Group dynamics motivation to increase exercise intensity with a virtual partner
|
摘要
Background: The effect of the K?hler group dynamics paradigm(i.e., working together with a more capable partner where one's performance is indispensable to the team outcome) has been shown to increase motivation to exercise longer at a strength task in partnered exercise video games (exergames) using a software-generated partner(SGP). However, the effect on exercise intensity with an SGP has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to examine the motivation to maintain or increase exercise intensity among healthy, physically active middle-aged adults using an SGP in an aerobic exergame.Methods: Participants(n = 85, mean age = 44.9 years) exercised with an SGP in a 6-day cycle ergometer protocol, randomly assigned to either(a)no partner control,(b) superior SGP who was not a teammate, or(c) superior SGP as a teammate(team score was dependent on the inferior member). The protocol alternated between 30-min continuous and 4-min interval lhigh-intensity session days, during which participants could change cycle power output(watts) from target intensity to alter distance and speed.Results: Mean change in watts from a targeted intensity(75% and 90% maximum heart rate) was the primary dependent variable reflecting motivational effort. Increases in performance over baseline were demonstrated without significant differences between conditions. Self-efficacy and enjoyment were significantly related to effort in the more intense interval sessions.Conclusion: Under these conditions, no K?hler effect was observed. Exercise performance during the higher-intensity interval format is more closely related to enloyment and self-efficacy beliefs compared to the continuous sessions.
Background: The effect of the K?hler group dynamics paradigm(i.e., working together with a more capable partner where one's performance is indispensable to the team outcome) has been shown to increase motivation to exercise longer at a strength task in partnered exercise video games (exergames) using a software-generated partner(SGP). However, the effect on exercise intensity with an SGP has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to examine the motivation to maintain or increase exercise intensity among healthy, physically active middle-aged adults using an SGP in an aerobic exergame.Methods: Participants(n = 85, mean age = 44.9 years) exercised with an SGP in a 6-day cycle ergometer protocol, randomly assigned to either(a)no partner control,(b) superior SGP who was not a teammate, or(c) superior SGP as a teammate(team score was dependent on the inferior member). The protocol alternated between 30-min continuous and 4-min interval lhigh-intensity session days, during which participants could change cycle power output(watts) from target intensity to alter distance and speed.Results: Mean change in watts from a targeted intensity(75% and 90% maximum heart rate) was the primary dependent variable reflecting motivational effort. Increases in performance over baseline were demonstrated without significant differences between conditions. Self-efficacy and enjoyment were significantly related to effort in the more intense interval sessions.Conclusion: Under these conditions, no K?hler effect was observed. Exercise performance during the higher-intensity interval format is more closely related to enloyment and self-efficacy beliefs compared to the continuous sessions.
Background: The effect of the K?hler group dynamics paradigm(i.e., working together with a more capable partner where one's performance is indispensable to the team outcome) has been shown to increase motivation to exercise longer at a strength task in partnered exercise video games (exergames) using a software-generated partner(SGP). However, the effect on exercise intensity with an SGP has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to examine the motivation to maintain or increase exercise intensity among healthy, physically active middle-aged adults using an SGP in an aerobic exergame.Methods: Participants(n = 85, mean age = 44.9 years) exercised with an SGP in a 6-day cycle ergometer protocol, randomly assigned to either(a)no partner control,(b) superior SGP who was not a teammate, or(c) superior SGP as a teammate(team score was dependent on the inferior member). The protocol alternated between 30-min continuous and 4-min interval lhigh-intensity session days, during which participants could change cycle power output(watts) from target intensity to alter distance and speed.Results: Mean change in watts from a targeted intensity(75% and 90% maximum heart rate) was the primary dependent variable reflecting motivational effort. Increases in performance over baseline were demonstrated without significant differences between conditions. Self-efficacy and enjoyment were significantly related to effort in the more intense interval sessions.Conclusion: Under these conditions, no K?hler effect was observed. Exercise performance during the higher-intensity interval format is more closely related to enloyment and self-efficacy beliefs compared to the continuous sessions.
引文
1.Carlson SA, Fulton JE, Schoenborn CA, Loustalot F. Trend and prevalence estimates based on the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Am J Prev Med 2010;39:305-13.
2.Tucker JM, Welk GJ, Beyler NK. Physical activity in U.S.:adults compliance with the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Am J Prev Med2011;40:454-61.
3.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008 physical activity guidelines for Americans:be active, healthy, and happy. Washington, D.C.Government Printing Office; 2008. Available at:http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/guidelines/default.aspx;[accessed 19.10.2013].
4.Gellert P, Ziegelmann JP, Warner LM, Schwarzer R. Physical activity intervention in older adults:does a participating partner make a difference? Eur J Ageing 2011;8:211.doi:10.1007/s10433-011-0193-5.
