RACIAL DIVERSITY IN GROUP EXERCISE SETTINGS: AN EXTENSION OF THE KÖHLER EFFECT By Omotayo M Moss A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Kinesiology - Doctor of Philosophy 2018 PUBLIC ABSTRACT RACIAL DIVERSITY IN GROUP EXERCISE SETTINGS: AN EXTENSION OF THE KÖHLER EFFECT By Omotayo M Moss This work examined the motivational benefits of exercising and/or working with a racially dissimilar partner who is virtually presented and moderately superior to the participant. The motivation effect relates to the team performance outcome, which is dependent upon the least capable (weaker ability) member’s performance. This team dynamic, known as the Köhler motivation gain effect, results in increased performance, due to feelings of being indispensable to the group and making upward social comparisons to one’s moderately better partner. Experiment 1 examined whether or not partner race characteristics moderate the Köhler effect with all white male participants in an exercise video game based on isometric abdominal exercises. Participants completed the first block of five isometric abdominal exercises alone and the second block either with a same-race (Control), with a black partner (BP), or with an Asian partner (AP). Partners were actually confederates recorded earlier and presented as live, from another lab. Experiment 1 demonstrated that the Köhler motivation effect attenuated persistence with abdominal isometric exercises in adult white males when exercising with a black partner. Experiment 2 extended the investigation from Experiment 1 to see if the results can be replicated in a cognitive task using the same experimental conditions, and included an individual control. Participants, again, were white males. The cognitive task was a the vigilance task. In this task, participants’ job, as a member of the travel agency “MilesAway,” was to complete hotel package offers by computer according to incoming customer requests. In Block 1, participants completed a 10-minute work session alone. In Block 2, participants completed a second 10- minute work session with either a black partner (BP), white partner (WP), Asian partner (AP), or individually again. Experiment 2 demonstrated no significant differences in motivation between the partnered conditions and individual control. This non-significant result was unexpected, given the robust Köhler motivation gains observed in previous studies using physical persistence tasks and cognitive tasks. Experiment 3 was concerned with facilitating group cooperation between individuals from racially diverse backgrounds. Using the same isometric abdominal exercises as in Experiment 1, participants were randomly assigned into one of the four experimental conditions: black conjunctive partner (BP); black partner with added social identity (BPI), white conjunctive partner, and an Individual Control group (IC). Before Block 2, group identification for participants in the BPI condition were enhanced by creating a categorization-based strategy for reducing outgroup bias. The recategorization strategy included in Experiment 3 created an intergroup structure that fostered an enhanced team identity between group members to create a more inclusive, superordinate representation of the group. Experiment 3 demonstrated that participants in the BPI condition performed significantly better compared to participants in the other two conditions (BP, IC).. These experiments support this specific motivation effect in student, university-based samples at Michigan State University. A discussion of the findings and limitations is included, as well as avenues of future research for partnered exercise. ABSTRACT RACIAL DIVERSITY IN GROUP EXERCISE SETTINGS: AN EXTENSION OF THE KÖHLER EFFECT By Omotayo M Moss This work examined the motivational benefits of exercising and/or working with a racially dissimilar partner who is virtually presented and moderately superior to the participant. The motivation effect relates to the team performance outcome, which is dependent upon the least capable (weaker ability) member’s performance. This team dynamic, known as the Köhler motivation gain effect, results in increased performance, due to feelings of being indispensable to the group and making upward social comparisons to one’s moderately better partner. Experiment 1 examined whether or not partner race characteristics moderate the Köhler effect with all white male participants. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three virtually-presented exercise partners under conjunctive-task conditions (i.e., where the group’s performance depends on the weaker member): white partner (WP; control); black partner (BP); or Asian partner (AP). Mean persistence was lower for participants in the BP condition (M = - 3.97; SD = 11.1) than for those in the WP condition (M = 2.79; SD = 10.8). The findings suggest that, social comparison with a BP decreased persistence with abdominal isometric exercises in Caucasian college students and attenuated the Köhler effect of motivation gain in team performance. = Experiment 2 extended the investigation from Experiment 1 to see if the results can be replicated in a cognitive task using the same experimental conditions, and included an individual control. Participants, again, were be white males. The cognitive task was a modified and reprogrammed version of the vigilance task that was used in Wittchen et al. (2007) study. In this task, participants’ job, as a member of the travel agency “MilesAway,” was to complete hotel package offers by computer according to incoming customer requests. