8 times more
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 61

CIVIC AND SOCIAL ENGAGEMENT

Participation in other civic and social activities 

covered in the SPPA may also be analyzed for the 

four cohorts of modal arts participation in Figure 4. 

Table 12 presents the results of investigating if the 

mode by which an individual participates in the 

arts has any bearing on civic and social engagement. 

In general, the analysis further illustrates the 

symbiosis between creation and attendance. 

People who reported both attendance and creative 

participation over the past year also reported the 

highest participation rates for civic and leisure 

activities, usually by a wide margin.70 For example, 

respondents who reported both creative and 

attendance-based arts activity between May 2007 

and May 2008 were six times as likely as those 

who reported no arts participation to do volunteer 

or charity work in their community. This analysis 

does not explain causality, but the pattern of 

the results suggests that Americans who attend arts 

programs and who express themselves creatively 

through the arts are also more engaged civically, 

socially, and physically.

RATES WITHIN DISCIPLINES

Of people who report participating in a specific 

discipline, how is their participation within 

that discipline distributed across the two modes of 

attendance and arts creation? 

Figure 7 illustrates the distribution of SPPA 

respondents who reported participating in each 

discipline either through attendance or creation. 

The percentages in parenthesis at the bottom of 

each column represent the total rates of participation 

for all attendance and creation activities for 

each discipline (for all U.S. adults). Within each of 

the performing arts disciplines — music, theater, 

and dance — attendance is the dominant form 

of participation. Theater participation is nearly all 

attendance-based (94.0%). Within the visual arts 

category, the distribution of activity between 

attendance and creation is more evenly split — 38.9% 

report only attendance, 36.4% report both attending 

and creating, and 24.6% report only creating.

TABLE 12

Rate of U.S. adult participation in civic and social 

activities, by mode of arts participation cohort: 2008

Attend 

movies

Attend 

sporting 

events

Exercise Playing 

sports

Outdoor 

activities Gardening Community activities

Volunteer/

charity

Both attend and create 74.6% 49.5% 78.5% 41.5% 48.7% 61.4% 53.5% 57.4%

Attend only 67.5 39.2 60.0 33.6 30.6 38.2 29.6 35.2

Create only 46.0 21.8 53.9 23.8 24.8 50.0 21.5 28.0

Neither 30.3 12.9 26.7 10.6 10.1 22.8 6.5 9.5

CHAPTER 3
62 National Endowment for the Arts

What might explain the distributions across the 

four disciplines? One might interpret these 

results in relation to a number of factors, including: 

the training and skill level required to become 

active in a given discipline; the cost of acquiring 

instruments or supplies; the social requirements (i.e., 

private vs. socially-based activities); and the relative 

emphasis that the arts disciplines historically 

have been given in arts education curriculum. 

For example, given the relatively higher emphasis 

on music and visual arts curriculum in arts 

education, compared with theater and dance, one 

can hypothesize that this has bearing on the 

percentages of Americans involved at the creative 

level in music and visual arts are higher. One might 

also argue that the social and cost barriers to 

creative participation in music and visual arts are 

considerably lower than those for theater and dance. 

Music and visual arts activities can be done in 

private spaces, including the home, while theater 

and dance activities often take place in organized 

social settings. Most surprising is the relatively 

high proportion of creative activity in dance (23.9%), 

given the low offerings of dance instruction relative 

to music and visual arts instruction in public 

schools. Cultural norms and language may also play 

a role in shaping these figures. For example, a study 

of the arts activities of Dallas public school students 

found that Hispanic children reported higher levels 

of interest in visual arts and craft activities than 

African American children, while African American 

children reported higher levels of interest in dance 

and music than Hispanic children (Brown and 

Daniel, 2008, 7).

FIGURE 7

Distribution of U.S. adults, based on participation in arts 

attendance and arts creation, by discipline: 2008 Percentage of U.S. adults 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Attended only

Created and attended

Created only

Music (37.9%) Theater (21.7%) Dance (8.8%) Visual arts (47.5%)

58.0%

20.6%

21.4%

94.0%

76.1%

8.0%

15.9%

38.9%

36.4%

24.6%

3.7%

2.3%
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 63

RATES ACROSS DISCIPLINES

Probability of Creative Participation, Given 

Participation via Attendance

Considering the modes of participation —

attendance and creation — we examine patterns 

of participation between artistic disciplines. 

Table 13 summarizes rates of participation in 

arts-creation activities, by discipline, for individuals 

who report attending arts and cultural events. 

Rates provide an absolute measure of the portion 

of U.S. adults participating. Overall, 66% of the 

people who reported attending an arts event 

also reported participating via arts creation (any 

activity) between May 2007 and May 2008. Looking 

across the top row, the highest rates of creative 

participation were visual arts activities (43%) and 

creating or performing music (23%). The figures for 

dance and theater were much lower (4% and 2%, 

respectively). 

In Table 13, the highlighted percentages represent 

the percentage of individuals who participate via 

arts creation in the same discipline that they report 

attending. One hypothesis that we held going 

into this analysis was that U.S. adults who attend 

a given discipline would report the highest rates 

for creation within the same discipline. If this 

hypothesis were true, for example, then adults 

who reported attending dance events would also 

report the highest rate of arts creation in dance. 

However, the hypothesis proves incorrect. 

Of adults reporting arts attendance between 

May 2007 and May 2008, those who attended a dance 

performance reported the overall highest rate 

of creative participation (80%), suggesting that of 

the four disciplines, the audience for dance is 

somewhat more oriented toward personal creative 

expression. Among dance performance attendees, 

creative participation in visual arts is highest (57%), 

followed by music (31%) and creative writing (17%). 

Ten percent of adults who attended a dance 

performance in the past 12 months also personally 

participated in dance themselves (as dancers) 

in the past 12 months. The general patterns 

of creative expression among audience members 

also reflect patterns found in the general population. 

TABLE 13

Percentage of U.S. adults who report arts attendance 

that participate in arts creation activities, by discipline: 

200871

Arts creation

Arts attendance Creation in 

any art form Music Theater Dance Visual arts Creative writing

Attendance at any arts activity 66% 23% 2% 4% 43% 11%

Attendance at any benchmark arts event 71 26 3 4 47 13

Music 70 26 2 5 47 13

Theater 72 27 4 4 46 13

Dance 80 31 5 10 57 17

Visual arts 72 25 2 4 48 13

Reading literature 59 21 2 3 39 11

CHAPTER 3
64 National Endowment for the Arts

Probability of attendance, given participation via 

arts creation

Given the ongoing deliberation among arts managers 

about audience development and how to attract 

more paying customers to arts events, it is also useful 

to consider the proportion of arts creators that 

attend arts events. Should arts presenters and 

producers concern themselves with the inventive 

and interpretive modes of participation (i.e., arts 

creation) as ways to build audiences? Table 14 

summarizes rates of participation in art attendance 

activities by discipline for individuals who 

report creative activities (i.e., the inverse of the 

previous table). 

In sum, 73% of U.S. adults who reported participation 

in creative activities between May 2007 and May 

2008 reported attending at least one arts event 

as well. As with the previous analysis, the strongest 

relationship was found between dancers and 

arts attendance (85%). Within each discipline, 

relationships between creators and attendees vary 

widely. The closest relationship is observed between 

creative writing and literary reading (81%), not 

an attendance activity at all. Theater and visual arts 

follow at 60%. In other words, 60% of Americans who 

painted, drew, sculpted or made prints in the past 

year also attended a museum or gallery at least once. 

(Perhaps it is more interesting to consider that 40% 

did not.) Regarding music, nearly half of adults who 

reported playing an instrument or rehearsing or 

performing classical music, opera, or jazz in the past 

year also attended a classical music, opera, or jazz 

performance. The other half did not. Finally, with 

respect to dance, 35% of Americans who danced in 

the past year also attended a live dance performance, 

while 65% did not. 

Clearly, the subpopulation of adults who create 

art in America provides a foundation of informed 

audience members for museums and performing arts 

presenters and producers. While causality cannot be 

concluded in either direction, our analysis does 

suggest that investments in arts-creation activities 

are likely to result in attendance outcomes in 

the long run, and vice versa. While the relationships 

between arts creation and arts attendance are 

strong, they are by no means perfectly aligned. Many 

Americans who dance, sing, play instruments, 

act, draw, paint, and sculpt do not attend exhibitions 

or live performances. Perhaps such programs are 

not available in their communities. Or perhaps other 

factors contributed to their decision not to attend. 

In any case, these results might help inform arts 

organizations in their audience development efforts.

TABLE 14

Percentage of U.S. adults who report arts creation that 

participate via arts attendance, by discipline: 200872

Arts attendance

Arts creation

Attendance at 

any arts 

activity

Attendance at 

any 

benchmark 

arts event

Music Theater Dance Visual arts Literature

Creation in any art form 73% 55% 46% 34% 13% 57% 67%

Music 74 57 49 35 15 57 68

Theater 78 69 55 60 28 59 73

Dance 85 64 68 40 35 68 75

Visual arts 75 57 48 34 15 60 69

Creative writing 81 68 57 40 18 69 81
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 65

EFFECT OF ATTENDANCE ON RATES OF 

ARTS CREATION

The previous section examined rates of participation 

in creative activities given attendance, and rates of 

attendance given creation. But, do people who attend 

arts events participate in creative activities at higher 

rates than those who do not attend? Here we look at 

the ratios of the levels (rates) of arts participation of a 

given creative activity, comparing whether or 

not the individual reported attending any arts event 

between May 2007 and May 2008. Ratios provide a 

relative measure of participation in arts-creation 

activities and enable us to see whether attendance is 

associated with greater creative participation across 

arts disciplines. The ratios do not imply causality.

Figure 8 depicts rates of arts creation, controlling 

for whether a person reported any attendance. 

The numbers in the boxes at the top of the columns 

represent the value of the ratio of the two columns 

for the given creative activity. If the ratio is equal or 

near equal to 1.0, then there is no difference between 

the rates at which attendees and non-attendees 

participate in creative activities. The greater the 

number is above 1.0, the greater the difference in the 

arts-creation rates between attendees and 

non-attendees. For example, people who attended 

any arts event between May 2007 and May 2008 

were 2.7 times as likely as those who did not report 

any attendance to participate in any creative 

activity. Similarly, people who reported any 

attendance were 5.7 times more likely than those 

who did not attend any events to dance themselves.

EFFECT OF ARTS CREATION ON ARTS 

ATTENDANCE RATES 

Conversely, Figure 9 depicts rates of arts 

attendance, controlling for whether a person 

reported any arts creation. Overall, people who 

did any arts-creation activity between May 2007 

and May 2008 were 2.3 times as likely as those 

who did not report any arts-creation activity to 

attend an arts event. Similarly, people who reported 

any creative personal participation were 4.7 times 

more likly than those who did not, to attend a dance 

performance. Interestingly, the association of 

creative participation with attendance (ratio of 2.3) 

is slightly weaker than the association of attendance 

with creative participation (ratio of 2.7). 

FIGURE 8

Comparative rates of arts creation, by discipline, among 

adults who did or did not attend any arts activities: 2008

Participation via creation

Percentage of U.S. adults 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Did not attend

Attendance at any arts activity

Creative Own art

writing

Visual 

arts 

Creation in Music Theater Dance

any art form

2.7

2.8

3.6 5.7

3.0

4.3

5.4

FIGURE 9

Comparative rates of arts attendance, by discipline, 

among adults who did or did not create artwork: 2008

Participation via attendance

Percentage of U.S. adults 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No creative participation

Any creative participation

Attendance Music Theater Dance Visual arts

at any 

benchmark

arts event

Attendance 

at any arts 

activity

6%

2.3

3.0

2.8

3.1

4.7

3.1

CHAPTER 3
66 National Endowment for the Arts

A summary of the comparative ratios within each of 

the four disciplines follows.

Ratio of creative 

participation rates, by 

attendance

Ratio of attendance 

rates, by 

creative participation

Music 2.3 1.9

Theater 5.5 2.9

Dance 6.6 5.0

Visual arts 2.6 2.3

Two observations are worth mentioning here. 

First, the ratios for dance are highest overall among 

the four disciplines. This suggests a higher degree 

of symbiosis between attendance-based and 

creative forms of dance, compared with activities 

in the other disciplines. People who dance go to 

dance performances, and people who go to dance 

performances also dance — at rates higher than for 

other disciplines. Second, note the large difference 

between the ratios for theater. Rates of personal 

participation in theater (i.e., acting) were 5.5 times 

higher for people who attend theater than for those 

who do not attend theater. Logically, actors are likely 

to be drawn from the base of people who attend live 

theater. However, rates of theater attendance were 

just 2.9 times higher for adults who reported personal 

participation in theater, compared with adults 

who did not. Relatively speaking, audiences are less 

likely to be drawn from the base of actors.

Attendance at any art event is a significant predictor 

of creative arts participation, in general, and within 

each arts discipline. Participation in creative arts 

activity is also a significant predictor of attendance, 

in general, and within each arts discipline.