5.Kassavou A, Turner A, French DP. Do interventions to promote walking in groups increase physical activity? A meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013;10:18.doi:10.1186/1479-5868-10-18.
6.Zajonc RB. Social facilitation. Science 1965;149:269-74.
7.Karau SJ, Williams KD. The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing and social compensation. Group Dynam Theo Res Pract 1997;1:156-68.
8.Latane B, Williams K, Harkins S. Many hands make light the work:the causes and consequences of social loafing. J Person Soc Psychol1979;37:822-32.
9.Hertel G, Kerr NL, Messe LA. Motivation gains in performance groups:paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Kohler effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000;79:580-601.
10.Kerr NL, Hertel G. The Kohler group motivation gain:how to motivate the"weak links"in a group. Soc Person Psychol Comp 2011;5:43-55.
11.K(o|¨)hler O. Physical performance in individual and group situations.(Kraftleistungen bei Einzel-und Gruppenabeit). Industrielle Psychotechnik1926;3:274-82.[in German].
12.Steiner ID. Group process and productivity. New York, NY:Academic Press Inc.; 1972.
13.Kerr NL, Messe LA, Seok DH, Sambolec EJ, Lount Jr RB, Park ES. Psychological mechanisms underlying the Kohler motivation gain. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2007;33:828-41.
14.Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations1954;7:117-40.
15.Messe LA, Hertel G, Kerr NL, Lount Jr RB, Park ES. Knowledge of partner's ability as a moderator of group motivation gains:an exploration of the Kohler discrepancy effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 2002;82:935-46.
16.Toure-Tillery M, Fishbach A. How to measure motivation:a guide for the experimental social psychologist. Soc Person Psychol Comp 2014;8:328-41.
17.Weber B, Hertel G. Motivation gains of inferior group members:a meta-analytical review. J Pers Soc Psychol 2007;93:973-93.
18.Feltz DL, Kerr NL, Irwin BC. Buddy up:the Kohler effect applied to health games. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2011;33:506-26.
19. Irwin BC, Scorniaenchi J, Kerr NL, Eisenmann JC, Feltz DL. Aerobic exercise is promoted when individual performance affects the group:a test of the Kohler motivation gain effect..Ann Behuav Med 2012;44:151-9.
20. Samendinger S, Max EJ, Feltz DL, Kerr NL. Back to the future:the K(o|¨)hler motivation gain in exergames. In:Karau SJ, editor. Individual motivation within groups. Social loafing and motivation gains in work,academic, and sports teams. Cambridge, MA:Academic Press; 2018.
21. Kravitz L. High-intensity interval training; 2014. Available at:http://www.acsra.org/public-information/brochures;[accessed 25.08.2016].
22. Hwang CL, Wu YT, Chou CH. Effect of aerobic interval training on exercise capacity and metabolic risk factors in people with cardiometabolic disorders:a meta-analysis. JCardiopulm RehabrilPrev 2011:31:378-85.
23. Weston KS, Wisl(?)ff U, Coorabes JS. High-intensity interval training in patients with lifestyle-induced cardiometabolic disease:a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:1227-34.
24. Bartlett JD, Close GL, MacLaren DP, Gregson W, Drust B, Morton JP.High-intensity interval running is perceived to be more enjoyable than moderate-intensity continuous exercise:implications for exercise adherence. J Sports Sci 2011;29:547-53.
25. Perri MG, Anton SD, Durning PE, Ketterson TU, Sydeman SJ, Berlant NE, et al. Adherence to exercise prescriptions:effects of prescribing moderate versus higher levels of intensity and frequency. Health Psychol2002;21:452-8.
26. Saanijoki T, Nummenmaa L, Eskelinen JJ, Savolainen AM, Vrahlberg T. Kalliokoski KK, et al. Affective responses to repeated sessions of high-intensity interval training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2015;47:2604-11.
27. Reeves B, Nass C. The media equation:how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press; 1996.
28. Nass C, Steuer J, Tauber ER. Computers are social actors. In:Adelson B,Dumais S,Olson J, editors. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery(ACM); Boston, MA, April 24-28; 1994.p.72-8.
29. Nass C, Moon Y, Carney P. Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing systemsl. J Appl Soc Psychol 1999;29:1093-109.
30. Nass C, Fogg BJ, Moon Y. Can computers be teammates? Int J HumCompr Stu 1996;45:669-78.
31.Feltz DL, Forlenza ST, Winn B, Kerr NL. Cyber buddy is better than no buddy:a test of the Kohler motivation effect in exergames. Games Health J2014;3:98-105.
32.Max EJ, Samendinger S, Winn B, Kerr NL, Pfeiffer KA, Feltz DL.Enhancing aerobic exercise with a novel virtual exercise buddy based on the K(o|¨)hler effect. Games Health J 2016;5:252-7.