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three partner conjunctive-task conditions (i.e., where the group’s performance depends on the weaker member): white partner (WP; control); black partner (BP); or Asian partner (AP). Experiment 2 also included an individual control condition. Results showed no significant differences in mean persistence between the control condition (MIC = 25.07, SD = 11.50 ) and partnered conditions. (MAP = 22.5, SD = 18.60; MWP = 22.50, SD = 17.40; MBP = 17.24, SD = 12.11). The absence of the usually robust overall Köhler effect suggests that participants may have not cared much about the group’s performance or evaluation, and may have stopped comparing themselves with their partner. Experiment 3 was concerned with facilitating group cooperation between individuals from racially diverse backgrounds. explored a solution that can facilitate cooperation between social ingroup and outgroup members. Participants were randomly assigned to individual control or one of the two virtually-presented exercise partners under conjunctive-task conditions: black partner (BP); or black partner with intervention (BPI). Participants performed the first series of exercises alone. After resting, participants in the experimental conditions performed the remaining trials with a same-sex partner. Mean persistence was lower for participants in the IC (M = -22.53, SD = 20.30) and BP condition (M = -6.86, SD =12.77) than for those in the BPI condition (M = 3.34, SD = 9.60). The findings suggest that, recategorization strategies that strengthen a common ingroup identity, can mitigate against motivation losses under conjunctive- task conditions when stereotype threat perceptions are in play. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................v LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................1 Review of Conceptual Theories ...........................................................................4 Recent Köhler Effect Research ............................................................................10 Overview of Current Research .............................................................................18 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................23 CHAPTER 2 A DOWNSIDE TO RACIAL DIVERSITY IN THE KÖHLER EFFECT ..........................................................................................................................................28 Preface..................................................................................................................28 Abstract ................................................................................................................28 Introduction ..........................................................................................................29 Diversity and Team Performance ........................................................................32 Method .................................................................................................................34 Results ..................................................................................................................41 Discussion ............................................................................................................43 Experiment 2 ........................................................................................................44 Method .................................................................................................................45 Results ..................................................................................................................53 Discussion ............................................................................................................56 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................59 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................60 APPENDIX A The Borg Scale of Perceived Exertion ...............................................61 APPENDIX B Self-Efficacy Beliefs ..........................................................................62 APPENDIX C Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) and Intention to Exercise ..........................................................................................................................................63 APPENDIX D Examples of the Partners in Experiment 1 .........................................64 APPENDIX E An Example of Participant View During Block 2 ..............................65 APPENDIX F An Example and Instruction of the Task ............................................66 APPENDIX G 1st Work Session ................................................................................67 APPENDIX H The 2nd Work Session With a Partner ................................................68 APPENDIX I Cognitive Interference Questionnaire ..................................................69 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................70 CHAPTER 3 THE KÖHLER EFFECT: REDUCING OUTGROUP BIASES IN A GROUP EXERCISE TASK .........................................................................................................75 Preface ................................................................................................................75 Abstract ..............................................................................................................75 Introduction ........................................................................................................76 iv Hypotheses .........................................................................................................80 Method ................................................................................................................81 Results ................................................................................................................86 Discussion ..........................................................................................................88 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................92 APPENDIX A Partner Manipulation Check...............................................................93 APPENDIX B List of Team Names ...........................................................................94 APPENDIX C Example of Participant With Red Shirt ..............................................95 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................96 CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY AND GENERAL DISCUSSION .....................................102 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................110 APPENDIX A Approval Documents..........................................................................111 APPENDIX B Experimental Scripts ..........................................................................114 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................117 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Sequence of Trial Blocks in the Experiment 1 Implicit Attitudes Test………….39 Table 2. Performance discrepancy manipulation schedule ..............................................