Odds ratios between attendance and creation

Odds ratios provide a relative measure of the 

strength of the relationship between arts attendance 

and arts creation. Similar to risk ratios, looking at 

individual decision-making about arts participation, 

odds ratios allow us to look at the chances that 

an individual will or will not participate in both 

modes. For example, U.S. adults who report any 

attendance are 5.9 times as likely as adults who did 

not report attendance to do arts-creation activities. 

(See Table 15.) The greater the odds ratio is than 

1.0, the stronger the relationship between the 

variables. For example, the relationship between 

creating music and attending theater (odds ratio=2.4) 

is not as strong as the relationship between creating 

theater and attending music (odds ratio=2.9), 

meaning that actors are a bit more likely to attend 

music concerts, relative to the likelihood of 

musicians attending plays. 

Looking at the highlighted cells in the table, these 

odds ratios give us the strength of the relationship 

between attending and creating within the 

same artistic discipline. The odds ratios for both 

theater (5.7) and dance73 (7.2) are noticeably greater 

than the ratios for music (2.7) and visual arts (2.8). 

In other words, the association between arts 

creation and attendance is weaker for musicians 

and visual artists, than for actors and dancers. This 

fact may relate to the absolute numbers of musicians 

and visual artists, which are substantially higher 

than the absolute numbers of actors and dancers. 

(Also, given their larger numbers, musicians and 

visual artists are more diverse in the attendance 

patterns.) Nevertheless, on a practical level, the 

data suggest that arts organizations should target 

practitioners of their art forms, and should consider 

ways of offering participatory forms of engagement 

or collaborating with organizations that provide 

such activities, given the high probability that 

practitioners will also attend.
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 67

Higher odds ratios may suggest greater exclusivity 

or barriers to participation. With dance, for 

example, the relatively high odds ratio suggests that 

individuals who participate in dance via attendance 

or creation are highly likely to be the same people 

who engage in dance via the other mode. Why might 

this be? One possible explanation is the accessibility 

of space, resources, and the social support structures 

usually associated with dance creation. 

As previously discussed, the SPPA question about 

creative dance participation asks about specific, 

mostly Western, dance forms that may imply the 

need for some level of formal or structured 

training in order to participate (e.g., ballet and tap).74

In contrast, even though skill is required to 

play musical instruments and to create visual art, 

attainment of these skills may lend itself more 

readily to self-instruction compared to dance 

or theater. 

Also, the implied or assumed setting of the art forms 

may play a role. Creative participation in theater may 

suggest putting on a play, which generally requires 

additional people and collaborators, as well as a 

public forum. The general nature of the art forms 

implies differences between public and more social 

settings, and private, perhaps more secluded spaces. 

Creating or performing music, dance, or theater 

tends to imply a “collaborative” nature about the art 

form (NEA, 2009b, 5) or an audience. The SPPA 

question-wordings for each of the arts creation and 

performance activities do not explicitly state, 

or necessarily imply, the setting or social aspects 

of their creative involvement, but it could be argued 

that they imply a formal setting or venue.75

EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS 

We previously observed that 33% of Americans 

participate in both attendance-based and creative 

arts activities, while 17% attend only, and 12% create 

only. (See Figure 4.) What additional information 

can be gleaned from the SPPA in terms of the types 

or groupings of arts activities that Americans do? 

For example, do people tend to participate in arts 

activities within the same discipline, or do they tend 

to participate within a mode — either through 

attendance or personal creation? Are there natural 

groupings of activities that might shed light on the 

larger behavioral patterns of Americans with respect 

to arts participation?

To address these questions, an exploratory factor 

analysis was conducted. (See Table 16.) Factor 

analysis is a data-reduction technique that identifies 

underlying dimensions or factors across a larger 

number of variables.76 Four groupings of activities 

were identified: 

Factor 1: Attendance at live performances 

and museums

Factor 2: Arts-creation activities in the 

visual arts, film, and creative writing

Factor 3: Attendance at outdoor art fairs 

and festivals

Factor 4: Singing and acting in plays and 

musicals

TABLE 15

Odds of U.S. adults’ participation via attendance and 

arts creation, by disclipline: 2008

Arts attendance

Arts creation

Attendance at 

any arts 

activity

Attendance at 

any 

benchmark 

arts event

Music Theater Dance Visual arts

Creation in any art form 5.9 5.4 4.4 4.1 5.3 5.7

Music 3.7 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.8

Theater 3.6 4.3 2.9 5.7 4.9 2.6

Dance 5.9 3.4 5.2 2.6 7.2 4.0

Visual arts 4.5 3.7 3.2 2.7 3.6 2.8

CHAPTER 3
68 National Endowment for the Arts

We draw several observations from the analysis. 

First, we infer that people tend to participate 

via modes (e.g., attendance, creation), more so than 

by discipline. Factors 1 and 3 pertain mostly to 

attendance, while factors 2 and 4 pertain mostly to 

creation. Factors 1 and 3 suggest that within 

the realm of attendance-based arts activities, there 

is a fundamental distinction between attending 

benchmark attendance activities , and attending 

outdoor festivals and fairs, which is supported 

by the earlier “setting” factor analysis (see Chapter 2). 

There are many differences between these two types 

of programs, such as setting, cost of admission, 

appropriateness for children and families, 

and freedom to move around — all of which would 

support the notion that the activities compose 

different classes of participation. 

We also observe a distinction between the two 

creational factors (2 and 4). The activities in factor 2 

(painting, drawing, photography, video-making, 

creative writing) all may be done privately in a 

wide range of settings, and inherently involve a fair 

degree of creative expression — they are highly 

personal and inventive. The activities in factor 4 

(singing or acting in a play or musical) typically 

require an organized group setting and perhaps are 

more interpretive in nature. There is also a 

dichotomy between forms of visual expression and 

forms of spoken or sung expression, which bears 

further research.

TABLE 16

Factor analysis results for arts attendance and arts 

creation activities: 2008

Factor loading

Arts participation activities (attendance and arts creation) 1 2 3 4 Communality

Attend – classical music 0.56 0.27

Attend – musical theater 0.53 0.27

Attend – art museum 0.50 0.34 0.38

Attend – non-musical 0.48 0.22

Attend – jazz 0.42 0.19

Attend – other dance 0.41 0.18

Attend – historic location 0.39 0.36 0.32

Attend – ballet 0.38 0.12

Attend – opera 0.38 0.11

Attend – Latin, Spanish, or salsa music 0.07

Create – paint/draw/sculpt 0.61 0.20

Create – photography/movies/video 0.48 0.18

Create – creative writing 0.43 0.15

Create – pottery/ceramics/jewelry 0.38 0.12

Create – weave/needlework/sewing 0.10

Create – played a musical instrument 0.12

Create – dance 0.06

Attend – art or crafts fairs and festivals 0.71 0.36

Attend – outdoor performing artists festival 0.60 0.32

Create – sang/acted in a musical play 0.74 0.20

Create – acted in a non-musical play 0.50 0.18

Create – sang with a vocal group 0.32 0.11

Create – sang music from an opera 0.05

Eigen values 4.27 1.67 1.44 1.16

% of variance 8.96 6.35 5.61 4.57

Note: Loadings <.30 are suppressed
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 69

NOTES

64 The only report the authors are aware of is Americans’ Personal 

Participation in the Arts: 1992, A Monograph Describing the 

Data from the Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, 

Monnie Peters and Joni Maya Cherbo (Washington, DC: National 

Endowment for the Arts, 1996).

65 Regional studies have suggested that “people taking music lessons 

or classes, acting lessons, performing dances as part of a group, 

or visual arts or craft classes at least once a week were much more 

likely to attend performances of these art forms than people 

who had less or no personal involvement in the practice of music, 

theater, dance, and visual arts.” See Philadelphia Cultural 

Engagement Index, WolfBrown (San Francisco, CA: WolfBrown, 

2009), available online, www.philaculture.org/sites/default/

files/CEI%20Full%20Report.pdf.

66 See the Technical Appendix for definitions of the individual 

activities included in each of the aggregate attendance and 

personal participation measures.

67 Here we focus solely on attendance and arts creation; hence, 

analysis differs from that presented in Figure A, where we look at 

all three modes of participation — attendance, arts creation, and 

electronic media-based participation.

68 See the Technical Appendix for the exact categories included for 

the trend analysis, and for attendance in 2008.

69 Our analysis of “the effects of having any arts education” is 

constructed from 2008 SPPA data by aggregating positive 

responses to questions about ever having had an arts lesson in 

music, visual arts, acting or theater, dance, creative writing, 

art appreciation, and music appreciation.

70 2008 Survey of Public Participation in the Arts, NEA 

Report #49.

71 The variables included in each of the aggregated-discipline 

measures are detailed in the Technical Appendix.

72 “Benchmark” attendance and “any” attendance are the same 

aggregate measures used in Chapter 4. The Technical 

Appendix details which variables are included in each of the 

aggregate-discipline measures for attendance and for arts 

creation.

73 Dance refers to all dance, not just ballet.

74 Folk-dancing, which may be less structured than ballet or tap, 

is included in the category. We cannot say anything conclusive 

about the forms of dance or how much formal training they 

require, and only use folk dancing here as an example for 

discussion. 

75 For example, the question about dancing asks, “During the last 

12 months, did you dance ballet, or other dance such as modern, 

folk, tap, or Broadway-style dance?” The question does not 

lead one to think of culturally-specific dance forms perhaps used 

as part of a celebration, or an individual “going dancing” in a 

more social setting.

76 We used the Principal Axis Factoring analysis method, which 

is ideal for examining relationships between variables as 

it characterizes the shared variance within the set variables 

considered in the analysis.

CHAPTER 3
70 National Endowment for the Arts

In both dance and music, 

the size of the media-only segment 

is larger than the attendance-only 

segment, suggesting that the 

audiences for these art forms are 

significantly comprised 

of adults who do not attend 

performances.
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 71

CHAPTER 4

THE RELATIONSHIP OF ELECTRONIC 

MEDIA-BASED PARTICIPATION TO ATTENDANCE 

AND ARTS CREATION 

The most prevalent mode of arts participation 

in the U.S. is electronic media-based, according to 

the 2008 SPPA.77 Just over half of U.S. adults 

reported viewing or listening to a performing arts 

event or a visual arts program (via recorded or 

broadcast media), or accessing arts performances 

or programming online (via Internet). While 

Chapter 2 reported rates of electronic media-based 

participation and the demographic characteristics 

of Americans who participate in the arts 

via electronic media, this chapter examines the 

linkages between electronic media-based 

participation and participation through each 

attendance and arts creation. 

RATES

In 2008, 35% of U.S. adults engaged in the arts 

through both electronic media-based participation 

and attendance, while 33% engaged in the arts 

through both electronic media-based participation 

and personal arts creation. When we look 

at the combined rates for electronic media-based 

participation and attendance-based participation, 

the American population sub-divides into three 

roughly equal cohorts — adults who engage 

in both forms of participation, adults who engage 

exclusively in one form or another, and adults who 

participate in neither. A very similar distribution 

was observed with respect to the combination 

of electronic media-based participation and 

participation via arts creation. We find meaningful 

from these analyses that many adults in the 

U.S. (approximately 15%) participate in the arts 

via electronic media only. (See also NEA Research 

Report #50, Audience 2.0: How Technology 

Influences Arts Participation, released in 2010.) 

RATES WITHIN DISCIPLINES 

(PARTICIPATION VIA RECORDINGS OR 

BROADCASTS)

The 2008 SPPA investigates participation via 

recorded and broadcast media for several 

disciplines, including music, dance, theater, and 

visual arts, which allows us to report the 

combinations of attendance and recorded and 

broadcast media participation, by discipline. 

Figure 10 illustrates the distribution of modal 

participation by artistic discipline. The modal 

distribution is conditioned on the subset of the 

U.S. adult population that reported participating in 

either mode between May 2007 and May 2008; 

the artistic discipline is labeled beneath each 

column. In 2008, 45.7% of U.S. adults reported 

participating in music through attendance or 

broadcast media, compared with 38.2% for visual 

arts, 26.4% for theater, and 13.0% for dance.
72 National Endowment for the Arts

Figure 10 illustrates that dance has the largest 

segment of media-only participants (44.6%), 

followed by music (36.1%). In both dance and 

music, the size of the broadcast-only segment is 

larger than the attendance-only segment, 

suggesting that the audiences for these art forms 

are significantly comprised of adults who do not 

attend performances.78

This characteristic raises a number of interesting 

questions. What populations are engaging 

via recorded or broadcast media? What are their 

motivations? How attentively are they watching 

and listening? What role does setting play in 

driving participation in attendance-based versus 

broadcast-based arts activities? Flexibility of choice 

and timing? What specific forms of music and dance 

are associated with broadcast-based participation 

versus attendance-based participation? What 

proportion of broadcast-based participation is driven 

by commercial versus nonprofit enterprise? Ever 

since the Metropolitan Opera began broadcasting 

into movie theaters worldwide, the arts industry has 

been consumed with debate over the relative merits 

of broadcast-based participation versus attendance 

at live programs. What is the added value of a live 

experience over a digital experience, especially 

when the digital experience occurs in a theatrical 

setting? This is a central debate facing today’s 

arts sector. As the amount of high-quality digital 

content increases, will the public increasingly 

prefer such experiences? Ten years from now, will 

movie theaters supersede performing arts theaters 

as venues for classical music, opera, and theater 

participation? Or, will home viewing proliferate? 