33.Samendinger S, Forlenza ST, Winn B, Max EJ, Kerr NL, Pfeiffer KA,et al. Introductory dialogue and the Kohler effect in software-generated workout partners. Psychol Sport Exerc 2017;32:131-7.
34.McAuley E, Blissmer B. Self-efficacy determinants and consequences of physical activity. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2000;28:85-8.
35.Moritz SE, Feltz DL, Fahrbach KR, Mack DE. The relation of selfefficacy measures to sport performance:a meta-analytic review. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000;71:280-94.
36.Bandura A. Self-efficacy:the exercise of control. New York, NY:W.H.Freeman and Company; 1997.
37.Ploutz-Snyder LL, Downs M, Ryder J, Hackney K, Scott J, Buxton R,et al. Integrated resistance and aerobic exercise protects fitness during bed rest. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2014;46:358-68.
38.Raedeke TD, Amorose AJ. A psychometric evaluation of a short exercise enjoyment measure. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2013;35(Suppl.l):S110.doi:10.1123/jsep.35.sl.s75.
39.Ho C-C, MacDorman KF. Revisiting the uncanny valley theory:developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices. Comp Human Behav 2010;26:1508-18.
40.Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3:a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;39:175-91.
41.Rasch D, Guiard V. The robustness of parametric statistical methods.Psychol Sci 2004;46:175-208.
42.Schmider E, Ziegler M, Danay E, Beyer L, Buhner M. Is it really robust?Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution assumption. Methodology 2010;6:147-51.
43.Hertel G, Niemeyer G, Clauss A. Social indispensability or social comparison:the why and when of motivation gains of inferior group members1.J Appl Soc Psych 2008;38:1329-63.
44.Kerr NL, Messe LA, Park ES, Sambolec EJ. Identifiability, performance feedback and the Kohler effect. GPIR:Group Proc Intergroup Rela2005;8:375-90.
2.Tucker JM, Welk GJ, Beyler NK. Physical activity in U.S.:adults compliance with the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. Am J Prev Med2011;40:454-61.
3.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2008 physical activity guidelines for Americans:be active, healthy, and happy. Washington, D.C.Government Printing Office; 2008. Available at:http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/guidelines/default.aspx;[accessed 19.10.2013].
4.Gellert P, Ziegelmann JP, Warner LM, Schwarzer R. Physical activity intervention in older adults:does a participating partner make a difference? Eur J Ageing 2011;8:211.doi:10.1007/s10433-011-0193-5.
5.Kassavou A, Turner A, French DP. Do interventions to promote walking in groups increase physical activity? A meta-analysis. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2013;10:18.doi:10.1186/1479-5868-10-18.
6.Zajonc RB. Social facilitation. Science 1965;149:269-74.
7.Karau SJ, Williams KD. The effects of group cohesiveness on social loafing and social compensation. Group Dynam Theo Res Pract 1997;1:156-68.
8.Latane B, Williams K, Harkins S. Many hands make light the work:the causes and consequences of social loafing. J Person Soc Psychol1979;37:822-32.
9.Hertel G, Kerr NL, Messe LA. Motivation gains in performance groups:paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Kohler effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000;79:580-601.
10.Kerr NL, Hertel G. The Kohler group motivation gain:how to motivate the"weak links"in a group. Soc Person Psychol Comp 2011;5:43-55.
11.K(o|¨)hler O. Physical performance in individual and group situations.(Kraftleistungen bei Einzel-und Gruppenabeit). Industrielle Psychotechnik1926;3:274-82.[in German].
12.Steiner ID. Group process and productivity. New York, NY:Academic Press Inc.; 1972.
13.Kerr NL, Messe LA, Seok DH, Sambolec EJ, Lount Jr RB, Park ES. Psychological mechanisms underlying the Kohler motivation gain. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2007;33:828-41.
14.Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations1954;7:117-40.
15.Messe LA, Hertel G, Kerr NL, Lount Jr RB, Park ES. Knowledge of partner's ability as a moderator of group motivation gains:an exploration of the Kohler discrepancy effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 2002;82:935-46.
16.Toure-Tillery M, Fishbach A. How to measure motivation:a guide for the experimental social psychologist. Soc Person Psychol Comp 2014;8:328-41.
17.Weber B, Hertel G. Motivation gains of inferior group members:a meta-analytical review. J Pers Soc Psychol 2007;93:973-93.
18.Feltz DL, Kerr NL, Irwin BC. Buddy up:the Kohler effect applied to health games. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2011;33:506-26.
19. Irwin BC, Scorniaenchi J, Kerr NL, Eisenmann JC, Feltz DL. Aerobic exercise is promoted when individual performance affects the group:a test of the Kohler motivation gain effect..Ann Behuav Med 2012;44:151-9.