…50 Table 3. Sequence of Trial Blocks in the Experiment 2 Implicit Attitudes Test ...………..53 Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for All Ancillary Dependent Variables by Condition (Exp. 2) ............................................................................................................................….55 Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations for All Ancillary Dependent Variables by Condition (Exp. 3) ............................................................................................................................….88 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Persistence: Block2 – Block 1 (Mean seconds & 95% CI) ..............................…….41 Figure 2. Number of Orders Completed Block2 – Block1 ..............................................…….54 Figure 3. Persistence: Block2 – Block 1 (Mean seconds & 95% CI) ..............................…….87 vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The motivational influence of groups has been an important topic in sport training and physical activity contexts. Working out with a partner or in a group may motivate individuals to work harder. However, there may be situations where individuals exert less effort when working in a group than when working individually, such as when one’s individual contributions are less identifiable. Understanding how motivation in groups (partners in particular) affects individual performance is important to helping sustain physical activity and to improve training and performance efforts in sport. In terms of physical activity, adults in the United States are currently not meeting the recommended physical activity standards. Researchers have estimated that only 20% of North American adults regularly exercise (CDC, 2014). Furthermore, Dishman (2001) speculated that roughly 50% of people who start an initial workout program abandon it and give up within the first 6 months. Physical inactivity appears to be a motivation problem, so findings ways to improve people’s motivation to exercise at the levels required to meet the CDC guidelines seems warranted. Employing group dynamics principles is one promising approach to enhancing physical activity motivation as well as performance efforts in sports training. Understanding the characteristics of group partners is an important aspect of group dynamics that can help or hinder these efforts in exercise or training. Research on motivation within groups (including dyads) in social psychology has typically focused on motivational losses (Baron & Kerr, 2003; Karau & Williams, 1993; Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). This phenomenon has been labeled social loafing, where being in a group hinders individual effort. More recently, the influence of motivational gains in groups have been studied. One motivation gain phenomenon is known as the Köhler motivational gain 1 effect (Kmge: Köhler, 1926). The Köhler motivation gain effect (Kmge) occurs when a person, working with a more capable partner under conjunctive-task demands in an effort-based task, works harder compared to working alone. A conjunctive task is defined as one in which a team’s performance is determined by the performance of its least capable member (i.e., the “weak link”). This motivational increase, or “motivation gain” phenomenon, as inferred through increases in performance effort, and is conceptualized to stem from upward social comparison (i.e., the tendency to be motivated to exceed the performance of one’s more capable partner) and indispensability (i.e., the contingency between one’s own performance and other valued outcomes, such as good group performance and positive social evaluations). Research (e.g., Kerr & Seok, 2011; Kerr, Seok, Poulsen, Harris, & Messe, 2008; Lount & Phillips, 2007: Samendinger, Beckles, Forlenza, Pfeiffer, & Feltz, 2015) has found that certain characteristics of the partner can moderate the Kmge (e.g., partner ability, age, gender, physical composition). Recently, Moss and colleagues (in press) incorporated the manipulations of team identity, in which both partnered groups were told to wear same-colored t-shirts and were assigned team names. The results found significant increases in persistence compared to control, and provided evidence that ingroup/outgroup differences within a dyadic group may impact performance. However, little research has been conducted on a partner’s racial characteristics as a potential moderator of the Köhler effect. In most Kmge research, young adults of the same age, gender, and race have been paired together. Additionally, Forlenza and colleagues (Forlenza, Kerr, Irwin, & Feltz, 2012) explained how being paired with an outgroup member results in a stronger Köhler effect. The results found that males tended to enhance their performance when partnered with an overweight partner, and the authors suggested that young, healthy males might have viewed heavier males as members of a disfavored out-group and expected to outperform 2 them. Research should examine how such racial diversity in dyads might moderate the Köhler motivation gain effect. This dissertation comprises three separate research experiments, which intend to extend prior research and explore race as a potential moderator of the Köhler effect, and to test an intervention using this group dynamics approach to increase physical activity. The first project, which has been completed, sought to extend prior research that used exergames to explore whether the potential moderator of racial diversity of partner affects individual performance. Using a physical strength task, white male participants performed worse when partnered with a black partner than when paired with a white partner. Results suggested a stereotype that blacks are superior athletically and keeping up with him would seem unachievable could explain the findings. Alternatively, just the social situation of participating with a black partner, itself, may have been stressful and led to lower persistence as a way to end the situation. One way to test this suggestion is to use a task that does not invoke the stereotype perception. If no stereotype is threat is present but the findings remain the same, that would suggest the uncomfortable situation explanation. The second project intends to extend the investigation of the first project, again using white males and the same experimental conditions, but with a cognitive-based task plus an individual control, to further examine racial differences in group performance within the Kmge paradigm. A cognitive task will be chosen that will not carry the same potential racial stereotype as the physical strength task. The third and final experiment created an intervention to allow individuals within a dyadic group to overlook racial differences to achieve a team objective. What follows is a review of the conceptual theories of motivation in groups relevant to the three projects presented in this dissertation, as well as an outline summary of previous research. 