Content uploaded by Thomas G Plante
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thomas G Plante
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Social Sciences 6 (1): 50-54, 2010
ISSN 1549-3652
© 2010 Science Publications
Corresponding Author: Thomas G. Plante, Department of Psychology, Alumni Science Hall, Room 203,
Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053-0333
50
Effects of Perceived Fitness Level of Exercise Partner on
Intensity of Exertion
Thomas G. Plante, Meghan Madden, Sonia Mann, Grace Lee,
Allison Hardesty, Nick Gable, Allison Terry and Greg Kaplow
Department of Psychology, Alumni Science Hall, Room 203,
Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053-0333
Abstract: Problem statement: Social comparison theory was used to examine if exercising with a
research confederate posing as either high fit or low fit would increase the exertion in exercising.
Approach: 91 college students were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: Biking alone,
biking with a high fit confederate, or biking with a low fit confederate. All participants were instructed
to complete 20 min of exercise at 60-70% of their maximum target heart rate. Results: Results
indicated that participants in the high fit condition exercised harder than those in the low fit condition.
However, no mood differences emerged between conditions. Conclusion: Social comparison theory
predicts exercise outcome such that participants gravitate towards the behavior (high fit or low fit) of
those around them.
Key words: Exercise, social comparison, perceived fitness, mood, exertion
INTRODUCTION
Research has demonstrated many physical and
psychological benefits of exercise including reduced
risks of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes,
cancer and obesity (Center for Disease Control and
Prevention, 2006; Blair et al., 1989; Brukner and
Brown, 2005; Byers et al., 2002; Pate et al., 1995;
Bryan et al., 2007; Morgan, 1985) as well as
psychological disturbances such as depression, anxiety
and stress disorders (Plante and Rodin, 1990; Plante,
1999; Kennedy and Newton, 1997). Researchers
generally agree that exercise provides many benefits for
both physical and mental health (Center for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2006; Blair et al., 1989;
Brukner and Brown, 2005; Byers et al., 2002; Pate et al.,
1995; Bryan et al., 2007; Morgan, 1985; Plante and
Rodin, 1990; Plante, 1999; Kennedy and Newton,
1997). Although research on the many benefits of
exercise is abundant, there is surprisingly little research
on the psychological and behavioral effects of
exercising with others. The limited available research
examining social exercise has demonstrated health and
mood advantages and disadvantages of exercising with
a partner (Plante et al., 2001; 2003).
Social comparison theory may offer a helpful
framework for understanding the effects of exercising
with others. The theory states that “humans have a drive
to assess how they are doing and in order to assess
how they are doing, they seek standards against which
to compare themselves. When objective standards are
not available, people look to their social environments
and engage in comparison with available others”
(Corning et al., 2006). Social comparison theory has
been applied to various research areas that may explain
why people are motivated to engage in health-
promoting or health damaging behaviors (Festinger,
1954).
For example, in an investigation on how social
influences encourage healthy behaviors such as
exercise, perceived behaviors of peers influenced the
behavior of others such that individuals were likely to
mimic the behavior of those around them (Festinger,
1954; Luszczyska et al., 2004). Individuals feel the
need to engage in socially acceptable behaviors, such as
exercising, when observing others doing the same
(Luszczyska et al., 2004).
Additional research demonstrates that mood and
energy levels are altered when exercising in the
presence of others or in front of a mirror. For example,
women who exercised with a partner or in front of a
mirror experienced an increased level of exhaustion and
decreases in feelings of revitalization while exercising
compared to women who exercised either alone or
without mirrors (Ginis et al., 2006). Although some
people may feel self-conscious exercising in the
J. Social Sci., 6 (1): 50-54, 2010
51
presence of others, research demonstrates that
individuals often engage in exercise for social
interaction. The likelihood of joining and staying
motivated during exercise increases when friends or
peers engage in those same activities (Faulkner et al.,
2008; Laverie, 1998).
In the present study, social comparison theory was
used to determine if exercising with someone perceived
to be either high or low in fitness would alter the
exercise experience and behavior of research
participants. In particular, we examined mood and the
level of exertion in subjects when exercising with
someone who the participant believed to possess either
a high or low level of fitness. We hypothesized that the
level of effort exerted by participants would match the
perceived fitness of their partner such that research
participants would mimic the exercise behavior of those
around them during exercise.
