Abstract
“Dance” has been associated with many psychophysiological and medical health effects. However, varying definitions of what constitute “dance” have led to a rather heterogenous body of evidence about such potential effects, leaving the picture piecemeal at best. It remains unclear what exact parameters may be driving positive effects. We believe that this heterogeneity of evidence is partly due to a lack of a clear definition of dance for such empirical purposes. A differentiation is needed between (a) the effects on the individual when the activity of “dancing” is enjoyed as a dancer within different dance domains (e.g., professional/”high-art” type of dance, erotic dance, religious dance, club dancing, Dance Movement Therapy (DMT), and what is commonly known as hobby, recreational or social dance), and (b) the effects on the individual within these different domains, as a dancer of the different dance styles (solo dance, partnering dance, group dance; and all the different styles within these). Another separate category of dance engagement is, not as a dancer, but as a spectator of all of the above. “Watching dance” as part of an audience has its own set of psychophysiological and neurocognitive effects on the individual, and depends on the context where dance is witnessed. With the help of dance professionals, we first outline some different dance domains and dance styles, and outline aspects that differentiate them, and that may, therefore, cause differential empirical findings when compared regardless (e.g., amount of interpersonal contact, physical exertion, context, cognitive demand, type of movements, complexity of technique and ratio of choreography/improvisation). Then, we outline commonalities between all dance styles. We identify six basic components that are part of any dance practice, as part of a continuum, and review and discuss available research for each of them concerning the possible health and wellbeing effects of each of these components, and how they may relate to the psychophysiological and health effects that are reported for “dancing”: (1) rhythm and music, (2) sociality, (3) technique and fitness, (4) connection and connectedness (self-intimation), (5) flow and mindfulness, (6) aesthetic emotions and imagination. Future research efforts might take into account the important differences between types of dance activities, as well as the six components, for a more targeted assessment of how “dancing” affects the human body.
Highlights
In the past 20 years or so, empirical research in psychology and affective neuroscience has started to report important psychophysiological and medical health effects for individuals who practice “dance.” Especially, longitudinal assessments suggest that “dance” outperforms other types of recreational activities in terms of their health enhancing potential, including ball sports, crosswords, swimming, etc. (King et al, 2003; Verghese et al, 2003; Merom et al, 2016)
The very different movement patterns of these dance styles, exertion levels, emotional tone, amount and type of social contact, cognitive demand, movement intention and music type yield a whole different set of challenges, opportunities and demands for the dancer that are relevant for empirical research
We review and discuss available research for each of them concerning the possible health and wellbeing effects of each of these components, and how they may relate to the overall health effects that have been reported so far for “dancing.” These are (1) rhythm and music, (2) sociality, (3) technique and fitness, (4) connection and connectedness, (5) flow and mindfulness, (6) aesthetic emotions and imagination
Summary
In the past 20 years or so, empirical research in psychology and affective neuroscience has started to report important psychophysiological and medical health effects for individuals who practice “dance.” Especially, longitudinal assessments suggest that “dance” outperforms other types of recreational activities in terms of their health enhancing potential, including ball sports, crosswords, swimming, etc. (King et al, 2003; Verghese et al, 2003; Merom et al, 2016). Lack of conclusive results can be due to a poor selection of control groups for intervention-type studies using “dance.” As mentioned above, different dance styles put different physical, cognitive and emotional demands on the dancer (even if they happen on a continuum rather than in categorical terms), and control groups must be identified that are as closely aligned to these characteristics, while not being a dance (e.g., other movement practices including sports, movement meditations, etc.) This is important if researchers have specific hypotheses about the contributions of individual parameters of a dance style to specific enhancements (dependent variables). This heterogeneity makes the results appear hopelessly inconclusive and piecemeal, certainly deterring policymakers from targeted investments into the health effects of dance practice as a recreational activity with important psychophysiological and health effects
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