3 Finally, an overview of three experiments is provided before presenting each as separate chapters. Review of Conceptual Theories The review of conceptual theories describes group motivation concepts relevant to the three experiments in this dissertation. The focus of this section discusses factors thought to influence motivation in group settings. Motivation is the process that initiates, guides, and maintains goal-oriented behaviors. This definition of motivation includes three major components: activation, persistence, and intensity (Nevid, 2013). The conceptual theories addressed in this section include group motivation losses, group motivation gains, and stereotype threat. Group Motivation Gains and Losses Group dynamics, in terms of motivation, has been studied in social psychology, as well as in sport and exercise psychology, for over three decades. A psychosocial factor that has been shown to foster individual motivation to work harder is group work, whether in industry, education, or exercise (Weber & Hertel, 2007). Within exercise settings, group and interpersonal level physical activity interventions have been found to be very successful at increasing physical activity, compared to exercising alone (Burke et al., 2006). However, not all group work leads to higher effort and better performance. In some situations, group work leads to motivation losses (Karau & Williams, 1993). Whether individual motivation increases or decreases in group settings depends on a number of contextual factors (e.g., group size, individual identifiability, and dispensability of effort). Motivation losses. When a certain group member’s performance decreases from maximal effort when in a group setting, it is considered a motivation loss (Kerr & Bruun, 1983). 4 In the past couple of decades, there have been a number of research studies on group motivation losses (e.g., Kerr & Brunn, 1981; Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). Furthermore, several studies have examined and indicated that motivation losses are increased by group size for specific tasks (Ingham, Levinger, Graves, Peckham, 1974; Latané et al., 1979). This phenomenon has been identified as social loafing. Social loafing occurs when an individual exerts less effort while working collectively, compared to working individually on a particular task. Since 1974, approximately 80 studies have focused on social loafing and have studied individual coactive efforts, compared with individual collective efforts (Karau & Williams, 1993). Coactive efforts are when individuals work in the real or imagined presence of others but the outcomes depend only on one’s own personal efforts. In 1913, Max Ringelmann created the first experiment on social loafing, finding an inverse relationship between group productivity and group size on a rope-pulling task. Ringelmann arranged male participants in groups of various sizes, and asked them to pull on the rope, tug-of-war style, with all of their strength. The results indicated that as the group size expanded, group performance was lower than estimated (Kravitz & Martin, 1986). Steiner (1972) explained that a reduction in individual motivation, and coordination loss, were the two plausible explanations for the performance decline. Ingham et al. (1974) conducted a follow-up study to understand the differences between motivation and coordination losses. The researchers had their participants perform a rope-pulling task in actual groups and in “pseudogroups.” The blindfolded students in the pseudogroups were told that they were pulling with a different group member; however they were actually pulling alone (Ingham et al., 1974). The results of the pseudogroups revealed that performance decreased as perceived group sized increased (Ingham et al., 1974). 5 To understand motivation losses conceptually, and more specifically, social loafing, Latané, Williams, and Harkins (1979) replicated the past findings on social loafing while holding the audience size constant. In their first experiment, the experimenters asked college male participants to shout in both pseudo and actual groups. Additionally, the researchers blindfolded and put headphones on each subject to barricade any noise. The study resulted in participants experiencing coordination losses. The outcomes of this experiment demonstrated that a decrease in group performance was caused, in part, by a reduction of individual effort (Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). These findings directed the researchers to consider that coordination losses were not sufficient to explain the Ringleman effect (Latané et al., 1979). The researchers attributed the demotivating effects to social loafing, and they introduced a new phenomenon called social impact theory. Latané (1981) defined social impact as any stimuli that can have a social influence on an individual’s emotions, thoughts, or behavior. Furthermore, the likelihood of an individual to respond in a situation relies on the strength (i.e., reputation of the group influencing the target), immediacy (i.e., distance between the group and target), and number of sources and targets present (i.e., number of individuals in the group; Latané, 1981). Researchers concluded with evidence showing that social influence decreases in impact on a target as group size increases (Karau & Williams, 1993). Social impact theory is now very prominent in the field of social psychology, and it provides a sufficient framework for understanding how individuals react in social environments (Nowak, Szamrej, & Latané, 1990). However, other researchers (e.g., Williams et al., 1981; Kerr et al., 1981) argue that Latané’s theory of social impact does not provide an adequate explanation of how