Exercise in this study was defined as biking either
alone or with a partner in one of three experimental
conditions. In two experimental conditions, the
participant exercised with a research confederate as
their partner. One of these conditions used a “high fit”
confederate, while the other condition used a “low fit”
confederate. In a third and control condition, the
participant exercised on a stationary bicycle alone. All
of the participants in the experiment completed the
same intensity and length of time of physical activity
required to meet the daily recommended criteria
suggested by the Center for Disease Control and
Prevention (2009).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants: The sample consisted of 91
undergraduate students at a West coast private
Catholic university (43 females, 48 males, M = 18.84
years, SD = 1.07). All subjects were enrolled in a
general psychology course and received research
participation credit. The project received approval from
the human subjects committee at the university where it
was conducted.
Measures:
Activation-Deactivation Adjective Check List (AD-
ACL) (Thayer, 1978; Thayer, 1986): The AD-ACL
is a brief, frequently used self-report checklist
designed to measure momentary mood states
associated with exercise with reported adequate
reliability and validity used in a number of
investigations involving exercise.
Perceived Exertion Scale (Borg scale, PES) (Borg,
1982): The PES was used to evaluate the participants’
perceived level of exertion where 6 = very light
exertion and 20 = very hard exertion. The PES is often
used in exercise research and has adequate reliability
and validity.
Paces Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES)
(Kendzierski and DeCarlo, 1991): The PACES scale
includes18 bipolar items on which individuals rate
themselves on a 7 point Likert scale. The scale
measures the amount of enjoyment individuals perceive
themselves to have experienced during an exercise
activity. Sample scale items include “I find it
energizing/I find it tiring “and” I enjoy it/I hate it.” The
authors report that PACES has excellent internal
consistency, stability and validity.
Several researchers developed Likert scales: Several
10 point Likert scales developed by the authors
measuring each participant’s current level of perceived
stress, how participants felt while exercising next to
someone who was either posing as high fit or low fit.
The value of 1 indicated high stress, low enjoyment,
low level of comfort and feeling low fit while the value
of 10 indicated very relaxed, very enjoyable, very
comfortable and feeling very fit.
Procedure: Participants enrolled in the study to
complete a requirement for a general psychology
undergraduate class. On the day prior to their scheduled
laboratory session, participants received an email to
remind them of the experiment and confirmed their
appointment. The participants were told to wear
comfortable and exercise appropriate clothing.
Prior to beginning of the experiment, participants
reviewed and signed consent forms agreeing to
participate. Then, they were administered the pre-
exercise questionnaires and their height and weight was
recorded. The lab assistant then placed heart rate
monitors on the participants’ upper torsos and gave
them a wristwatch that displayed their heart rates.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of three
experimental conditions. The length and intensity of
exercise were the same and included biking for 20 min
on a stationary bike. Participants were instructed to
keep their heart rates at a moderate level of 60-70%
maximum heart rate (i.e., about 130 bpm for college
students). The conditions included: biking alone in a
control condition, biking with a same gender “high-fit”
confederate and biking with a same gender “low-fit”
confederate.
J. Social Sci., 6 (1): 50-54, 2010
52
For the purposes of this experiment we
operationally defined “high fit” as someone who wore
athletic clothing, exercised intensely and stated to the
experimenter in the presence of the research subject, “I
am so glad you had a fitness study, I love exercising”
while mounting the bike. A “low-fit” confederate wore
non-athletic gear (e.g., jeans, slippers), barely exerted
themselves and stated to the experimenter in the
presence of the research subject, “I don’t know why I
signed up for this experiment, I hate exercising” while
mounting the bike.
In all conditions, confederates entered the room
after the participant had arrived and asked if they were
in the right place for the fitness study. This was done to
minimize suspicions that confederates were research
assistants.
After exercising, the participant and the
confederate were asked to rate their perceived level of
exertion according to the PES/Borg Scale (Borg, 1982).
After completing the experiment, the experimenter
debriefed the participants and informed them about the
purpose of the study. The confederates’ identity was
revealed (i.e., that they were part of the experiment) and
participants were asked not to discuss the experiment
with others to avoid future possible participants from
learning about the purpose of the study. The
participants were thanked for their time and provided
with course credit.
RESULTS
A 2×3 Analysis Of Variance (ANOVA) was used
to analyze the data. The only exception was for the
measure of mood post-exercise scores where a 2×3
Analysis Of Covariance (ANCOVA) was used with pre
laboratory exercise mood scores used as covariates.
The manipulation check was successful in that
participants who exercised with high fit confederates
perceived them as high fit while participants who
exercised with low fit confederates perceived them as
low fit. Participants ranked confederates on a 10-point
scale where 10 was defined as being high fit and 1
was defined as being low fit. The average rating for
high fit confederate was 7.8 (SD = 1.2) while the
average rating of low fit confederates were 5.2
(SD = 1.3; F(2, 63) = 24.04, p<0.001).