All of these questions emerge from the 2008 SPPA.

Figure 11 illustrates the distribution of modal 

participation rates for U.S. adults who reported 

participating in the arts via creation or by 

listening to, or watching, recorded or broadcast 

media (including via Internet). In contrast to 

the relationship between electronic media-based 

and attendance-based modes of participation, 

much less overlap appears. 

When looking at the subset of the U.S. adult 

population that either creates art or views and/or 

listens to artistic content through recorded or 

broadcast media, the pattern is different for visual 

arts and music, compared with theater and dance. 

Both music and visual arts have sizeable portions —

22.5% and 25.9%, respectively — of participation via 

creation and through recorded or broadcast media. 

However, the ratio of participation in both modes 

to participation in creative activities alone is very 

different — 1.19 for music and 0.48 for visual arts.79

In the visual arts, proportionately more Americans 

create than participate via recorded or broadcast 

electronic media, whereas performing arts reveals 

the opposite trend: more adults participate through 

recordings and broadcasts than through personal 

arts creation. 

FIGURE 10

Distribution of U.S. adults, based on arts participation 

via attendance and viewing and/or listening to arts 

recordings or broadcasts, by discipline: 2008 Percentage of U.S. adults 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Attended only

Attended and viewed and/or listened to broadscasts or recordings

Viewed and/or listened to broadscasts or recordings only

Programs about the 

visual arts (38.2%)

Music (45.7%) Theater (26.4%) Dance (13.0%)

30.4%

33.5%

36.1%

23.1%

20.1%

56.8%

38.5%

16.9%

44.6%

10.5%

28.8%

60.7%
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 73

RATES WITHIN DISCIPLINES 

(EXCLUSIVELY ONLINE PARTICIPATION)

The 2008 SPPA also captures information 

specifically about adults accessing performing and 

visual arts content online. A single question asks 

about adults’ use of the Internet to watch, listen to, 

or download live or recorded performing arts —

music, theater, or dance — so we are unable to look 

separately at each performing arts discipline. 

Figure 12 shows the modal distribution of electronic 

media-based participation through online access 

and attendance. 

Of adults who participate in the performing arts 

through attendance or by accessing content online, 

18% engage online only with the performing arts, 

and 11% engage online only with the visual arts. 

In both the performing and visual arts, nearly 26% 

of adults participate through attendance and

online access. As with participation via recorded 

and broadcast media, this pattern raises more 

questions, especially given the large percentages 

that participate this way. What types of music, 

dance, or theater content do Americans access 

online? What portion of this activity relates to 

music downloading? What role do video aggregation 

websites like YouTube play in driving online 

participation? Will consumers pay to access 

professional-quality digital arts content online?80

While we cannot speak to the motivations for 

individuals’ choices to participate exclusively 

online, the data do suggest a sizable audience for 

online artistic content.

When we consider online activity as it relates 

to creative activity in the performing arts 

(see Figure 13), it becomes apparent that a large 

percentage of adults that reported either activity 

created art only through online participation 

(42.6% of the one-third of Americans who did 

both activities in 2008, or 14.2% of all adults). 

This pattern raises questions, in turn, about the 

extent to which Americans value the Internet 

for the purpose of creating artwork versus enjoying 

content created by others.

FIGURE 11

Distribution of U.S. adults, based on participation 

via arts creation and/or viewing and/or listening to 

recordings or broadcasts, by discipline: 2008 Percentage of U.S. adults 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Created only

Created art and viewed and/or listened to broadcasts or recordings

Only viewed and/or listened to broadcasts or recordings

Programs about the 

visual arts (34.3%)

Music (42.3%) Theater (13.9%) Dance (10.5%)

18.9%

22.5%

58.6%

89.9%

3.6%

6.5%

14.3%

8.6%

77.1%

20.4%

25.9%

53.6%

FIGURE 12

Distribution of U.S. adults, based on participation 

via arts attendance and/or accessing the arts online: 

2008 Percentage of U.S. adults 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Attended only

Attended and participated online

Participated online only

Performing arts (46.1%) Visual arts (38.7%)

54.7%

18.2%

27.1%

11.4%

25.1%

63.6%

CHAPTER 4
74 National Endowment for the Arts

RATIOS ACROSS DISCIPLINES

Does whether or not someone participates via 

recorded or broadcast media affect the probability 

he or she will attend? Figure 14 illustrates 

attendance rates by discipline, comparing figures 

for those who do watch/listen via media with 

figures for those who do not.

U.S. adults who reported participation via recorded 

or broadcast media for a specific genre/discipline 

in 2008 reported higher rates of attendance for that 

genre/discipline than those who did not participate 

via recorded or broadcast media. Most of the 

attendance rates are small and too statistically 

unstable to report. But results are stable enough to 

report on two disciplines — classical music and 

visual arts. 

Among the individuals who reported watching or 

listening to classical music via recorded or broadcast 

media in 2008, 13.1% also performed or rehearsed 

classical music. This rate is 11.9 times higher than the 

rate for those who did not participate via recorded 

or broadcast media. It is not surprising that people 

who perform or rehearse classical music also 

consume it via recorded or broadcast media. The 

story is somewhat different, however, for visual arts, 

where the ratio falls to 2.6. Proportionately fewer 

adults who create visual arts also watch broadcasts 

about art, artists, or art museums. 

FIGURE 13

Distribution of U.S. adults, based on participation 

via arts creation and accessing the arts online: 

2008 Percentage of U.S. adults 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Created only

Created and participated online

Participated online only

Performing arts (33.3%) Visual arts (33.9%)

31.8%

42.6%

25.5%

19.5%

26.3%

54.3%

FIGURE 14

Comparative rates of arts attendance among adults who 

did or did not experience arts broadcasts or recordings: 

2008 Percentage of U.S. adults 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Did not listen/watch broadcasts/recordings

Listened/watched broadcasts/recordings

Visual 

arts

Nonmusical Dance

theater

Musical 

theater

Classical Opera

music

Latin/

Salsa music

Jazz

6.3

12.3

6.6

10.7

3.3

3.7 5.0

2.7
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 75

NOTES

77 “Electronic media-based participation” includes any form 

of participation via broadcasts and recordings, and watching, 

listening to, or downloading music, theater, or dance 

performances or visual arts. See the Technical Appendix for 

the exact variables used. Using electronic media participation 

defined solely as broadcast-based participation, 29% of 

U.S. adults participate only by broadcast when looking at the 

overlaps between attendance at live performances and 

watching or listening to broadcasts. To look at electronic media 

participation defined only as broadcast-based participation, 

see the Technical Appendix. 

78 Due to changes in wording about technologies, the NEA 

has determined that questions regarding broadcast-based media 

participation are not comparable across SPPA waves. Given the 

relatively large response regarding broadcast-only participation 

for music and dance in the 2008 SPPA data, it would be 

interesting to investigate if that pattern held in prior years. 

We are curious about the possible influence of popular dance 

and singing competitions on the 2008 SPPA data registering 

participation in music and dance via broadcast media. 

79 The nature of the question regarding broadcasted programming 

about the visual arts is different than questions regarding 

the performing arts disciplines. The visual arts question implies 

provision of contextual information about artists, artworks, 

or art museums, whereas questions about the performing arts 

disciplines imply that the content of an artwork is being 

consumed (e.g., a broadcasted performance of an orchestral piece 

as opposed to a program about a composer). 

80 Several arts groups are now experimenting with selling 

digital performances via the Internet, including the Berlin 

Philharmonic (www.berliner-philharmoniker.de/en) and 

On The Boards, a Seattle-based performing arts organization 

(www.ontheboards.tv).

CHAPTER 4
76 National Endowment for the Arts

Roughly half of all U.S. 

adults reported participating 

in at least one mode of 

arts participation: attendance, 

creation, or electronic 

media use.
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 77

CHAPTER 5

HOW THE THREE MODES INTERSECT

When we review, in aggregate, all three modes of 

participation captured by the SPPA — attendance, 

arts creation and performance, and electronic mediabased participation — we find that approximately 

74% of U.S. adults participated in the arts between 

May 2007 and May 2008. Figure 15 illustrates the 

distribution of U.S. adults participating in the three 

modes, and how the modes intersect. 

In total, the rates at which U.S. adults participate in 

each of the three modes are approximately the same. 

Roughly 50% of adults reported participating at 

least once in any of the attendance-based activities, 

any of the arts creation or performance activities, 

and in any of the electronic media-based activities. 

The three spheres of participation overlap similarly, 

and also illustrate that some adults reported no 

participation in the arts. Approximately the 

same portion of U.S. adults (26%) participated in 

all three of the modes as did in none of the three 

modes (26%).81

FIgure 15 illustrates eight mutually exclusive 

categorizations or “modalities” of participation. 

Next, we use demographic analysis to understand 

who participates via each of these modalities. 

Table 17 reports rates of participation for each of 

the eight modalities, while Table 18 reports their 

demographic distributions. 

Gender

Although women tend to participate more 

than men in creative arts activities, men tend to 

participate more than women in electronic 

media-based arts alone, and in the combination 

of electronic media-based arts and arts attendancebased participation. Men are also more likely 

than women not to participate in the arts at all 

(at rates of 28.0% vs. 24.6%, respectively).

Age

A slight skew toward the younger-age cohorts 

is evident for the modalities that include electronic 

media-based participation, while the modalities 

involving attendance-based activities tend to rise in 

the middle-age cohorts, perhaps as a reflection of 

who has the time and money to attend arts programs. 

Note also the significant drop-off in activity levels 

by range of older adults who participate in all three 

modalities, from 30.6% for adults in the 55–64 age 

cohort to 16.9% for those in the 65–74 age cohort. 

Similarly, a rise is observed in the percentage 

of older adults who did not participate in the arts 

at all in 2008 (22.0% up to 31.9%).

FIGURE 15

A multi-modal distribution of U.S. adults’ arts 

participation rates: 2008

Attendance

8%

Creation

6%

Media-based participation

10%

No participation

26%

7%

10% 7%

All modes

26%
78 National Endowment for the Arts

TABLE 17

Distribution of U.S. adult participation rates across 

modes, by demographic group: 2008

Media 

only

Media and 

attend

Attend 

only

Attend 

and create

Create 

only

Media and 

create

All 3 

modes None

All adults

10.0% 10.5% 7.5% 6.8% 6.0% 6.9% 26.0% 26.3% 100.0%

Gender

Male 11.0% 12.5% 7.9% 5.1% 5.2% 6.2% 24.2% 28.0% 100%

Female 9.2 8.6 7.0 8.5 6.8 7.5 27.8 24.6 100

Range 1.8% 3.9% 0.9% 3.4% 1.6% 1.3% 3.6% 3.4%

Race/ethnicity

White, Non-Hispanic 5.9% 8.9% 9.0% 8.6% 6.0% 6.0% 30.2% 25.4% 100%

African American, Non-Hispanic 14.2 9.5 5.8 3.7 9.1 8.4 16.0 33.3 100

Hispanic 26.3 18.5 1.8 2.0 4.3 10.3 14.1 22.8 100

American Indian, Non-Hispanic 6.4 6.6 0.6 4.7 5.7 0.6 7.8 67.5 100

Asian, Non-Hispanic 13.5 13.1 5.8 3.3 3.3 4.6 28.3 28.2 100

2 or more races, Non-Hispanic 4.5 7.2 15.5 2.4 11.5 18.3 24.6 16.1 100

Range 21.8% 11.9% 14.9% 6.6% 8.2% 17.7% 22.4% 51.4%

Age

18–24 11.4% 16.8% 4.1% 3.8% 4.6% 9.9% 29.1% 20.3% 100%

25–34 11.8 12.8 5.6 4.9 4.1 6.2 27.3 27.3 100

35–44 10.9 11.3 9.0 6.2 5.0 7.5 24.0 26.1 100

45–54 8.2 7.8 6.6 10.4 7.4 6.6 29.5 23.4 100

55–64 7.8 8.9 12.9 7.2 6.5 4.0 30.6 22.0 100

65–74 11.8 10.1 6.6 8.7 7.5 6.5 16.9 31.9 100

75+ 8.8 2.4 6.9 5.2 9.3 8.0 15.3 44.2 100

Range 4.0% 14.4% 8.8% 6.6% 5.2% 5.9% 15.3% 23.9%

Education

Grade school 20.7% 9.8% 5.5% 0.2% 5.6% 6.2% 2.4% 49.7% 100%

Some high school 18.4 9.8 5.1 5.2 10.7 8.6 7.1 35.1 100

High school graduate 12.5 7.5 8.5 7.3 8.5 6.3 13.6 35.8 100

Some college 7.9 11.0 8.0 7.1 6.1 7.8 29.2 22.8 100

College graduate 5.4 15.6 8.4 7.6 1.3 6.0 41.6 14.0 100

Graduate school 2.4 9.1 4.5 7.9 1.9 5.2 60.7 8.2 100

Range 18.3% 8.1% 4.0% 7.7% 9.4% 3.4% 58.3% 41.5%

Family income

<$10,000 19.8% 1.9% 6.1% 3.9% 4.7% 11.7% 11.9% 40.0% 100%

$10,000–19,999 12.8 13.5 3.5 8.8 8.2 7.4 12.3 33.4 100

$20,000–29,999 17.5 6.6 5.5 4.0 4.6 10.0 18.1 33.7 100

$30,000–39,999 11.6 8.0 11.5 5.2 8.8 7.1 17.6 30.2 100

$40,000–49,999 7.9 13.4 5.6 7.7 8.8 8.3 25.7 22.6 100

$50,000–74,999 11.3 12.2 8.2 8.7 8.7 6.5 22.8 21.6 100

$75,000–99,999 8.2 12.0 5.3 8.6 3.5 7.9 36.9 17.7 100

$100,000–149,999 3.6 14.4 7.9 6.8 3.7 3.8 46.5 13.2 100

$150,000+ 2.6 8.4 9.5 8.2 1.5 3.8 51.7 14.3 100

Range 17.2% 12.5% 8.0% 4.9% 7.3% 7.9% 39.8% 26.8%

Citizenship status

Native 8.1% 9.8% 8.1% 7.4% 6.1% 6.6% 27.7% 26.1% 100%

Naturalized 19.0 15.2 5.6 5.8 2.7 6.5 19.0 26.2 100

Non-citizen 23.9 14.3 2.5 0.8 7.1 9.5 13.7 28.2 100

Range 15.8% 5.4% 5.6% 6.6% 4.4% 3.0% 14.0% 2.1%
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 79

