You are the Weakest Link, Goodbye (to Physical Inactivity!): A Comment on Irwin et al.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".