TESTING THE REALITY OF EXERCISE PARTNERS AS A MODERATOR OF THE KÖHLER EFFECT By Samuel Thomas Forlenza A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Kinesiology – Doctor of Philosophy 2014 ABSTRACT TESTING THE REALITY OF EXERCISE PARTNERS AS A MODERATOR OF THE KÖHLER EFFECT By Samuel Thomas Forlenza Few people engage in recommended amounts of physical activity, and as such, it is important methods are sought out that could help people improve their motivation to sustain exercise. One potential way to do this is to leverage the power of group dynamics, specifically, the Köhler effect (Stroebe, Diehl, & Abakoumkin, 1996). When two people of moderately unequal abilities are partnered together on a conjunctive task, the weaker group member tends to perform better, and this performance gain is known as the Köhler effect (Kerr & Hertel, 2011). A growing body of research supports the idea that the Köhler effect can be combined with exergames to produce improvements in the length of time people hold plank exercises (e.g., Feltz, Kerr, & Irwin, 2011). However, the research thus far has only made use of pre-recorded confederates purported to be live human partners. While this approach has been successful, it may not be practical on a large scale. Therefore, the purpose of this dissertation is to explore whether or not the Köhler effect can be achieved with different types of partners. One approach is to use a computer-generated partner. Some research shows that people will team up with computers, suggesting that there is the potential for these types of interactions to improve motivation and performance (Nass, Fogg, & Moon, 1996). Another potential partner is an imagined partner. Research has shown that using associative imagery (imagery focused on the task) and dissociative imagery (imagery focused on something unrelated to the task) helps extend performance on muscular endurance tasks, suggesting that combining imagery and the Köhler effect could be an effective match (Razon et al., 2010). To test this, participants (220 undergraduate students) were randomly assigned to one of six experimental conditions (virtually-real partner, altered virtually-real partner, software- generated partner, imagined partner, associative imagery, dissociative imagery) or to a no- partner, no-imagery control condition. Participants performed two blocks of plank exercises, holding each exercise for as long as possible. The first block was a baseline measure, performed individually and without imagery. For the experimental conditions, the second block was performed either with a partner or with the use of imagery. Measures of exercise duration, perceived exertion, self-efficacy beliefs, enjoyment, intention to exercise the following day, and impressions of one’s partner and group were collected. Results from the main analysis indicated that participants in the experimental groups generally held plank exercises for longer during the second block compared to the control participants, supporting the idea that computer-generated partners, imagined partners, and imagery can be used to increase the time people hold plank exercises. Ancillary analyses indicated that participants in the partner conditions perceived themselves as working harder during the second block, while participants in the imagery and control conditions did not. There were no differences in self-efficacy beliefs, enjoyment, and intention to exercise the following day. These findings are consistent with past research (Feltz et al., 2011) and suggest that incorporating computer-generated partners into exergames may boost how long people play these games. The use of imagined partners and imagery may also be effective methods to improve performance during traditional exercise. As a muscular endurance task was used, future researchers could use a similar paradigm to test these results with aerobic exercise, which would have a greater potential to positively influence health. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………….. vii LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………… viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………….. 1 Purpose and Hypotheses…………………………………………………………. 6 Primary Research Question and Hypotheses…………………………….. 7 Secondary Research Question and Hypotheses………………………….. 9 Delimitations……………………………………………………………………... 10 Definitions………………………………………………………………………... 11 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………………… 13 The Problem of Physical Inactivity………………………………………………. 13 The Benefits of Exercise………………………………………………….. 14 Meeting Physical Activity Recommendations……………………………. 16 Video Games: Problem and Solution?……………………………………………. 18 Effects of Video Game Play………………………………………………. 20 Video Games as Solutions………………………………………………… 22 Exergames………………………………………………………………………… 23 Alternative to Exercise…………………………………………………….. 