individuals react in social environments. Rather, Kerr et al.’s (1981) study explained that social loafing could result from the “hide-in-the-crowd” mechanism. This effect is a result of participants not giving as 6 much effort because they take advantage of the anonymity in larger groups. However, the researchers also found that the hide-in-the-crowd mechanism could also produce the opposite of social loafing: the social striving effect (Kerr et al., 1981). For example, working anonymously in large groups may generate an increase in motivation because there is less possibility of social embarrassment. Karau and Williams (1993) conducted a meta-analysis of 78 studies on social loafing and found a significant effect across several task domains and effort modalities. There was also a handful of elements that frequently affected motivation in group situations and contexts: evaluation potential, dispensability of effort, matching of effort, and self-attention (Karau & Williams, 1993). Their overall findings explained that social loafing is generalizable across gender, culture, and tasks. Additionally, researchers have found that individuals are more likely to partake in social loafing when collectively working with another person (Karau & Williams, 1993). However, more research on social loafing in real world settings, as opposed to social loafing within a controlled laboratory setting, is crucial for the future advancement and understanding of this phenomenon. In sport contexts, Williams et al. (1989) found a social loafing effect in swimming when team members were unidentifiable and therefore could not held accountable for their performance. In this study, performance increased in the relay condition compared to the individual condition when swimmers were identifiable. Moreover, Høigaard and colleagues (2006) studied the relation between group cohesion and social loafing in soccer teams. The results found that social loafing increased when soccer players were not attracted to their team’s task (e.g., accountability for working hard). The author found that the increase in motivation and performance was due to the positive effects of teamwork. 7 Motivation gains. Although many researchers have found support for social loafing, it is also possible to improve individual motivation in group settings. Group motivation gains occur when an individual has greater motivation as a result of working collectively with a group on a certain task. Additionally, Köhler (1926, 1927) found that people performed a demanding physical persistence task better when working together in dyads or triads than would be expected from their efforts as individuals (Hertel, et al., 2000). For the analysis of motivation gains, Hertel et al. (2000) found that the absolute difference (ADS) between the weaker and stronger group members is established through individual trials. The ADS score was the predictor variable in an analysis where the signed difference (CDS), the change between the performance of the dyad and the individual performance of the weaker person in the dyad, was the criterion variable (Hertel et al., 2000). Comparable to Köhler’s (1926, 1927) analysis, Hertel and colleagues (2000) treated each dyad as an independent data point, even though each individual was part of two different dyads. Moreover, the authors found that the CDS measure indicated a significant overall motivation gain. For example, Hertel and colleagues’ (2000) overall analysis suggested the following conclusions: there was a motivation gain in dyads for their task; this gain effect was moderated by the discrepancy in abilities between dyad members performing as individuals; and the function of the discrepancy and the observed linear effect of the motivation gain was not significant. Using Köhler’s initial analysis structure seems to produce motivation gains in most experimental replications, which is when weaker participants experience a motivation gain when working in a conjunctive persistence task. The next section examines one of the best-documented motivation gain phenomena: the Köhler motivation gain effect. 8 The Köhler Motivation Gain Effect (Kmge) The Kmge is a phenomenon that occurs when a less capable team member performs an effort-based task better in a team or coaction condition than one would expect from knowledge of his/her individual performance. The Kmge was named after Otto Köhler, a German industrial psychologist, who first observed the effect in the 1920s. The Kmge is strongest in conjunctive team conditions where the team’s potential productivity is equal to the productivity of its least capable member. That is, once that weaker member is exhausted and quits, it is impossible for the stronger member to continue. The Kmge has been established as a robust phenomenon in group contexts (g= 0.72: Kerr et al., 2007). The underlying mechanisms for the Kmge include upward social comparison (i.e, tendency for a participant to strive to match or exceed the performance of one’s more capable partner) and indispensability (i.e., to view one’s efforts as being highly instrumental to the team’s success and wanting to not let the team down). The Kmge also has been shown to be moderated by the discrepancy between teammates’ (dyads) abilities, with the largest effect occurring when the discrepancy was moderate because the participant would compare the partner’s level of performance as a goal that was challenging yet achievable (Kerr et al., 1981). More recently, Feltz and colleagues (2014) have applied the basic research on the Kmge to exercise motivation using exergames, which are computer video games requiring bodily movement to achieve the objectives of gameplay. The exergame research has employed human, but virtually presented partners, as well as software-generated partners (SGP) – those that are anthropomorphic but clearly artificial and non-human. The research exploring Kmge within exergames shows promise for boosting motivation to exercise by creating a greater sense of team interdependence and upward social comparison. 