Pulse rate and exertion results indicated that
participants in the high fit group had higher pulse rates
and worked harder than participants in the low fit and
control groups (F(2, 90) = 9.05, p<0.001). For example,
females who exercised with high fit confederates had an
average pulse rate of 133 beats min
−1
(bpm) (SD = 24.35)
while females who exercised with low fit confederates
had an average pulse rate of 119 bpm (SD = 13.54).
Males who exercised with a high fit confederate had an
average pulse rate of 124 bpm (SD = 18.39) while
males who exercised with a low fit confederate had an
average pulse rate of 99 bmp (SD = 8.46). Additionally,
females in experimental groups worked harder and had
higher pulse rates than males, yielding a significant
gender interaction (F(1, 90) = 20.38, p<0.001).
Participants in experimental groups felt they
exerted themselves more than participants in control
groups (F(2, 91) = 3.42, p<0.05) and females ranked
their exertion levels higher than males (F (1, 91) = 4.38,
p<0.05).
A non significant trend demonstrated that
participants in the high fit conditions were the least
calm while those in the control group were the most
calm (F(2, 91) = 2.87, p = 0.063). Females in the high
fitness condition were the most uncomfortable and the
least calm (F(2, 91) = 3.90, p<0.05).
Interestingly, participants in the control group
enjoyed the exercise activity the most (F(2, 93) =
p<0.05) and reported being the most relaxed (F(2, 93) =
p<0.05).
Surprisingly, there were no significant main effects
or interactions for the measures of mood, tiredness,
tension and energy with all p’s>0.05.
DISCUSSION
Social comparison theory has been applied to a
variety of research areas such as perceived physical
appearance, wealth, success and failure (Buunk and
Gibbons, 1997). The goal of this study was to examine
how social comparisons might impact an individual’s
level of exertion and mood during an exercise routine
with a perceived high fit or low fit exercise partner. The
results were consistent with social comparison theory
predictions when applied to exercise outcome such that
participants gravitate towards the exercise behaviors of
those around them. Even when all participants,
regardless of experimental conditions, were instructed
to exercise at a moderate level and keep their pulse
rates within a particular range, they mimic the exercise
behavior of their exercise partner. Additionally,
individuals who exercised alone reported feeling calmer
and more relaxed in comparison to individuals who
exercised with a partner.
Implications of this research might suggest that
individuals attempting to exercise more intensely could
benefit by exercising next to someone they perceive to
be high fit. However, high fit individuals would likely
not receive those same benefits when working next to
someone lower in fitness. A less fit individual might
J. Social Sci., 6 (1): 50-54, 2010
53
influence a higher fit individual to exert themselves
less. Thus, a high fit individual might benefit more
from either exercising alone or exercising with another
high fit individual. Exercising with someone more fit
than oneself could promote a higher intensity workout
(Daley and Huffen, 2005). However, exercising alone
may prove to be more beneficial than exercising with
either a high or low fit individual when trying to secure
a relaxing exercise experience.
Results from the current study must be considered
cautiously. The sample consisted of a generally
homogeneous population of generally high fit and
healthy undergraduate students at a private university.
Furthermore, the sample size was small (n = 91) and the
findings may have occurred due to unknown factors.
The lab setting of this experiment may not generalize to
the real world such as a fitness club or exercise gym
experience. Health clubs often have a variety of fitness
levels represented, have music, mirrors and other types
of cues that differ from a university laboratory setting.
Curiously, no group differences were found while
measuring mood. One might expect that mood would
be impacted by the experience but results showed that it
was not in this study. Finally, in examining our
manipulation check regarding the difference in
perceived fitness level of the confederate subjects, the
findings were modest suggesting that perhaps
participants experienced the high fit participant as high
fit but the low fit participant as being moderately fit.
CONCLUSION
Future research should further investigate the
effects of social comparison theory on exercise
behaviors. It would be useful to use a heterogeneous
sample with individuals ranging in fitness levels. It
would also be useful to repeat this study in a more real
world setting, such as an exercise gym or health club.
REFERENCES
Blair,
S.N., H.W. Kohl, R.S.
Paffenbarger, D.G. Clarkand
and K.H. Cooper et al., 1989. Physical fitness and
all-cause mortality. A prospective study of healthy
men and women.
J. Am. Med. Assoc., 262: 2394-2401
.
DOI:10.1001/JAMA.262.17.2395
Borg, G.V., 1982. Perceived exertion scale. Med. Sci.
Sports Exerc., 14: 377-381. PMID: 7154893
Brukner, P.D. and W.J. Brown, 2005. Is exercise good
for you? Med. J. Aust., 183: 538-541. PMID:
16296971
Bryan, A., K.E. Hutchison, D.R. Seals and D.L. Allen,
2007. A transdisciplinary model integrating
genetic, physiological and psychological correlates
of voluntary exercise. Health Psychol., 26: 30-39.
