Aerobic Exercise Is Promoted when Individual Performance Affects the Group: A Test of the Kohler Motivation Gain Effect
- 1.8k Downloads
A key barrier to achieving recommended intensity and duration of physical activity is motivation.
We investigated whether a virtually present partner would influence participants’ motivation (duration) during aerobic exercise.
Fifty-eight females (M age = 20.54 ± 1.86) were randomly assigned to either a coactive condition (exercising alongside another person, independently), a conjunctive condition (performance determined by whichever partner stops exercising first) where they exercised with a superior partner, or to an individual condition. Participants exercised on a stationary bike at 65 % of heart rate reserve on six separate days.
Across sessions, conjunctive condition participants exercised significantly longer (M = 21.89 min, SD = ±10.08 min) than those in coactive (M = 19.77 min, SD = ± 9.00 min) and individual (M = 10.6 min, SD = ±5.84 min) conditions (p < 0.05).
Exercising with a virtually present partner can improve performance on an aerobic exercise task across multiple sessions.
KeywordsGroup performance Group exercise Exergame Köhler effect Motivation Exercise partner
The authors wish to thank Sara Sherman and Kaitlynn Osborn and for their contributions in the execution of this study. All human studies have been approved by the MSU IRB and have therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. All persons gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
- 3.Lee IM. Physical activity, fitness, and cancer. In: Boucher C, Shephard RJ, Stephens T, eds. Physical activity, fitness, and health: International proceedings and consensus statement. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1994:814–31.Google Scholar
- 6.Hardy CJ, Rejeski WJ. Not what, but how one feels: The measurement of affect during exercise. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1989;11:304–17.Google Scholar
- 8.Carron AV, Hausenblas HA, Mack D. Social influence and exercise: A meta-analysis. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1996;18:1–16.Google Scholar
- 11.Baron RS, Kerr NL. Group process, group decision, group action. 2nd ed. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
- 15.Steiner ID. Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press; 1972.Google Scholar
- 16.Stroebe W, Diehl M, Abakoumkin G. Social compensation and the Köhler effect: Toward a theoretical explanation of motivation gains in group productivity. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1996. Witte E, Davis J, eds. Understanding group behavior: Consensual action by small groups; No. 2.Google Scholar
- 19.US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical activity and health: A report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC; 2008.Google Scholar
- 22.Bandura A. Guide for creating self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares F, Urdan T, eds. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Informationa Age Publishing; 2006:307–37.Google Scholar
- 24.Borg GAV. Borg's perceived exertion and pain scales. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics; 1998.Google Scholar
- 29.Weiner B. Human Motivation. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston; 1980.Google Scholar
- 31.Kerr NL, Seok DH. "… with a little help from my friends": Friendship, effort norms, and group motivation gain. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2011;26(3):205–18.Google Scholar
- 32.Huffmeier J, Hertel G. When the whole is more than the sum of its parts: Motivation gains in the wild. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 2011;47:455–9.Google Scholar