9 Early Köhler effect research. Köhler’s research involved the tradition of human engineering and focused on the approach of applied social psychology, which emphasized finding optimal working conditions (Witte, 1989). Köhler’s (1926) initial research examined the effects of group ability composition on group performance with male rowing club members (Hertel et al., 2000). Group composition is the process of how well members of a group collaborate to be successful. Moreover, Köhler asked them to perform a basic motor task as individuals or in dyads. For example, “in the individual condition, the rower held a bar connected to a 41-kg weight through a series of pulleys. In the dyad condition, the weight was doubled to 82 kg, and one member of the dyad gripped each side of the bar” (Hertel et al., 2000, p. 581). Köhler’s results found an overall motivation gain through the group tasks. Steiner (1972) explained the importance of Köhler’s initial lifting experiment because it is one of the few early studies to use a group conjunctive task to encourage motivation. Recent Köhler Effect Research Köhler’s findings went largely unnoticed until Witte (1989), a social psychologist from the University of Hamburg, rediscovered Köhler’s seminal papers. The more recent research focused on identifying variables that might moderate the effect (Weber & Hertel, 2007). Sex composition of the group. Lount and colleagues (2000) examined how male and female members of work teams performed on a physical persistence task. The results found that males tending to give extra effort when paired with a more capable female. The social comparison processes that caused performance motivation for the males could have been due to stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995), in which males subscribe to a stereotype that females are not as strong as males, and thus if a female outperforms them, it is a threat to their perception of masculinity. Moreover, the researchers found that the men worked twice as hard when 10 working with the opposite sex (Lount, Messe, & Kerr, 2000). According to Lount and colleagues (2008), the effect could be due to men’s increase in evaluation concerns in mixed-sex dyads. Moreover, Kerr and Sullaway (1983) examined performance prescriptions of traditional sex roles. The researchers tested previous results on how males would increase and females would decrease their motivation when working in a mixed-sex group. The results found that both males and females were more motivated in mix-sex dyads compared to the control condition of same- sex dyads. Ability discrepancy. Researchers have also analyzed discrepancies or differences in the ability of the Kmge experiment paradigm. Research has provided evidence that having a slightly more or extremely more capable partner produced a smaller Köhler motivation gain effect (Messe, Hertel, Kerr, Lount, & Park, 2002) than having a moderate superior partner. The previous research of Messé et al. (2002), demonstrated an inverted-U curvilinear relationship between motivation gain and perceived ability discrepancy. However, the discrepancies or differences in ability of the Kmge paradigm had not been replicated within the exergame paradigm. Stereotype Threat In most work settings, individuals are judged by other people (e.g., sales presentation), and the apprehension of being evaluated can cause anxiety. However, in certain work environments, anxiety can be heightened for employees who are members of a negatively stereotyped group, such as black Americans. This is especially the case if these stereotyped group members are suppose to do poorly in the particular task (e.g., academic related; Roberson & Kulik, 2007). Stereotype threat is an individual’s fear of conforming to a negative stereotype about their group, and the concern that their action may inadvertently confirm the negative 11 stereotype (Steele, 1997). For instance, for a black American, the awareness that people believe black Americans to be intellectually inferior may have a disruptive effect on their performance on an academic task (Roberson & Kulik, 2007). Moreover, a white American’s awareness of black individuals being perceived and stereotypes as being athletically gifted compared to other races may disrupt white individuals’ athletic performance as well. Thus, even for people who are part of a majority group in society, it is possible to succumb, even if temporarily, to a perceived negative stereotype about one’s social identity (Steele, 1997). According to Steele and his colleagues (e.g., Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995), when a negative stereotype about a group becomes salient as a criterion for performance evaluation, individual group members can become concerned about confirming the negative stereotype. The concern raised by the salience of the stereotype can subsequently cause individual group members to perform more poorly than they would in a neutral context. Furthermore, being a target of a negative stereotype can be distressing, and can cause defensive reactions (Allport, 1954). When negative stereotypes are made salient in a particular situation, members of the stigmatized group may adversely react due to being labeled and treated in terms of the negative characteristics of their group. This reaction could induce anger, aggression, militant action, but being negatively stereotyped may also lead to individuals to become anxious or withdrawn (Allport, 1954). These responses may not only affect the individual emotionally and in terms of individual performance, but could also affect the threatened individual’s contribution to a group’s performance. Not only could this be detrimental to overall group performance, but could lead to the threatened group member disengaging from the group. Research has found that there are multiple viewpoints of stereotype threat that may harm an individual’s execution on a certain task, and cause them to fail under threat. The first 12 perspective, the Distraction theory (Ashcraft & Kirk, 2001; Beilock & Carr, 2005; Beilock et al., 2004; Lewis & Linder, 1997) proposes that due to high-pressured situation, working memory may dissipate and cause someone to cognitively experience negative thoughts about the situation, and the outcome. A poor performance can be the result of this troubling ability to have optimal control of task execution. Second, according to the explicit monitoring theory (Baumeister, 1984; Beilock & Carr, 2001; Gray, 2004; Lewis & Linder, 1997), suggests that when individuals become highly cognizant about performing correctly in high-pressure circumstances, the increased attention to proceduralized task control may backfire and ultimately lead to disrupting automatic