DOI: 10.1037/0278-6133.26.1.30
Buunk, B.P. and F.X. Gibbons, 1997. Health, Coping
and Well-Being: Perspectives from Social
Comparison Theory. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, New Jersey. ISBN: 0805818588.
Byers, T., M. Nestle, A. Mctiernan, C. Doyke and
A. Currrie-Williams et al., 2002. American cancer
society guidelines on nutrition and physical activity
for cancer prevention: Reducing the risk of cancer
with healthy food choices and physical activity.
CA: Cancer J. Clin., 52: 92-119. DOI:
10.3322/CANJCLIN.52.2.92
Center for Disease Control and Prevention 2006.
Physical Activity for Everyone: Recommendations:
How active do adults need to be to gain some
benefit?
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpaphysical/recom
mendations/adults.htm
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009.
Physical activity for everyone: Recommendations:
How active do adults need to be to gain some
benefit?
http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpaphysical/recom
mendations/adults.htm
Corning, A.F., A.J. Krumm, J. Angela and L.A. Smitham
,
2006. Differential social comparison processes in
women with and without eating disorder
symptoms. J. Couns.
Psychol., 53: 338-349
.
DOI:10.1037/0022-0167.53.3.338
Daley, A.J. and C. Huffen, 2005. The effects of low and
moderate intensity exercise on subjective
experiences in a naturalistic health and fitness club
setting. J. Health Psychol., 8: 685-691. DOI:
10.1177/13591053030086003
Faulkner, J., G. Parfitt and R. Eston, 2008. The rating
of perceived exertion during competitive running
scales with time. Psychophysiology, 45: 977-985.
DOI: 10.1111/J.1469-8986.2008.00712.X
Festinger, L., 1954. A theory of social comparison
processes. Hum. Relat., 7: 117-140. DOI:
10.1177/001872675400700202
Ginis, K.A., S.M. Burke and L. Gauvin, 2006.
Exercising with others exacerbates the negative
effects of mirrored environments on sedentary
women’s feeling
states. Psychol. Health, 22: 945-962.
DOI
:
10.1080/14768320601070571
Kendzierski, D. and K.J. DeCarlo, 1991. Physical
activity enjoyment scale: Two validation studies. J.
Sport Exerc. Psychol., 13: 60-64.
J. Social Sci., 6 (1): 50-54, 2010
54
Kennedy, M.N. and M. Newton, 1997. Effect of
exercise intensity on mood in step aerobics. J.
Sports Med. Phys., 37: 200-204. PMID: 9407751
Laverie, D.A., 1998. Motivations for ongoing
participation in a fitness activity. Leisure Sci.,
20: 277-302. DOI: 10.1080/01490409809512287
Luszczyska, A., F.X. Gibbons, B.F. Piko and M. Tekozel,
2004. Social comparison and perceived peers
behaviors as predictors of nutrition and physical
activity: A comparison among adolescents in
Hungary, Turkey, Poland and USA. Psychol.
Health, 19: DOI: 10.1080/0887044042000205844
Morgan, W.P., 1985. Psychogenic factors and exercise
metabolism: A review. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.,
17: 309-316. PMID: 3894867
Pate, R.R., M. Pratt, S.N. Blair, W.L. Haskell and
C.A. Macera et al. 1995. Physical activity and
public health. A recommendation from the centers
for disease control and prevention and the
American college of sports medicine. J. Am. Med.
Assoc., 273: 402-407. DOI:
10.1001/JAMA.273.5.402
Plante, T.G. and J. Rodin, 1990. Physical fitness and
enhanced psychological health. Curr. Psychol. Res.
Rev., 9: 3-24. DOI: 10.1007/BF02686764
Plante, T.G., 1999. Could the perception of fitness
account for many of the mental and physical
health benefits of exercise. Adv. Mind-Body
Med., 15: 291-301. PMID: 10555401
Plante, T.G., L. Coscarelli and M. Ford, 2001. Does
exercising with another enhance the stress-reducing
benefits
of exercise? Int. J. Stress Manage., 8: 201-213
.
DOI: 10.1023/A:1011339025532
Plante, T.G., R. Bogdan, Z. Kanani, M. Babula and
E. Ferlic et al., 2003. Psychological benefits of
exercising with another. J. Hum. Move. Stud.
44: 93-106. DOI: 10.1037/1072-5245.14.1.88
Thayer, R.E., 1978. Factor analytic and reliability
studies on the activation deactivation adjective
check list. Psychol. Rep., 42: 747-756. PMID:
674499
Thayer, R.E., 1986. Activation-deactivation adjective
check list: Current overview and structural
analysis. Psychol. Rep., 58: 607-614.