24 Benefits of Playing Exergames……………………………………………. 27 Improving Motivation…………………………………………………….. 32 Group Dynamics and the Köhler Effect………………………………………….. 35 Motivation Losses………………………………………………………… 38 Motivation Gains…………………………………………………………. 39 Human-computer Interactions……………………………………………………. 53 Media Equation…………………………………………………………… 53 Uncanny Valley…………………………………………………………… 56 Cognitive Strategies During Exercise…………………………………………….. 59 Imagery…………………………………………………………………… 60 Imagined Partners………………………………………………………… 62 Summary………………………………………………………………………….. 63 CHAPTER 3 METHOD…………………………………………………………………………………. 65 Design and Participants…………………………………………….……………… 65 Experimental Task……………………………………………….………………... 66 Measures………………………………………………………….……………….. 67 Persistence…………………………………………………………………. 67 Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)………………………………………. 67 iv Self-efficacy Beliefs (SE)…………………………………………………. 68 Enjoyment and Intention to Exercise……………………………………… 68 Uncanny Valley……………………………………………………………. 69 Attitudes Towards Partner…………….…………………………………… 70 Manipulation Checks……………………………………………………… 70 Demographics……………………………………………………………... 71 Procedures…………………………………………………………….…………… 71 Manipulations……………………………………………………………… 72 Analyses……………………………………………………………………….…... 77 Persistence…………………………………………………………………. 77 Secondary Analyses………………………………..……………………… 77 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………………. 79 Preliminary Analyses……………………………………………………………… 79 Missing Data……………………………………………………………… 79 Outliers…………………………………………………………………….. 79 Normality………………………………………………………………….. 80 Manipulation Check – Partner Conditions………………………………... 80 Manipulation Check – Imagery Conditions………………………………. 81 History Effects……………………………………………………………. 86 Main Analysis……………………………………………………………………... 87 Secondary Analyses……………………………………………………………….. 92 Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)………………………………………. 92 Self-efficacy Beliefs (SE)…………………………………………………. 93 Enjoyment and Intention to Exercise……………………………………… 93 Uncanny Valley…………………………………………………………… 94 Attitudes Towards Partner………………………………………………… 98 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………….. 100 Manipulation Checks……………………………………………………………… 100 Main Analysis……………………………………………………………………… 102 Secondary Analyses……………………………………………………………….. 107 Strengths…………………………………………………………………………... 111 Limitations and Future Research Directions………………………………………. 112 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………. 116 APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………. 117 APPENDIX A: IRB APPROVAL LETTER……………………………………… 118 APPENDIX B: THE BORG SCALE OF PERCEIVED EXERTION………..…... 119 APPENDIX C: SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS…………………………………...... 120 APPENDIX D: PHYSICAL ACTIVITY ENJOYMENT SCALE (PACES) AND INTENTION TO EXERCISE…..................................................................... 121 APPENDIX E: GODSPEED INDICES…………………………………………... 122 APPENDIX F: ALTERNATIVE GODSPEED INDICES………………..………. 124 v APPENDIX G: TEAM PERCEPTION INDEX……………….………………….. 125 APPENDIX H: GROUP IDENTIFICATION…………………………………...... 126 APPENDIX I: PARTNER MANIPULATION CHECK……………………..…… 127 APPENDIX J: IMAGERY MANIPULATION CHECK……………...………….. 128 APPENDIX K: INDIVIDUAL CONTROL MANIPULATION CHECK…..……. 130 APPENDIX L: DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS………………...……………….. 131 APPENDIX M: MANIPULATION SCRIPTS………………………...………….. 132 APPENDIX N: SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSES………………….……………... 139 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………. 144 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations of the Imagery Manipulation Check by Condition……………….......................................................................................... 83 Table 2: Correlations Between Difference Scores and Imagery Manipulation Check by Condition …………………………………………………………………………. 84 Table 3: Overall Means and Standard Deviations for All Dependent Variables………..… 89 Table 4: Means and Standard Deviations for All Dependent Variables by Condition........ 91 Table 5: Correlations Between All Dependent Variables…………………………….…… 92 Table 6: Means and Standard Deviations for the Partner Conditions for Emotional Responses to their Partners and Attitudes Toward their Partners…………..……... 96 Table 7: Correlations Between Difference Scores and Emotional Responses to their Partners and Attitudes Toward their Partners by Partner Condition…………….... 97 Table 8: Correlations Between Subscales of the Godspeed Indices…………………...….. 97 Table 9: Correlations Between Subscales of the Alternative Godspeed Indices…………. 98 Table 10: Summary of the Main Analysis, Alternative Follow-up Tests, and Alternative Analyses………………………………………………………………. 142 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure I: A simplified version of Mori’s Uncanny Valley (1970/2005)………………….. 57 Figure II: Pictures