execution (Masters, 1992). To conclude, these two different viewpoints provide researchers with a conceptual understanding that stereotype threat may cause performers to pay more attention to step-to-step control and it fills working memory with worries and apprehension (Beilock et al., in press). Overview of Köhler Effect Research in Exercise Within exercise settings, group and interpersonal level physical activity interventions have been found to be very successful at increasing physical activity, compared to exercising alone (Burke et al., 2006). Furthermore, Burke et al. (2006) found that exercising outside of a structured class activity was the most preferred setting for exercising with others. However, structured group exercise programs can be problematic for those who have scheduling conflicts, lack financial resources to join a group, have critical rather than supportive others, or are very dissimilar in ability. Thus, recent research by Feltz and her colleagues (see Feltz & Samendinger, in press for review) has incorporated the group dynamics principles of the Kmge into exercise video games (exergames) that overcome some of the obstacles to structured group exercise in terms of flexibility, access, cost, and convenience. Review of this research applies the 13 conjunctive paradigm to exercise settings and is employed within the methodology for the three studies presented in this dissertation. Initial Kmge research on exergames. The initial studies on Kmage in exergames focused on applying the paradigm to partnered exercise to novel exergame contexts. The first study (Feltz, Kerr, & Irwin, 2011) adapted the Köhler paradigm to include a virtually-presented human exercise partner (a confederate) who interacted with the participant via an internet video connection. The exergame consisted of an abdominal plank regimen within a PlayStation 2 (PS2) gaming module, with EyeToy: Kinetic software that included an animated trainer to present exercise instructions prior to the initiation of each exercise. Participants were assigned to either an individual control condition or one of one of three partnered conditions in which they performed their exercises: (a) additive - scores were added together to represent the team performance, (b) coactive – scores were independent of each other, or conjunctive – scores depended on the partner who quit first. The study used a two-block design where every participant worked without a partner in Block 1. In Block 2, those in the partnered conditions (additive, coactive, and conjunctive conditions) each worked with a partner who was on a video screen and the participants were informed that the partner was completing the exercise in another laboratory. This was the typical paradigm used in all subsequent studies. Results showed that participants in each of the partnered conditions persisted longer than those in the individual control condition. Although the results of the initial study did not demonstrate superiority of the conjunctive condition over the additive and coactive conditions, they did suggest that the presence of a more capable partner encouraged the participant to upwardly compare and work to match the performance of the superior other. Subsequent research, however, using a more aerobic biking 14 exercise, has shown the persistence of conjunctive participants to be significantly longer than coactive or control participants, suggesting an additional Köhler motivational mechanism related to the indispensability of the weak link (Irwin, Scorniaenchi, Kerr, Eisenmann, & Feltz, 2012). Köhler effect moderators in exergames. Given the demonstration of the Kmge to exercise settings, a number of potential moderators of the effect have been tested to enhance it and/or avoid attenuating it in the exergame environment. These features included discrepancies in partner ability, perpetual inferiority, age and weight, extrinsic incentives, and intergroup competition. Feltz, Kerr, and Irwin (2011) initiated partner discrepancy research with exergames and assigned participants to a moderately superior partner. Feltz, Irwin, and Kerr (2012) expanded on these findings and conducted an experiment that focused on the different ability levels of a virtually present partner. The researchers specifically wanted to know the ideal level of ability discrepancy between a virtual partner and an exergame player, in order to increase plank persistence in a conjunctive task (Feltz, Irwin, & Kerr, 2012). The results of the study found that participants who worked with a moderately more capable partner under a conjunctive task increased plank persistence by 58% (Feltz, Kerr, & Irwin, 2012). The studies concluded that it is plausible that moderate partnership in exergames under a conjunctive task can be highly motivating in exergames. Perpetual inferiority. The Köhler motivation gain effect relies heavily on an upward social comparison and perceived indispensability; however, perpetual inferiority, or always being a group’s “weak link,” has been shown to lessen the Köhler phenomenon. In a recent study, Kerr, Forlenza, Irwin, and Feltz (2013) wanted to know the optimal ability discrepancy of the less-fit member, for producing the Köhler motivation gain. One hundred seven male and female 15 participants were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions (e.g., conditions varied in partner superiority and order of exercises; Kerr et al., 2013). The experiment resulted in participants exerting more effort when working out with a moderately more capable team member, compared to working out in isolation (Kerr et al., 2013). Furthermore, the longer a participant worked with a more capable partner, the smaller the motivation gain. The cause of the decrease could be attributed to a participant’s discouragement when partnered with a more capable partner over time (Kerr et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the Köhler effect occurs as long as certain conditions are sufficient for the particular task (e.g., moderately inferior to one’s teammate at a conjunctive group task; Kerr et al., 2013). Irwin, Scorniaenchi, Kerr, Eisenmann, and Feltz (2012) additionally provided support for the insignificance of perpetual partner superiority over time with an aerobic task (e.g., having a participant cycle with a superior virtually present partner for six separate days). In the conjunctive condition, the