TABLE 18

Demographic distribution of modal participation rates: 

2008

Media 

only

Media and 

attend

Attend 

only

Attend 

and create

Create 

only

Media and 

create

All 3 

modes None

All adults U.S. Population

Millions Percent 10.0% 10.5% 7.5% 6.8% 6.0% 6.9% 26.0% 26.3%

Gender

Male 108.6 48.3% 53.3% 58.2% 51.9% 36.4% 42.2% 44.0% 45.4% 52.1%

Female 116.2 51.7 46.7 41.8 48.1 63.6 57.8 56.0 54.6 47.9

Total 224.8 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Race/ethnicity

White, Non-Hispanic 154.4 68.7% 40.7% 58.8% 82.8% 86.9% 68.2% 59.9% 80.0% 66.6%

African American, Non-Hispanic 25.6 11.4 16.4 10.5 9.1 6.4 17.4 14.2 7.2 14.7

Hispanic 30.3 13.5 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.2 1.9

American Indian, Non-Hispanic 10.3 4.6 5.1 4.8 2.9 1.9 2.1 2.5 4.1 4.1

Asian, Non-Hispanic 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.6 1.8 0.3 1.6 2.3 0.8 0.5

2 or more races, Non-Hispanic 2.8 1.3 36.9 24.9 3.4 4.1 10.0 21.1 7.6 12.2

Total 224.8 100.0% 100.0% 100.1% 100.1% 100.1% 100.0% 100.1% 99.9% 100.0%

Age

18–24 28.8 12.8% 15.0% 21.4% 7.4% 7.4% 10.1% 19.2% 14.9% 10.3%

25–34 39.8 17.7 20.4 21.2 12.9 12.5 11.6 15.6 18.2 18.0

35–44 41.8 18.6 19.7 19.6 22.0 16.6 15.1 19.9 16.8 18.0

45–54 43.8 19.5 16.6 15.1 17.8 31.0 24.9 19.4 23.0 18.1

55–64 33.3 14.8 11.2 12.3 25.0 15.4 15.5 8.5 17.0 12.0

65–74 19.8 8.8 10.6 8.7 7.9 11.5 11.1 8.6 5.8 10.9

75+ 17.1 7.6 6.6 1.7 7.0 5.7 11.6 8.8 4.4 12.7

Total 224.8 99.8% 100.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.1% 99.9% 100.0% 100.1% 100.0%

Education

Grade school 11.2 5.0% 9.4% 4.3% 3.3% 0.1% 4.3% 4.1% 0.4% 8.6%

Some high school 22.0 9.8 20.1 10.4 7.5 8.4 19.5 13.8 3.0 14.7

High school graduate 68.3 30.4 35.7 20.6 32.7 30.9 40.2 26.5 15.0 39.1

Some college 61.4 27.3 23.2 30.9 31.5 30.7 29.5 33.5 33.0 25.5

College graduate 41.1 18.3 9.5 26.2 19.6 19.7 3.7 15.4 28.0 9.3

Graduate school 20.5 9.1 2.1 7.7 5.4 10.2 2.8 6.6 20.5 2.8

Total 224.8 99.9% 100.0% 100.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0%

Family income

<$10,000 11.6 5.8% 10.2% 1.0% 4.6% 2.9% 4.1% 8.7% 2.4% 8.9%

$10,000–19,999 19.3 9.6 11.9 12.5 4.8 12.0 13.0 10.0 4.4 13.4

$20,000–29,999 23.4 11.7 20.1 7.5 9.2 6.8 9.0 16.6 8.1 16.7

$30,000–39,999 22.6 11.3 12.6 8.5 18.3 8.2 16.2 11.2 7.4 14.1

$40,000–49,999 18.8 9.3 6.9 11.5 7.1 9.8 13.0 10.5 8.7 8.5

$50,000–74,999 40.7 20.3 22.3 23.9 23.9 25.2 29.2 18.7 17.5 18.4

$75,000–99,999 27.2 13.5 10.7 15.6 10.2 16.4 7.8 14.9 18.8 10.0

$100,000–149,999 21.4 10.7 3.2 12.7 10.3 8.8 5.6 4.9 16.1 5.1

$150,000+ 16.0 8.0 2.1 6.9 11.6 9.9 2.2 4.6 16.6 5.1

Total 201.0 100.2% 100.0% 100.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.1% 100.1% 100.0% 100.2%

Citizenship status

Native 190.9 84.9% 69.6% 80.5% 92.9% 94.2% 87.6% 83.1% 91.5% 85.5%

Naturalized 15.1 6.7 10.6 8.1 4.2 4.8 2.6 5.3 4.1 5.6

Non-citizen 18.7 8.3 19.8 11.4 2.8 1.0 9.8 11.6 4.4 9.0

Total 224.8 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.1%

CHAPTER 5
80 National Endowment for the Arts

Educational attainment

Adults with some high school education or those 

who graduated from high school compose large 

segments of the subpopulations that participated in 

the arts via electronic media alone. Over 20% of 

adults with only grade-school level education 

reported participating via electronic media alone, 

while over 18% of adults with some high school 

education reported the same. For adults with lower 

levels of educational attainment, the most popular 

mode of participation in the arts is via electronic 

media alone, suggesting the key role that electronic 

media-based forms of arts participation play in 

making the arts accessible to many Americans. 

Adults with higher levels of education, on the 

other hand, tend to participate via all three modes of 

arts participation.

Family income

Similar to adults with higher levels of educational 

attainment, Americans with higher incomes 

reported relatively higher rates of participation 

through all three modes of arts participation than 

did individuals with lower incomes.

Race/ethnicity

Results suggest the key role that electronic 

media-based arts delivery systems play in serving 

Hispanics. Hispanics are more than four times as 

likely as whites to participate in the arts via 

electronic media alone (26.3% versus 5.9%), and 

twice as likely as whites to participate in both 

electronic media-based and attendance-based 

activities (18.5% versus 8.9%). 

Citizenship status

Naturalized citizens and non-citizens participate 

in the electronic media alone, electronic media 

plus attendance, and electronic media attendance 

creation modalities at relatively high rates. 

Attendance-only rates for these groups are lower 

than average rates for the general population. 

Native-born Americans are twice as likely as 

non-citizens to participate via all three modes 

(at rates of 27.7% versus 13.7%).

DISTRIBUTION OF MODAL PARTICIPATION 

RATES, BY DISCIPLINE

Considering all the modalities of participation 

discussed above, U.S. adults are most likely to 

participate in the arts via music and visual arts. 

Approximately 52% of adults participate in music 

and in visual arts, while almost 30% of adults 

reported participating in theater, and 16% reported 

participating in dance. Figure 16 shows the rates of 

modal participation within each of these disciplines. 

Attendance is the most frequently reported mode 

of participation for both theater and visual arts, 

whereas the rate for participation through electronic 

media is the highest for music. For dance, U.S. 

adults report approximately the same participation 

rates for arts attendance and media-based arts. 

The highest rate of participation via arts creation 

is reported in the visual arts. 

FIGURE 16

U.S. adults’ modal participation rates across artistic 

disciplines: 2008 Percentage of U.S. adults 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Viewed and/or listened to a broadcast or recording

Attended

Created

Music (52.6%) Theater (29.8%) Dance (16.0%) Visual (51.7%)

33.3%

57.1%

47.5%

56.0%

65.1%

4.6%

75.6%

43.6%

53.8%

14.7%

52.9%

67.5%
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 81

Using the same data as the previous figure, 

Figure 17 illustrates the distribution of modal 

participation within the subset of the U.S. adult 

population that reports participation in each of the 

disciplines. Looking across the discipline-specific 

columns, we see that dance involves the largest 

segment of media-only participation, while theater 

involves the largest segment of attendance-only 

participation, and visual arts involves the largest 

segment of creation-only participation. Visual arts 

also involves the largest segment of overlap between 

participants who create and attend, compared 

with other disciplines.

NOTES

81 See the Technical Appendix for definitions. This aggregate 

measure was defined to maintain consistency with earlier 

analyses in this monograph. 

CHAPTER 5

FIGURE 17

A multi-modal distribution of U.S. adults’ arts 

participation, by artistic discipline: 2008 Percentage of U.S. adults 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Via recordings or broadcasts only

Attended and via recordings or

broadcasts

Attended only

Attended and created

Created only

Created and via recordings or

broadcasts

Created, attended, and via 

recordings or broadcasts

Music (52.6%) Theater (29.8%) Dance (16.0%) Visual (51.7%)

25.9%

21.1%

19.7%

5.3%

10.0%

7.0%

11.1%

53.5%

19.8%

22.1%

36.2%

10.7%

11.6%

24.8%

11.9%

15.9%

6.0%

19.2.0%

14.4%

34.6%

2.7%

6.7%

3.3% 1.3% 2.1% 1.9% 1.0%

0.4%

In percentages of U.S. adults

Note: The rate of U.S. adult participation in the discipline is included in the column labels. 

The columns themselves demonstrate the distribution of rates across each participation 

mode within the discipline.
82 National Endowment for the Arts

One out of four U.S. adults 

participate in the arts 

exclusively through modes 

other than attendance.
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 83

CHAPTER 6

WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

This research monograph explores “arts 

participation” in the U.S. by examining the 

relationships between attendance, personal arts 

creation and performance, and electronic 

media-based arts participation, using the breadth 

of arts events and activities captured by the 

2008 SPPA. While the overall rate of arts 

participation among U.S. adults has declined 

over time,82 the SPPA demonstrates that people 

participate in the arts in a variety of modes 

and disciplines. Over the years, much attention has 

been devoted to rates of attendance; yet almost 

a quarter (23%) of U.S. adults participate in the arts 

exclusively through other modes than attendance. 

Of the approximately 50% of U.S. adults who do 

attend arts events, 84% also participate through 

electronic media or arts creation. A relatively small 

portion of the U.S. adult population participates 

solely by attending arts events (8%). These results, 

considered in the contexts of the rapidly changing 

cultural climate, a growing body of literature 

advocating for more democratic approaches to 

supporting culture, and widespread concern about 

declines in arts audiences, imply a need for shifts in 

practice among arts organizations, and a broader 

lens for examining policies supportive of the arts. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

As audience levels decline and cultural tastes 

diffuse, arts groups who rely on attendance are 

under mounting pressure to evolve and adapt 

so that they remain relevant to their communities. 

While a substantial infrastructure of book clubs, 

choruses, community music schools, art centers, and 

craft workshops satisfy a portion of public demand 

for arts creation, the much larger and better-funded 

infrastructure of professional arts producers and 

presenters has not, historically, been concerned with 

arts creation, except in acquiring or commissioning 

new work by professional artists. A 2009 report 

from the Wallace Foundation (Sherwood, 2009, 6) 

suggests that one way to develop audiences for live 

arts performances and events is to understand 

how current and potential audiences practice art 

in their own lives. 

We do not suggest that attendance and arts 

creation are dichotomous forms of arts participation. 

On the contrary, visiting an exhibition or 

seeing a live performance can be profoundly 

interactive, allowing the audience member to play a 

significant role in creating the arts experience. 

