You are the Weakest Link, Goodbye (to Physical Inactivity!): A Comment on Irwin et al.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Over the past two decades there has been a steady growth ofresearch examining the capacity of groups as a means offacilitating improved physical activity behaviors amongindividuals. These studies have involved a diverse range ofpopulations including young children, older adults, pre- andpost natal women, ethnic minorities, to name but a few [1].The basis for this research stems from the pioneering workof those such as Lewin [2], Cartwright and Zander [3], and,more recently, scholars such as Carron and Spink [4]—whoall suggested that an individual is invariably changed whens/he joins a group.The study by Irwin and colleagues [5] provides an inter-esting and unique example of how group dynamics princi-ples can be harnessed to influence individual behavior, inthis case in relation to improved motivation during aerobicexercise. The use of a conjunctive task facilitated by theimplementation of a group goal (i.e., team score) is anelegant approach to understanding individual motivation ina co-active exercise setting. These laboratory-based findingsalign with the outcomes of a number of other studies thathave used group-dynamics-based approaches in applied set-tings [1] and provide fodder for a number of potential futurestudies to expand upon and explain these findings.What is it about being in a partnership, where yourpartner is better than you, that makes you strive to becomebetter rather than makes you feel tired of trying to keep up?It is possible that commitment to the group goal and confi-dence in one’s teammate facilitates personal motivation. TheIrwin et al. study provides some support for the formerbeing possible. The performance of participants in the con-junctive condition improved throughout the course of thestudy and was at its highest during the last session. Supportfor the idea that performance could be improved throughconfidence in a teammate’s ability in achieving a group goalcan be found in Dunlop and colleagues’ [6] study where aparticipant’s confidence in her/his partner was related toimprovements in objective measures of physical activity.The question of the maintenance of this type of effect iscritical if it is intended to be utilized as part of a physicalactivity promotion intervention. The six (60-min) sessionsin the Irwin et al. study took place over a 4-week period. Itwould be interesting to examine the effects of conjunctivetasks, and in particular the Kohler effect, within smallgroups (dyads) over a much longer period of time. Interest-ingly, in previous research in this area, Lount and colleagues[7] found that the Kohler effect was more robust when theparticipant worked with different partners when comparedto those who worked with the same partner across multiplesessions. It would be interesting to see what might happen ifa participant could continually be matched with partnerswith increased levels of ability. In that way the potentialdemotivation of always being the weakest link in a giventeam (or dyad) could be avoided by providing the partici-pant with perceptions of performance success (e.g., becom-ing better than previous team members).We were also struck by the potential of moving this typeof strategy into an applied context where both the superiorand inferior individuals were participants in the study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».