20. Samendinger S, Max EJ, Feltz DL, Kerr NL. Back to the future:the K(o|¨)hler motivation gain in exergames. In:Karau SJ, editor. Individual motivation within groups. Social loafing and motivation gains in work,academic, and sports teams. Cambridge, MA:Academic Press; 2018.
21. Kravitz L. High-intensity interval training; 2014. Available at:http://www.acsra.org/public-information/brochures;[accessed 25.08.2016].
22. Hwang CL, Wu YT, Chou CH. Effect of aerobic interval training on exercise capacity and metabolic risk factors in people with cardiometabolic disorders:a meta-analysis. JCardiopulm RehabrilPrev 2011:31:378-85.
23. Weston KS, Wisl(?)ff U, Coorabes JS. High-intensity interval training in patients with lifestyle-induced cardiometabolic disease:a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:1227-34.
24. Bartlett JD, Close GL, MacLaren DP, Gregson W, Drust B, Morton JP.High-intensity interval running is perceived to be more enjoyable than moderate-intensity continuous exercise:implications for exercise adherence. J Sports Sci 2011;29:547-53.
25. Perri MG, Anton SD, Durning PE, Ketterson TU, Sydeman SJ, Berlant NE, et al. Adherence to exercise prescriptions:effects of prescribing moderate versus higher levels of intensity and frequency. Health Psychol2002;21:452-8.
26. Saanijoki T, Nummenmaa L, Eskelinen JJ, Savolainen AM, Vrahlberg T. Kalliokoski KK, et al. Affective responses to repeated sessions of high-intensity interval training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2015;47:2604-11.
27. Reeves B, Nass C. The media equation:how people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. New York, NY:Cambridge University Press; 1996.
28. Nass C, Steuer J, Tauber ER. Computers are social actors. In:Adelson B,Dumais S,Olson J, editors. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Association for Computing Machinery(ACM); Boston, MA, April 24-28; 1994.p.72-8.
29. Nass C, Moon Y, Carney P. Are people polite to computers? Responses to computer-based interviewing systemsl. J Appl Soc Psychol 1999;29:1093-109.
30. Nass C, Fogg BJ, Moon Y. Can computers be teammates? Int J HumCompr Stu 1996;45:669-78.
31.Feltz DL, Forlenza ST, Winn B, Kerr NL. Cyber buddy is better than no buddy:a test of the Kohler motivation effect in exergames. Games Health J2014;3:98-105.
32.Max EJ, Samendinger S, Winn B, Kerr NL, Pfeiffer KA, Feltz DL.Enhancing aerobic exercise with a novel virtual exercise buddy based on the K(o|¨)hler effect. Games Health J 2016;5:252-7.
33.Samendinger S, Forlenza ST, Winn B, Max EJ, Kerr NL, Pfeiffer KA,et al. Introductory dialogue and the Kohler effect in software-generated workout partners. Psychol Sport Exerc 2017;32:131-7.
34.McAuley E, Blissmer B. Self-efficacy determinants and consequences of physical activity. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2000;28:85-8.
35.Moritz SE, Feltz DL, Fahrbach KR, Mack DE. The relation of selfefficacy measures to sport performance:a meta-analytic review. Res Q Exerc Sport 2000;71:280-94.
36.Bandura A. Self-efficacy:the exercise of control. New York, NY:W.H.Freeman and Company; 1997.
37.Ploutz-Snyder LL, Downs M, Ryder J, Hackney K, Scott J, Buxton R,et al. Integrated resistance and aerobic exercise protects fitness during bed rest. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2014;46:358-68.
38.Raedeke TD, Amorose AJ. A psychometric evaluation of a short exercise enjoyment measure. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2013;35(Suppl.l):S110.doi:10.1123/jsep.35.sl.s75.
39.Ho C-C, MacDorman KF. Revisiting the uncanny valley theory:developing and validating an alternative to the Godspeed indices. Comp Human Behav 2010;26:1508-18.
40.Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3:a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;39:175-91.
41.Rasch D, Guiard V. The robustness of parametric statistical methods.Psychol Sci 2004;46:175-208.
42.Schmider E, Ziegler M, Danay E, Beyer L, Buhner M. Is it really robust?Reinvestigating the robustness of ANOVA against violations of the normal distribution assumption. Methodology 2010;6:147-51.
43.Hertel G, Niemeyer G, Clauss A. Social indispensability or social comparison:the why and when of motivation gains of inferior group members1.J Appl Soc Psych 2008;38:1329-63.
44.Kerr NL, Messe LA, Park ES, Sambolec EJ. Identifiability, performance feedback and the Kohler effect. GPIR:Group Proc Intergroup Rela2005;8:375-90.