Given that consumer tastes are shifting toward more 

interactive experiences (Pine and Gilmore, 1999), 

this section considers practical implications for arts 

organizations’ operations and their supporting 

infrastructure.
84 National Endowment for the Arts

Organizational philosophy and operations

Surveying the landscape of arts activity in the 

U.S. and abroad, there are clear signs of a shift in the 

types of experiences arts organizations offer, 

and even in the very definition of what it means to 

be an audience member. This shift in practice 

reflects a trend toward arts organizations viewing 

themselves as “enablers” of arts experiences83

rather than as expert providers or arbiters of artistic 

taste and quality. Although some artists and 

curators have voiced concern that the “enabler” 

framework results in the loss of artistic control and 

potential degradation of artistic quality, others 

argue that it creates more opportunities for the 

“co-production”84 of art. Embracing this philosophy 

of being an “enabler” requires an arts organization to 

reprioritize its outcomes and place greater emphasis 

on providing opportunities for arts and creative 

engagement in people’s lives. Such a process seems 

to require more expertise from curators, not less. 

The challenge is to understand how this new 

approach changes the core of an organization and its 

relationship with audiences, both live and virtual. 

A similar notion is “organizational porosity:” the 

need to open artistic processes to others, and no 

longer to be the gatekeepers of culture and arts.85

Below are a few of the strategies employed by arts 

groups to draw audiences and visitors into more 

interactive and personal/engaging experiences:

Strategies for Engaging Audiences and Visitors

■ Involving community artists in the creation 

of artistic work within professional arts 

organizations and venues. For example, the 

opera companies of Cincinnati and Knoxville 

organize programs involving gospel choirs 

from area churches. 

■ Allowing more interpretation and 

interaction during exhibits and performances.

Educational activities surrounding arts 

programs tend to appeal to patrons and visitors 

who already are knowledgeable about the art.86

For individuals not inclined to attend educational 

programs, the challenge lies in figuring out how 

to embed more context and interpretive 

assistance into the program or exhibition itself.87

Over the past several years, new developments 

have included supertitles at dance performances, 

audio description via cell phones, Twitter 

broadcasts during orchestra concerts, and 

introductory videos. 

■ Creating new program formats. The arts field 

is in a period of rapid innovation with respect to 

developing formats that allow audiences to 

make choices they have not previously been able 

to make. An example from the music field 

is the New World Symphony in Miami Beach, 

which is testing innovative concert formats, 

such as mini-concerts (30 minutes each, three 

per night) and club-style concerts running 

10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., in advance of moving 

into its new concert hall in 2010–11. 

Strategies for engaging audiences and visitors 

beyond the venue

■ Providing artistic content and instruction 

online and through other media. Despite 

ongoing debate about the merits of a “live 3D” arts 

experiences compared to a “2D” arts experiences 

available online and through video recordings 

and broadcasts, particularly in the dance and 

theater fields,88 the SPPA data suggest there 

is a sizable audience for online “2D” experiences. 

■ Providing opportunities for audiences to 

“enhance” arts experiences by providing 

forums for conversation and context-building 

activities. Research suggests that contextbuilding activities, as well as post-performance 

dialogues, can magnify impact and lead 

to more satisfying experiences;89 however, the 

effectiveness of different methods is still being 

explored. The types of context-building activities 

and forums for post-performance dialogues now 

being developed go well beyond the traditional 

lectures and discussions historically offered 

by museums and performing arts groups.90
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 85

Strategies for engaging people in the creation of 

artistic works:

■ Involving audiences or visitors in the creation 

of artistic works. For example, the Cornerstone 

Theater Company (based in Los Angeles, CA) 

creates works based on community input. 

■ Involving artists in different ways. The need to 

offer more participatory experiences has 

a direct effect on artists, who are increasingly 

called upon not only to create great art, but 

also to communicate about it compellingly, and, 

ultimately, to awaken the creative voice in 

others.91 While some fields are slow to evolve due 

to structural impediments,92 demand is growing 

for artists with multiple skill sets. Consequently, 

there is a need for new approaches to artist 

training at all levels.

■ Utilizing new approaches to artistic planning 

and program development. In order to ensure 

that programs remain relevant and responsive, 

arts groups are developing more sophisticated 

and consultative program planning methods 

that include audience feedback and testing, 

consultation with a wide range of community 

stakeholders, and submission of requests 

for proposals to agents and managers that seek 

artists to address specific needs.93

This transformation of practice among arts 

producers is not new, but it appears to be gaining 

momentum. Perhaps this tendency responds to 

a loss of market share and greater competition from 

sports and other leisure activities94 that offer some 

consumers more intense and satisfying experiences. 

Infrastructure

Participation in the arts is not confined to 

nonprofit arts programs and facilities. As discussed 

in Chapter 1, the setting in which an arts activity 

occurs is a key contextual factor related to arts 

participation. Several recent studies have 

investigated the settings in which arts activities 

occur95,96 and found that a great deal of arts activity 

takes place in the home and in community 

settings such as coffee houses, parks, and places of 

worship. Additionally, unlike the infrastructure 

that supports professional arts production, 

the infrastructure that supports arts creation in 

American communities is disparate, informal, 

self-organizing, and often unsupported by public 

agencies or private philanthropy (Alvarez, 2005). 

How do nonprofit arts organizations connect 

with and foster activity beyond their walls? Some 

potential implications include:

■ Existing museums and performing arts facilities 

that are underutilized may be converted, in 

part, to centers for creative expression, where 

community members can sing, dance, play music, 

make art, tell stories, and discuss books. The 

Active Arts program of the Los Angeles Music 

Center is an example of the transformation that 

can occur when a performing arts center recasts 

itself as a hub of civic cultural expression.97

■ New construction of large, centrally-located arts 

complexes may give way to a decentralized 

approach to facility development (e.g., creativity 

centers scattered around a city or region, one 

focused on dance, another on digital arts, etc.), 

enlivening neighborhoods and engaging children 

and families in creative activities that will 

strengthen social bonds and family cohesion.

CHAPTER 6
86 National Endowment for the Arts

■ New physical and virtual ways of displaying, 

broadcasting, and performing communitygenerated artistic content are likely to spring up. 

As more people develop creative interests, 

more outlets will be needed for their work. 

For example, regional theaters could consider 

how to tap into deep veins of interest around 

storytelling,98 while bookstores or arts centers 

might consider supporting community writers 

through programs such as the Poetry Ark.99

Moreover, entirely new types of facilities and 

programs may be developed to respond to 

community needs for high-quality social and 

civic experiences around art. Consider, for 

example, the Urban Video Project, an initiative 

of Syracuse University with technology provided 

by Time Warner Cable. The project encompasses 

three venues projecting artwork and other 

cultural video displays daily from dusk to 

11:00 p.m. High-definition projection systems are 

used to project video, photography, animation, 

and poetry, some drawn from the community, 

some by professional artists — a sort of giant, 

outdoor YouTube installation.100

■ Artists, arts organizations, and commercial 

providers are likely to offer arts experiences 

designed for a broader range of settings, including 

the home. Particularly for children, the need 

for home-based arts programming — programs 

that allow children to engage creatively with 

family and friends in the safety of their own 

homes — is acute.101 Nonprofit arts groups focus 

quite naturally on attracting audiences to their 

live programs, but generally say that producing 

home-based experiences is outside their mission. 

A handful of groups are experimenting with 

on-demand video programs, but few make the 

bridge to arts creation. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH

Although the SPPA has provided valuable periodic 

information to the NEA’s stakeholders for almost 

30 years, conducting a rigorous analysis of the 

SPPA data naturally leads us to consider potential 

improvements to the design of the SPPA, and to the 

scope of arts participation research in general. In 

this section, we reflect on several questions about 

the future of arts participation research:

■ What information do policymakers, service 

organizations, funders, artists, and arts 

administrators need to more fully understand 

their place in the changing landscape of arts 

participation and civic life, more generally? 

■ How can the NEA and other arts agencies 

speak more accurately and compellingly about 

the vitality and value of the U.S. public’s 

participation in the arts? 

■ How do the data-collection methods and 

analyses regarding arts participation reflect 

public priorities in and for the arts? 

■ Do we have the data needed to accurately 

portray the types of arts participation that are 

most relevant to people’s lives? 

■ What sort of measurement system would 

better equip the cultural sector to detect and 

respond to changes in demand, and create new 

opportunities for engaging the public?

Although we recognize the budgetary limitations of 

pursuing new or additional data-collection efforts, 

we propose that consideration be given to a range of 

research topics in thinking about the design of future 

SPPAs and other NEA research efforts.

Forms of artistic, cultural, and creative 

expression

Despite the addition of questions over the years, 

the SPPA captures a necessarily limited scope of arts 

activities. Although debates will persist about what 

is and is not ultimately included within this scope 

of measured arts participation activity, the vital 

question becomes: are the existing questions 

relevant to how people experience and participate 

in the arts?
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 87

The current questions in the SPPA follow traditional 

conventions of separating activities by discipline 

and genre. This format poses two challenges: it 

assumes that an individual is familiar with the 

genre and can classify his or her own participation 

accordingly, and it assumes that an arts experience 

itself can be categorized according to genre or 

discipline. As noted earlier, the definitional lines 

between art forms are increasingly blurred, enabled 

in part by demographic shifts and new technologies. 

Artists themselves sometimes avoid identifying their 

work with a specific form. What does this blurring 

imply for the future of arts participation studies? 

The blurring of forms does not imply that the 

survey should refrain from asking about specific 

genres, but it may imply a different question 

structure. For example, the Australia Council for 

the Arts asks about any participation by discipline, 

and allows an “other” category, then drills down 

to specific genres.102

Finally, we would like to suggest that some 

mechanism be put in place to simply catalogue 

different forms of artistic, cultural, and creative 

expression, and to detect new forms as they emerge. 

This “taxonomy of forms of expression” could be 

useful to many stakeholders who seek to understand 

the changing nature of creativity in America.

Technology and electronic media

Greater inquiry into usage of technology for 

accessing, creating, and sharing arts programs and 

artworks in each of the disciplines is warranted. 

At a minimum, discipline-specific questions 

about the creation and posting of original artworks, 

and accessing artistic/creative works online, 

should be included. Currently, online access of 

performing arts content is asked in a single question 

and visual arts are asked about in a single question. 

The Australia Council for the Arts includes an 

expansive list of ways one can use the Internet to 

engage with the arts, including accessing 

artistic content (from professional artists and 

nonprofessional), posting their own content, 

learning arts skills, participating in online social 

networks about the arts, and other uses.103

Setting

The 2008 SPPA included for the first time questions 

about arts attendance at schools and religious 

institutions. The rates of attendance at these 

community venues are among the highest rates of 

any reported for a single attendance activity 

(23.7% at schools and 19.1% at religious institutions). 

As presently worded, there is ambiguity about the 

physical venue and social context in the questions 

about attendance.104 Art happens in an array of 

locations — coffee shops, community centers, online, 

in private homes, clubs and fitness facilities, places 

of worship — that are deeply embedded in the daily 

lives of Americans. The UK’s national “Taking Part” 

survey inquires about a variety of settings for 

music and serves as a model for more detailed 

questions about venue.105 Regional studies in the U.S. 

also provide models for questions about setting.106

Questions about setting are germane to all three 

modalities of participation, including arts 

attendance, personal arts creation, and electronic 

media-based participation. Where a person engages 

with the arts implies social and personal benefits 

derived from the experiences, and would also 

provide valuable information to policymakers about 

how to best serve the public based on where 

interactions with the arts actually occur. More 

needs to be understood about the impact of setting on 

personal meaning and public value. Are visual arts 

activities more accessible to Americans because of 

the diversity of settings in which they occur? How 

does the “collaborative” nature of performing arts 

activities (Nichols, 2010) and the settings, which 

accommodate these activities, affect participation? 

Why do some people attend concerts in places of 

worship, but not concert halls? How do broadcasts of 

live performances into movie theaters impact 

audiences differently than experiencing the same 

programs in person?107

CHAPTER 6
88 National Endowment for the Arts

Degree of personal creative control

With growing support for customization in social 

media, and given the larger number of options 

provided to customers using all sorts of products 

and services, the question of “personal creative 

control” is an important research topic in the arts, 

with implications for both policy and practice. 

Digital audio devices and other technologies 

allow people to customize and curate their own 

experiences. The notion of individual curation 

underlies the changing nature of arts organizations 

ticketing packages (e.g., Design-Your-Own packages) 

as well as the abilities of Americans to “curate” 

their arts experiences at home through technologies 

and various sources of on-demand programming. 

Why do some consumers demand greater control 

over their arts experiences, while others prefer to 

have their experiences curated, electronically 

mediated, and interpreted for them? Is the balance 

changing?

Although this monograph examines arts creation, 

the specific creative activities addressed in the 

SPPA encompass several sub-categories of activity, 

including activities that involve creating original 

works of art and activities that involve performing 

or interpreting pre-existing works of art. In the 

Five-Modes-of-Arts-Participation conceptual 

framework discussed in Chapter 1, these activities 

are identified as Inventive and Interpretive, 

respectively. Past SPPAs have included a question 

about music composition, and the current SPPA 

asks about creative writing, painting, drawing, 

making photographs, movies and videotapes, and 

doing various craft activities — all of which are 

“inventive.” Given the higher level of interest in 

inventive and imaginative thinking (i.e., creative 

workforce issues) in the business sector, it may 

be time to re-examine the breadth and specificity 

of inventive activities explored by the SPPA, 

to ensure inclusion of enough indicators for each 

mode of activity (e.g., composing or arranging 

music using computer software, making up dance 

steps, making online scrapbooks, writing lyrics or 

spoken word).

We also recommend further inquiry into the 

curatorial mode of arts participation — selecting, 

organizing, arranging, and editing art to one’s own 

satisfaction — activities such as downloading 

music, making playlists and compilations, collecting 

and organizing digital art, and incorporating artistic 

objects and other artistic elements into living spaces. 

What role do these activities play in the aesthetic 

development of Americans? How much importance 

do Americans ascribe to these activities? Should 

these activities be supported by public arts agencies?

Attitudes toward and benefits from arts 

participation

The SPPA captures much information on arts 

participation in terms of behaviors — what activities 

a person did over the prior 12 months, which can 

be matched to a wealth of additional demographic 

and lifestyle variables captured by the Current 

Population Survey, to which the SPPA is appended. 

However, demographics explain less than 20% of 

the variation in arts participation behaviors. What 

other factors might help explain patterns of arts and 

cultural participation, and provide insights on where 

to invest public dollars into supporting a healthy 

and vital arts ecology that serves all Americans? 

Attitudinal questions about the arts have been 

included in the General Social Survey and other 

national surveys in different years, but not on 

a regular basis nor with the intent of connecting 

understanding about attitudes with behaviors. 

Exploring more about the public’s beliefs, 

perceptions and attitudes about the arts, and the 

value and impacts they derive from their arts 

experiences — both on a personal and public 

level — would be illuminating. 
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 89

Skill level and salience

Further exploration of skill level, as discussed in 

Chapter 1, would reveal more about the “centrality” 

and “salience” of different arts activities to 

Americans, based on their level of commitment 

and interest in the activity regardless of pecuniary 

benefit. For example, an American who takes 

photographs, even with artistic intentions, may 

have a weak or strong connection to photography 

as an art form, and, in any case, may attach a great 

deal of importance to the activity, or very little. 

Questions about whether one creates art as an 

amusement, hobby, for study, or for income, would 

provide greater context for how understanding 

the arts are woven into the fabric of American life. 

Similarly, understanding more about the importance 

that people attach to different arts activities 

(regardless of mode, discipline, or category) would 

help to paint a clearer picture of what activities 

matter most to adults in the U.S.

Trend analysis and aggregate indicators

The goal to expand and capture more relevant 

information about public participation in the arts is 

challenged by another research objective, which is 

to maintain comparable measures over time that 

allow for trend analysis. Analyses within this report 

do not include all years of the SPPA due to changes 

in question-wording that do not allow comparison 

across years. We want to be able to answer the basic 

question — is arts participation going up or down? 

To this end, generally, attendance at benchmark 

arts events have been used as the comparable 

statistic across years to indicate the health of arts 

participation at large. However, the SPPA includes 

two additional attendance activities (attendance 

at art or craft fairs and festivals and visits to parks, 

historic sites and monuments) that are comparable 

across years, as well as 11 personal arts-creation 

measures108 that are comparable over time since 

1992, and which should be included in an aggregate 

measure of arts participation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY

The analyses in this monograph suggest a shift in 

focus for cultural policy, toward an expanded 

ecology of arts activity that more comprehensively 

captures how the American public chooses to 

participate in the arts — as audience members, as 

listeners or viewers of arts broadcasts or recordings, 

or as creators of art. (See Figure 18.) Using an 

expanded lens to view arts activity in multiple 

modes, genres, settings, skills, and levels of creative 

control suggests an important reframing of federal 

arts and cultural policy — from a frame that 

focuses primarily on indicators of the health of the 

audience base of nonprofit arts organizations 

to a frame that focuses on the scope of artistic and 

cultural expression of individual Americans. 

Bill Ivey and Steven J. Tepper have written 

extensively on the “expressive life” of individuals 

and have questioned whether the role of the NEA 

and of U.S. federal policy in general is to support 

arts and cultural organizations, or to nurture the 

creative lives of the public.109 Those strategies need 

not work at cross-purposes. But a broader perspective 

does suggest the need for policies that support 

artists at all levels of proficiency, and across all 

forms of cultural expression, including mechanisms 

for supporting informal networks of arts creators. 

Similarly, data from the SPPA may justify greater 

support for arts creation in a variety of settings that 

reflect the diversity of the American experience.

A broader lens also navigates greater inquiry into the 

types of arts participation that are relevant in 

people’s lives and how they might differ between 

communities across the U.S. Using a broader lens at 

the federal level may also re-invigorate cultural 

policy at the local and state levels to better capture 

investments in cultural activities that are relevant to 

specific communities. 

CHAPTER 6
90 National Endowment for the Arts

Understanding how investments in the broader 

framework create value and make an impact suggests 

a need for a new conceptual framework that allows 

policymakers to consider the investments in a more 

thorough context. If arts activity is happening 

outside the traditional nonprofit arts infrastructure, 

then how do policymakers go about supporting 

this activity? How does one weigh the public value 

of arts creation versus arts attendance?110 How does 

one decide whether to support a program that 

allows citizens to express themselves creatively or a 

program that offers professional-quality exhibits or 

performances that inspire the public? Using a 

broader framework to understand arts participation, 

do we understand how participation in different 

parts of the cultural ecology contributes to the public 

value of arts participation?

Nonprofit cultural institutions compete for resources 

against a highly decentralized system of arts creation 

that typically lacks power and influence. Evaluating 

cultural development strategies and determining the 

appropriate mix of resources that should be devoted 

to different categories of activities requires a change 

in vocabulary and a better framework for assessing 

the public value of different investment strategies. 

The cultural sector requires a simple, intuitive, 

conceptual framework for creative vitality that 

re-invigorates cultural policy and enfranchises a 

diverse set of stakeholders. The impetus for 

such a framework likely will arise from a dialogue 

with these stakeholders about the interdependent 

cultural ecology in which they work.

The analysis in this monograph constitutes 

reflection on the relevance of what is currently 

measured and on the relevance of those measures to 

individuals. We do not present these items as 

mutually exclusive, but propose them as a means 

for thinking about how to measure the cultural 

ecology for the purpose of federal, state, and 

local policy, and what the information also means 

to individuals and arts organizations. 

The SPPA has provided national, cross-sectional 

data over the past 29 years, allowing us to 

benchmark behavioral changes in arts attendance 

and other forms of participation. This descriptive 

data on what the American public is doing in 

terms of arts participation is vital information, yet 

many questions remain about the shifting nature 

of arts and culture, as suggested by the data. 

Measurement systems dealing with arts and culture 

have been slow to develop and generally have had 

a narrow lens. 

Although limited in scope, the SPPA does capture 

arts participation via attendance, arts creation, and 

electronic media-based participation, although 

most of the official analyses to date have focused on 

attendance. Yet the creative vitality and expressive 

voice of the American public requires another 

level of measurement not yet attained by the SPPA. 

The SPPA is but one survey that cannot necessarily 

expand to capture all questions regarding arts 

participation, attitudes toward the arts, reasons for 

participating (or not participating) in the arts, and 

other socio-demographic and lifestyle variables.

Our monograph, then, invites discussion about 

the interconnectedness of how people engage 

in the arts — through multiple modes — and what 

that participation implies for arts and cultural 

organizations and broader policy decisions and 

investments. In the decades to come, funders and 

arts agencies that seek to increase public support for 

the arts, support greater access to a more diverse 

set of arts activities, and reposition the arts as central 

to community life, will need to rely increasingly on 

a broader definition of “arts participation.”

FIGURE 18

Cultural ecology framework111

Cultural literacy

Participatory cultural practice

Professional cultural

goods and services
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 91

NOTES

82 As defined by a subset of consistently measured indicators of 

attendance and personal arts creation in the 1982, 1992, 2002, and 

2008 SPPAs. See the Technical Appendix.

83 “We use new-found powers of access to do things we have 

always liked doing. New and older forms of behavior and 

preferences are part of the same continuum. . . . We have moved 

from a model of provision to one of enabling.” Expressive Lives, 

ed. Samuel Jones, 9–10.

84 Lynne Conner, Associate Professor in the Theater and Dance 

Department at Colby College in Maine, has written and spoken 

extensively about the concept of audience and performers 

being co-creators of meaning.

85 See “Hannah Rudman’s Message to Project Audience: 

Organisational Porosity and User Generated Content in the 

Cultural Sector, October 5, 2009.” Vodpod video, 17:01. Posted 

October 28, 2009. http://vodpod.com/watch/2483545-hannahrudmans-message-to-project-audience.

86 Classical Music Consumer Segmentation Study, Audience 

Insight (see n. 28).

87 We recognize that the visual arts have done more in this area than 

the performing arts. Within the performing arts, there is an 

ongoing debate over the sanctity of the “live experience” versus 

the need for interpretive assistance. 

88 At a January 2010 gathering of grantees of the Engaging Dance 

Audiences grant program, which is administered by Dance/USA 

and funded by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, there 

was a spirited discussion of the artistic merits of live versus 

digital experiences. 

89 Assessing the Intrinsic Impacts of a Live Performance, Brown 

and Novak (see n. 36).

90 For example, the University Musical Society in Ann Arbor, 

Michigan, developed a separate website for audience engagement 

and community interaction. This project was developed through 

the Innovation Lab for the Performing Arts program created by 

EmcArts and funded by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation. 

See the website of the UMS Lobby, www.umslobby.org, accessed 

April 4, 2010.

91 The Creative Campus Innovations grant program of the Doris 

Duke Charitable Foundation (ongoing in 2010) allowed a 

cohort of university presenters to work with artists in new ways, 

and to build new connections with academic programs and 

departments.

92 For example, work rules for union orchestra musicians deter 

some orchestras from offering concerts in alternative formats that 

would require overtime payments to musicians. For a broader 

discussion, see The Economic Environment of American 

Symphony Orchestras, Robert J. Flanagan (Report to Andrew 

W. Mellon Foundation, 2008), accessed online April 4, 2010, 

www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/packages/pdf/Flanagan.pdf.

93 Jackie Bailey, Artistic Vibrancy — A Discussion Paper (Sydney, 

Australia: Australia Council for the Arts, 2009).

94 Roland J. Kushner and Randy Cohen, National Arts Index 2009: 

An Annual Measure of the Vitality of Arts and Culture in the 

United States (Washington, DC: Americans for the Arts, 2010).

95 Alan S. Brown, Jennifer L. Novak, and Amy Kitchener, Cultural 

Engagement in California’s Inland Regions (San Francisco, CA: 

WolfBrown, 2008).

96 Alan S. Brown and Theresa M. Daniel, The Arts Activities of 

Dallas Independent School District Students (San Francisco, 

CA: WolfBrown, 2008), available online, www.bigthought.org/

LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=U8F6pyt9Weg%3d&tabid=267.

97 See the website of the Music Center, Performing Arts Center of 

Los Angeles County, www.musiccenter.org/events/activearts.

html, accessed January 16, 2010.

98 The Stoop Storytelling program in Baltimore illustrates the type 

of community-based storytelling program that could be replicated 

in other cities. See the website of The Stoop Storytelling Series, 

www.stoopstorytelling.org, accessed April 4, 2010.

99 See the website of The Poetry Ark, www.poetryark.org, accessed 

January 16, 2010.

100 See the website of The Connective Corridor, 

www.connectivecorridor.syr.edu/corridor-venues/uvp, 

accessed January 16, 2010.

101 HOPSports Training Systems, for example, is a commercial 

business that sells fitness videos, including instructional videos 

for dance that can be viewed at home or used in schools that 

cannot provide dance instruction. See www.hopsports.com.

102 More than bums on seats, Australia Council for the Arts, 7–10 

(see n. 12).

103 Ibid., 15.

104 The questions asked about live jazz, classical music, salsa/Latin 

music, opera, musical play, nonmusical play, ballet, and 

other dance specifically exclude “elementary or high school 

performances.” Otherwise, location and setting are ambiguous.

105 “And in what kinds of venue have you watched this music?” 

Taking Part: England’s Survey of Leisure, Culture and Sport: 

Technical Report (2007–08), Department for Culture, Media 

and Sports, UK Data Archive Study Number 6272, December 

2007, 65. Answer items include: “pub/bar, hotel, restaurant/café, 

small club, medium to large live music venue, clubs and 

associations (private), student union, church halls/community 

centers, park/field, other (specify).”

106 In one study of cultural engagement in California’s inland 

regions, a question about setting was included in reference to 

each discipline. For example: “Where do your music activities 

take place?” Cultural Engagement in California’s Inland 

Regions, Alan S. Brown, Jennifer L. Novak and Amy Kitchener 

(San Francisco, CA: WolfBrown, 2008). Answer items included: 

“At your home, or someone else’s home, at work, at a school 

or college, at a place of worship, at a theater or concert facility, at 

a park or other outdoor setting, at a coffee shop, restaurant, bar 

or night club, at a community center, in a car, on the Internet, 

other place (please describe).”

107 “Innovation in Arts and Cultural Organisations,” Hasan 

Bakhshi and David Throsby (National Exercise & Sports Trainers 

Association (NESTA), December 2009), accessed online 

March 4, 2010, www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/

Innovation-in-arts-and-cultural-interim.pdf.

108 In 2008 the question on visits to “an art or craft fair or festiveal” 

was replaced by the following two questions: “During the last 

12 months did you visit a crafts fair or a visual arts festival?” 

and “During the last 12 months did you visit an outfoor festival 

that featured performing artists?” See the Technical Appendix 

for a list of comparable arts-creation activities since 1992.

109 Expressive Lives, Jones (see n. 16); Arts, Inc., Ivey (see n. 16); 

Engaging Art, Tepper and Ivey (see n. 22).

110 In England, the Department of Culture, Media and Sports 

initiated a three-year research program in 2009 to build a better, 

evidence-based theoretical framework for assessing the value of 

investments in culture and sport. In the U.S., the Urban Institute 

has produced significant new thinking about measurement 

systems for cultural vitality, although few communities have 

implemented such measurement systems.

111 This diagram is adapted from Creative Community Index, 

Kreidler and Trounstine, 6 (see n. 14).

CHAPTER 6
92 National Endowment for the Arts
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 93

RECOMMENDED SOURCES

Alvarez, Maribel. There’s Nothing Informal About 

It: Participatory Arts within the Cultural Ecology 

of Silicon Valley. San Jose, CA: Cultural Initiatives 

Silicon Valley, 2005.

Audience Insight LLC. Classical Music Consumer 

Segmentation Study: How Americans Relate to 

Classical Music and Their Local Orchestras. 

Miami, FL: John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, 

2002.

Australia Council for the Arts. More than bums on 

seats: Australian participation in the arts. Sydney, 

Australia: Australia Council for the Arts, 2010.

Bailey, Jackie. Artistic Vibrancy — A Discussion 

Paper. Sydney, Australia: Australia Council for the 

Arts, 2009.

Bakhshi, Hasan and David Throsby. “Innovation in 

Arts and Cultural Organisations.” National Exercise 

and Sports Trainers Association (NESTA), 2009. 

www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/

Innovation-in-arts-and cultural-interim.pdf. 

Barton Upright, Craig. Social Capital and Cultural 

Participation: Spousal Influences on Attendance 

at Arts Events. Working Paper #32. Princeton, NJ: 

Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, 2004.

Bawa, Sameer, Kevin Williams, and William Dong. 

Audience 2.0: How Technology Influences Arts 

Participation. Research Report #50. Washington, 

DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 2010.

Borrup, Tom and Heidi Wagner. The Evolving 

Nature of Cultural Participation and Creative 

Expression: A Primer of Key Issues and 

Recommendations for 1st ACT. San Jose, CA: 

1st Act Silicon Valley, 2007. Available through 

1stACT Silicon Valley, telephone (408) 200-2020. 

Brown, Alan S. The Values Study: Rediscovering 

the Meaning and Value of Arts Participation. 

Hartford, CT: Connecticut Commission on Culture 

and Tourism, 2004.

Brown, Alan S., and Theresa M. Daniel. The Arts 

Activities of Dallas Independent School District 

Students. San Francisco, CA: WolfBrown, 2008. 

www.bigthought.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=

U8F6pyt9Weg%3dandtabid=267.

Brown, Alan S., and Jennifer L. Novak. Assessing 

the Intrinsic Impacts of a Live Performance. San 

Francisco, CA: WolfBrown, 2007. www.wolfbrown.

com/mups_downloads/Impact_Study_Final_

Version_full.pdf. 

Brown, Alan S., Jennifer L. Novak, and Amy 

Kitchener. Cultural Engagement in California’s 

Inland Regions. San Francisco, CA: WolfBrown, 

2008.

Bujic, Hannah. “New Ears.” Arts Professional 205 

(November 2, 2009): 11.

Bunting, Catherine, Tak Wing Chan, and John 

Goldthorpe. From indifference to enthusiasm: 

patterns of arts attendance in England. London: 

Arts Council England, 2008. www.artscouncil.org.

uk/media/uploads/indifferencetoenthusiasm.pdf.

Cwi, David, ed. Research in the Arts: Proceedings 

of the Conference on Policy Related Studies of the 

National Endowment for the Arts. Washington, DC: 

National Endowment for the Arts, 1977.

Department for Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS). 

Taking Part: England’s Survey of Leisure, Culture 

and Sport: Technical Report (2007–08). London: 

Arts Council England, 2008. www.culture.gov.uk/

images/research/TPYr3_TechnicalReport_

November2008.pdf.
94 National Endowment for the Arts

DiMaggio, Paul, and Francie Ostrower. Race, 

Ethnicity, and Arts Participation. NEA Research 

Division Report #25. Washington, DC: Seven Locks 

Press, 1987. www.nea.gov/research/reports/

NEA-Research-Report-25.pdf.

DiMaggio, Paul, Michael Useem, and Paula Brown. 

Audience Studies of the Performing Arts and 

Museums: A Critical Review. Research Division 

Report #9. Washington, DC: National Endowment for 

the Arts, 1978.

Dwyer, M. Christine. Communicating Value: 

Re-faming Arts and Culture Data. Portsmouth, NH: 

RMC Research Corporation, 2008. www.rmcres.

com/documents/Communicating_Value.pdf.

Farrell, Betty. “Changing Culture and Practices 

Inside Organizations.” In Entering Cultural 

Communities: Diversity and Change in the 

Nonprofit Arts, edited by Diane Grams and 

Betty Farrell, 38–63. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers 

University Press, 2008.

Ivey, Bill. Arts, Inc. How Greed and Neglect Have 

Destroyed Our Cultural Rights. Berkeley, CA: 

University of CA Press, 2008.

Jackson, Maria-Rosario, and Joaquin Herranz Jr. 

Culture Counts in Communities: A Framework for 

Measurement. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 

2002.

Jackson, Maria-Rosario, Florence Kabwasa-Green, 

and Joaquin Herranz. Cultural Vitality in 

Communities: Interpretation and Indicators. 

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2006.

Jones, Samuel, ed. Expressive Lives. London: 

DEMOS, 2009. www.demos.co.uk/files/

ExpressiveLives_web_ii.pdf?1246871840.

Kreidler, John. “Leverage Lost: The Nonprofit Arts 

in the Post-Ford Era.” The Journal of Arts 

Management, Law and Society 26, no. 2 (1996): 

79–100.

Kreidler, John, and Philip J. Trounstine. Creative 

Community Index: Measuring Progress Toward A 

Vibrant Silicon Valley. San Jose, CA: Cultural 

Initiatives Silicon Valley, 2005. www.ci-sv.org/pdf/

Index-2005.pdf.

Kushner, Roland J., and Randy Cohen. National Arts 

Index 2009: An Annual Measure of the Vitality of 

Arts and Culture in the United States. Washington, 

DC: Americans for the Arts, 2010.

Leadbeater, Charles, and Paul Miller. The Pro-Am 

Revolution: How enthusiasts are changing our 

economy and society. London: DEMOS, 2004. 

www.demos.co.uk/files/proamrevolutionfinal.

pdf?1240939425.

Martin, Vanessa, Catherine Bunting, and Anni 

Oskala. Arts engagement in England 2008/09 — 

Findings from the Taking Part survey. London: Arts 

Council England, 2010.

McCarthy, Kevin F., Arthur Brooks, Julia Lowell, and 

Laura Zakaras. The Performing Arts in a New Era. 

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2001. www.rand.org/

pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1367.pdf.

McCarthy, Kevin F., Elizabeth Heneghan Ondaatje, 

and Jennifer L. Novak., Arts and Culture in the 

Metropolis: Strategies for Sustainability. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2007. www.rand.

org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2007/

RAND_MG477.pdf.

McCarthy, Kevin F., Elizabeth H. Ondaatje, 

and Laura Zakaras. Guide to the Literature on 

Participation in the Arts. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND, 2001. www.rand.org/pubs/drafts/2006/

DRU2308.pdf.

McCarthy, Kevin F., Elizabeth H. Ondaatje, Laura 

Zakaras, and Arthur Brooks. Gifts of the Muse: 

Reframing the Debate about the Benefits of the 

Arts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2004. www.rand.

org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG218.pdf.

Moriarty, Pia. Participatory Arts: The Stranger 

Brings a Gift. San Francisco, CA: The San Francisco 

Foundation, 2008. www.sff.org/programs/

arts-culture/documents-arts-and-culture/

Moriarty_Participatory_Arts.pdf. 

National Endowment for the Arts. (2009a) 2008 

Survey of Public Participation in the Arts. National 

Endowment for the Arts, Research Report #49, 

Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts, 

2009.
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 95

————. The Arts and Civic Engagement: Involved in 

Arts, Involved in Life. Washington, DC: National 

Endowment for the Arts, 2007.

————. (2009) Arts Participation 2008: Highlights 

from a National Survey. Washington, DC: National 

Endowment for the Arts, 2009.

————. (2009b) “A Conversation about the 2008 

Survey of Public Participation in the Arts.” National 

Endowment for the Arts video, 160:46. December 10, 

2009. www.arts.gov/research/SPPA-webcast.html. 

————. A Practical Guide to Arts Participation 

Research. National Endowment for the Arts, 

Research Division Report #30. Washington, DC: 

National Endowment for the Arts, 1995. 

————. Public Participation in the Arts 1982 and 

1992. National Endowment for the Arts, Research 

Division Note #50. Washington, DC: National 

Endowment for the Arts, 1993. www.nea.gov/

research/Notes/50.pdf.

Nichols, Bonnie. Art-Goers in Their Communities: 

Patterns of Civic and Social Engagement. NEA 

Research Note #98. Washington, DC: National 

Endowment for the Arts, 2009.

————. Come as You Are: Informal Arts 

Participation in Urban and Rural Communities. 

NEA Research Note #100. Washington, DC: 

National Endowment for the Arts, 2010.

Oskali, Anni, Emily Keaning, Tak Wing Chan, 

and Catherine Bunting. Encourage children today 

to build audiences for tomorrow. London: Arts 

Council of England, 2009. http://users.ox.ac.

uk/~sfos0006/papers/children.pdf.

Peters, Monnie, and Joni Maya Cherbo. Americans 

Personal Participation in the Arts: 1992, A 

Monograph Describing the Data from the Survey of 

Public Participation in the Arts. Washington, DC: 

National Endowment for the Arts, 1996.

Peterson, Richard A., Pamela C. Hull, and Roger M. 

Kern. Age and Arts Participation: 1982–1997. 

National Endowment for the Arts, Research Division 

Report #42. Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks Press, 2000.

Peterson, Richard A., Darren E. Sherkat, Judith 

Huggins Balfe, and Rolf Meyersohn. Age and Arts 

Participation with a Focus on the Baby Boom 

Cohort. National Endowment for the Arts, Research 

Division Report #34. Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks 

Press, 1996.

Rosenstein, Carole. Diversity and Participation in 

the Arts: Insights from the Bay Area. Washington, 

DC: Urban Institute, 2005. www.urban.org/

UploadedPDF/311252_diversity_in_arts.pdf.

Tepper, Steven J. “Conclusion: The Next Great 

Transformation: Leveraging Policy and Research to 

Advance Cultural Vitality.” In Engaging Art: The 

Next Great Transformation of America’s Cultural 

Life, edited by Steven J. Tepper and Bill Ivey, 370. 

New York, NY: Routledge, 2007.

Tepper, Steven, and Yang Gao. “Engaging Art: What 

Counts?” In Engaging Art: The Next Great 

Transformation of America’s Cultural Life, edited 

by Steven J. Tepper and Bill Ivey, 25–26. New York, 

NY: Routledge, 2007.

Triplett, Timothy. 2008 SPPA Public-Use Data File 

User’s Guide: A Technical Research Manual. 

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2009. www.nea.

gov/research/SPPA/users-guide.pdf.

Wali, Alaka, Rebecca Severson, and Mario Longoni. 

The Informal Arts: Finding Cohesion, Capacity 

and other Cultural Benefits in Unexpected Places. 

Chicago: Chicago Center for Arts Policy at Columbia 

College, 2002.

Wolf, Dennie Palmer, and Katy Denson. Thriving 

Minds Year Two. Nurturing Creative Capital: 

Successful Children, Strong Families, and Vibrant 

Neighborhoods. Dallas, TX: Big Thought, 2009. 

www.bigthought.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=z

CDBa8NBkbE=&tabid=267.

WolfBrown. Philadelphia Cultural Engagement 

Index. San Francisco, CA: WolfBrown, 2009. 

www.philaculture.org/sites/default/files/CEI%20

Full%20Report.pdf.

RECOMMENDED SOURCES
96 National Endowment for the Arts
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 97

TECHNICAL APPENDIX

2008 AGGREGATE MEASURES — 

ATTENDANCE

Any Arts Attendance (2008)

Benchmark arts attendance

1. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live jazz performance during the last 

12 months?

2. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live classical music performance such 

as symphony, chamber, or choral music during 

the last 12 months?

3. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live opera during the last 12 months? 

4. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live musical stage play during the last 

12 months? 

5. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live performance of a non- musical stage 

play during the last 12 months?

6. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live ballet performance during the last 

12 months?

7. [During the last 12 months] Did you (or your 

spouse/partner) visit an art museum or gallery?

Non-Benchmark arts attendance

8. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live Latin, Spanish, or salsa music 

performance during the last 12 months?

9. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live dance performance other than ballet, 

such as modern, folk, tap- or Broadway-style 

during the last 12 months?

10. [During the last 12 months] Did you (or your 

spouse/partner) visit a crafts fair or a visual arts 

festival?

11. [During the last 12 months] Did you (or your 

spouse/partner) visit an outdoor festival that 

featured performing artists?

12. [During the last 12 months] Did you (or your 

spouse/partner) visit a historic park or 

monument, or tour buildings or neighborhoods 

for their historic or design value?

Attend – Music (2008)

13. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live jazz performance during the last 

12 months?

14. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live classical music performance such 

as symphony, chamber, or choral music during 

the last 12 months?

15. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live opera during the last 12 months? 

16. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live Latin, Spanish, or salsa music 

performance during the last 12 months?

17. [During the last 12 months] Did you (or your 

spouse/partner) visit an outdoor festival that 

featured performing artists?
98 National Endowment for the Arts

Attend – Theater (2008)

18. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live musical stage play during the last 

12 months? 

19. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live performance of a non- musical stage 

play during the last 12 months?

Attend – Dance (2008)

20.[With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live ballet performance during the last 

12 months?

21. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live dance performance other than ballet, 

such as modern, folk, tap, or Broadway-style 

during the last 12 months?

Attend – Visual Arts (2008)

22.[During the last 12 months] Did you (or your 

spouse/partner) visit an art museum or gallery?

23.[During the last 12 months] Did you (or your 

spouse/partner) visit a crafts fair or a visual arts 

festival?

2008 AGGREGATE MEASURES — 

ARTS CREATION AND PERFORMANCE

Any Arts Creation/Performance (2008)

Creation – Music (2008)

1. During the last 12 months, did you (or your 

spouse/partner) play a musical instrument?

2. During the last 12 months, did you (or your 

spouse/partner) sing any music from an opera?

3. During the last 12 months, did you (or your 

spouse/partner) sing with a chorale, choir, or glee 

club or other type of vocal group?

Creation – Theater (2008)

4. During the last 12 months, did you (or your 

spouse/partner) sing or act in a musical play?

5. During the last 12 months, did you (or your 

spouse/partner) act in a non-musical play?

Creation – Dance(2008)

6. During the last 12 months, did you (or your 

spouse/partner) dance ballet, or other dance such 

as modern, folk, tap, or Broadway-style dance?

Creation – Visual Arts (2008)

7. During the last 12 months, did you (or your 

spouse/partner) work with pottery, ceramics, 

jewelry, or do any leatherwork or metalwork?

8. During the last 12 months, did you (or your 

spouse/partner) do any weaving, crocheting, 

quilting, needlepoint, or sewing?

9. During the last 12 months, did you (or your 

spouse/partner) make photographs, movies, or 

video tapes as an artistic activity?

10. During the last 12 months, did you (or your 

spouse/partner) do any painting, drawing, 

sculpture, or printmaking activities?
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 99

2008 AGGREGATE MEASURES — 

ELECTRONIC MEDIA-BASED PARTICIPATION

Any Electronic Media-based Participation (2008)

1. During the last 12 months, did you use the 

Internet to watch, listen to, or download live or 

recorded music, theater or dance performances?

2. During the last 12 months, did you use the 

Internet to view visual art online, such as 

paintings, sculpture, or photography? 

3. During the last 12 months did you watch or 

listen to any recorded or live broadcasted arts 

performances on your television, radio, or 

on your computer, including watching or 

listening on portable media devices such as an 

iPod, cell phone, or portable DVD player? 

Arts performances include:

■ Jazz?

■ Latin, Spanish, or salsa music?

■ Classical music?

■ Opera?

■ Musical stage play?

■ Non-musical stage play (with the exception 

of movies, sitcoms, or TV series)?

■ Ballet, modern, folk, tap, or Broadway style 

dance performances (with the exception of 

music videos)?

■ A program about artists, art works, or art 

museums?

■ A program about books or writers?

Broadcast – Music (2008)

4. During the last 12 months did you watch or 

listen to any recorded or live broadcasted arts 

performances on your television, radio, or 

on your computer, including watching or 

listening on portable media devices such as an 

iPod, cell phone, or portable DVD player? 

Arts performances include:

■ Jazz?

■ Latin, Spanish, or salsa music?

■ Classical music?

■ Opera?

Broadcast – Theater (2008)

5. During the last 12 months did you watch or 

listen to any recorded or live broadcasted arts 

performances on your television, radio, or 

on your computer, including watching or 

listening on portable media devices such as an 

iPod, cell phone, or portable DVD player? 

Arts performances include:

■ Musical stage play?

■ Non-musical stage play (with the exception of 

movies, sitcoms, or TV series)?

Broadcast – Dance(2008)

6. During the last 12 months did you watch or 

listen to any recorded or live broadcasted arts 

performances on your television, radio, or 

on your computer, including watching or 

listening on portable media devices such as an 

iPod, cell phone, or portable DVD player? 

Arts performances include:

■ Ballet, modern, folk, tap, or Broadway style 

dance performances (with the exception of 

music videos)?

Broadcast – Visual Arts (2008)

7. During the last 12 months did you watch or 

listen to any recorded or live broadcasted arts 

performances on your television, radio, or 

on your computer, including watching or 

listening on portable media devices such as an 

iPod, cell phone, or portable DVD player? 

Arts performances include:

■ A program about artists, art works, or art 

museums?

TECHNICAL APPENDIX
100 National Endowment for the Arts

TREND AGGREGATE MEASURES — 

ATTENDANCE

All Comparable Attendance Activities

Benchmark arts attendance

1. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live jazz performance during the last 

12 months?

2. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live classical music performance such 

as symphony, chamber, or choral music during 

the last 12 months?

3. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live opera during the last 12 months? 

4. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live musical stage play during the last 

12 months? 

5. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live performance of a non- musical stage 

play during the last 12 months?

6. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live ballet performance during the last 

12 months?

7. [During the last 12 months] Did you (or your 

spouse/partner) visit an art museum or gallery?

Non-Benchmark arts attendance

8. [During the last 12 months] Did you (or your 

spouse/partner) visit a crafts fair or a visual arts 

festival?*

9. [During the last 12 months] Did you (or your 

spouse/partner) visit a historic park or 

monument, or tour buildings or neighborhoods 

for their historic or design value?

* In 2008, however, the question on visits to “an art or craft fair or festival” was 

replaced by the following two questions: [During the last 12 months] Did you visit 

a crafts fair or a visual arts festival? [During the last 12 months] Did you visit an 

outdoor festival that featured performing artists?

Attend – Music

10. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live jazz performance during the last 

12 months?

11. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live classical music performance such 

as symphony, chamber, or choral music during 

the last 12 months?

12. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live opera during the last 12 months? 

Attend – Theater

13. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live musical stage play during the last 

12 months? 

14. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live performance of a non- musical stage 

play during the last 12 months?

Attend – Dance

15. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live ballet performance during the last 

12 months?

16. [With the exception of elementary or high school 

performances] Did you (or your spouse/partner) 

go to a live dance performance other than ballet, 

such as modern, folk, tap, or Broadway-style 

during the last 12 months?

Attend – Visual Arts

17. [During the last 12 months] Did you (or your 

spouse/partner) visit an art museum or gallery?

18. [During the last 12 months] Did you (or your 

spouse/partner) visit a crafts fair or a visual arts 

festival?
Beyond attendance: A multi-modal understanding of arts participation 101

TREND AGGREGATE MEASURES — 

ARTS CREATION AND PERFORMANCE

Variable Names

All Comparable Creation and Performance Activities 1992 2002 2008

Create/Perform – Music 

1. During the last 12 months, did you perform or rehearse any jazz music? V226 PESC9A PEC16B

2. During the last 12 months, did you play any classical music? V228 PESC10A PEC16C

3. During the last 12 months, did you sing any music from an opera? V230 PESC11A PEC17A

Create/Perform – Theater

4. During the last 12 months, did you sing music from a musical play or 

operetta?/During the last 12 months, did (name/you) sing or act in a 

musical play? (2008)* V232 PESC12A PEC18A

Create/Perform – Dance**

5. During the last 12 months, did you dance any ballet? V236 PESC14A PEC21A

6. During the last 12 months, did you do any dancing other than ballet such 

as modern, folk, or tap? V238 PESC15A

Create – Visual Arts 

7. During the last 12 months, did you work with pottery, ceramics, jewelry, 

or do any leatherwork or metalwork? V212 PESC2A PEC10A

8. During the last 12 months, did you do any weaving, crocheting, quilting, 

needlepoint, or sewing? V214 PESC3A PEC11A

9. During the last 12 months, did you make photographs, movies, or video 

tapes as an artistic activity? V216 PESC4A PEC12A

10. During the last 12 months, did you do any painting, drawing, sculpture, 

or printmaking activities? V218 PESC5A PEC13A

Create – Creative Writing 

11. With the exception of work or school, did you do any creative writing 

such as stories, poems, or plays during the last 12 months? V220 PESC6A PEC14A

12. Do you own any original pieces of art, such as paintings, drawings, 

sculpture, prints, or lithographs? V224 PESC8A PEC15A

* 2008 wording is slightly different than earlier years, but the question was 

determined to be comparable by the NEA.

** The dance variables were collapsed in 1992 and 2002 in order to be comparable 

with the revised 2008 question. 

TECHNICAL APPENDIX
102 National Endowment for the Arts

DEMOGRAPHICS AND ATTENDANCE AT 

BENCHMARK ARTS EVENTS 

Number of obs 16532

F( 29, 16502) 123.07

Prob > F 0

R-squared 0.199

Root MSE 0.429

Coef. Robust 

Standard Error t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]

Gender

Female 0.056 0.008 6.95 0 0.040 0.072

Race/ethnicity

African American, Non-Hispanic -0.087 0.013 -6.61 0 -0.113 -0.061

Hispanic -0.037 0.015 -2.43 0.015 -0.066 -0.007

American Indian, Non-Hispanic -0.059 0.042 -1.39 0.163 -0.141 0.024

Asian, Non-Hispanic -0.091 0.026 -3.55 0 -0.141 -0.041

2 or more races, Non-Hispanic -0.002 0.036 -0.06 0.954 -0.073 0.069

Age

25–34 -0.019 0.018 -1.01 0.314 -0.055 0.018

35–44 -0.018 0.019 -0.96 0.336 -0.055 0.019

45–54 -0.020 0.019 -1.08 0.28 -0.057 0.016

55–64 -0.021 0.019 -1.09 0.275 -0.059 0.017

65–74 0.024 0.021 1.15 0.249 -0.017 0.066

75+ -0.046 0.022 -2.11 0.035 -0.088 -0.003

Education

Some high school 0.032 0.017 1.9 0.058 -0.001 0.064

High school graduate 0.048 0.014 3.35 0.001 0.020 0.077

Some college 0.204 0.016 12.69 0 0.172 0.235

College graduate 0.373 0.018 20.81 0 0.338 0.408

Graduate school 0.454 0.020 22.33 0 0.414 0.493

Family income

$10,000–19,999 0.007 0.017 0.41 0.682 -0.027 0.041

$20,000–29,999 0.022 0.017 1.27 0.203 -0.012 0.055

$30,000–39,999 0.078 0.018 4.34 0 0.043 0.113

$40,000–49,999 0.091 0.020 4.63 0 0.052 0.129

$50,000–74,999 0.114 0.018 6.47 0 0.079 0.148

$75,000–99,999 0.178 0.020 9.01 0 0.139 0.217

$100,000–149,999 0.220 0.022 10.14 0 0.178 0.263

$150,000+ 0.304 0.023 13.01 0 0.258 0.349

Marital status

Was married 0.020 0.010 1.94 0.053 -0.000 0.041

Never married 0.055 0.012 4.51 0 0.031 0.079

Citizenship status

Naturalized -0.042 0.019 -2.2 0.028 -0.080 -0.005

Non-citizen -0.040 0.017 -2.36 0.018 -0.074 -0.007

Constant 0.050 0.026 1.91 0.056 -0.001 0.102

National Endowment for the Arts

1100 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20506-0001

(202) 682-5400

www.arts.gov

Not for sale. 

Available for free at www.arts.gov