participants’ performance improved over the six trials. Age and weight. Forlenza and colleagues (2012) examined the effect of pairing participants with a more capable and older partner in comparison to a partner of a similar age. Additionally, the researchers wanted to inspect the perception of obesity, and they paired participants with either similar-weight (non-obese) or heavier-weight (obese) partners. The results showed dissimilarities between males and females. The differences of age and weight for female participants did not alter the Köhler effect. For males, however, variances in partners’ weight marginally moderated participants to exert more effort. Being partnered with a similar- weight partner resulted in males working 52.7 s longer on Block 2 (compared to Block 1, 21.1 percent gain); however when partnered with an obese individual, males continued 87.9 s longer (35.1 percent gain). The authors attributed this effect to males’ finding being outperformed by an 16 obese partner a more invidious comparison than being outperformed by a comparably-weighted partner. The Köhler effect did not change for differences in the partners’ age. Extrinsic incentives. Kerr, Feltz, and Irwin (2012) conducted an experiment to examine how extrinsic incentives for good performance would alter the Köhler effect. The experiment’s design was similar to past research (e.g., Feltz, Kerr, & Irwin, 2011), with two blocks of plank exercises. However, in this study, there were only two task conditions (individual control and conjunctive), with the presence or absence of an extrinsic reward as an added variable. For data on the two incentive-present conditions, experimenters acquired the data from Feltz et al.’s (2011) initial study and compared it with the new data collected where an extrinsic reward was not given. Participants in the conjunctive team’s condition exerted more effort and persisted longer than participants in individual control conditions (Kerr, Feltz, & Irwin, 2012). Furthermore, when no incentives were offered to the participants, the Köhler effect was stronger. This resulted in the conjunctive team members with no extrinsic incentive persisting longer (improvement of 43%) than individuals who were offered the incentive. The researchers in this experiment explained that extrinsic incentives could have undermined the Köhler effect for a couple reasons: extrinsic incentives might have provoked the participant to view their performance as a reflection of their partner’s desire for the reward instead of a reflection of their own ability, or participants’ feelings of obligation could have been undermined by extrinsic rewards if participants did not value the extrinsic reward. The results of this experiment assist in explaining how upward social comparison and an individual’s indispensability to the group are the most plausible and efficient ways to increase motivation and personal involvement on an exercise task. 17 Intergroup competition. Recent work by Moss and his colleagues (in press) examined how intergroup competition affected the group’s performance on a set of muscular endurance tasks involving abdominal muscles (front plank, side plank, one legged plank). Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: individual control (IC); conjunctive partner, no competition (PNC); or conjunctive partner, with competition (PWC). Participants performed the first series of exercises alone. After resting, those in the partnered conditions performed the remaining trials with a same-sex SGP. Those in the PWC condition were told that they and their virtual partner would be competing against another human-virtual partner team. Moss found that participants in the intergroup competition condition tended (d = 1.33) to perform better than those in the non-competition conditions. Altogether, intergroup competition with an SGP may be an enjoyable way to enhance motivation and performance while exercising, at least for college students in the United States. Moreover, competition between groups may lead to a better overall outcome for the group. Racial diversity. Similar to gender and ethnicity, another social category diversity that has been recently applied to the Köhler paradigm, and is part of this dissertation, incorporates racial and ethnic diversity as a potential moderator. This is discussed in the next chapter. Overview of Current Research The aim of my current research was to replicate a previous successful Köhler effect motivation gain paradigm to examine racial diverse partners as a potential moderator of this effect on exercise and cognitive persistence. Within this dissertation, the Köhler effect model was explored utilizing a comparative approach to understand if the effects of being partnered with a racially dissimilar partner could be found across different tasks. Evidence suggests upward social comparison and group indispensability enhance motivation gains in these group 18 settings, but future research should incorporate how the race of a partner may interfere with the conjunctive mechanisms. The primary concern that drives this dissertation relates to the potential loss of participant response to one’s superior partner within the conjunctive task paradigm manipulation, resulting in an attenuation of motivation to persist in exercise and cognitive settings. The following three experiments test (a) whether racial diversity of a superior partner affects one’s individual motivation in an exergame task, (b) whether racial diversity of a superior partner affects one’s individual motivation in a cognitive task, and (c) whether a team identity can be created to allow individuals within a dyadic group to overlook racial differences to achieve a team objective. Experiment 1: A Downside to Racial Diversity in the Köhler Effect (Moss, T., Mac Intosh, A., Feltz, D. L., & Kerr, N. L., in preparation), examined the motivational effects of racial diversity in a conjunctive group task. In particular, we explored the compelling question of whether stereotypic views about performance might influence one’s motivation on a taxing physical task. The answer to this question is important because the motivational influence of groups has been a significant topic in sport training and physical activity contexts. Working out with a partner or in a group may motivate individuals to work harder. However, there may be situations where individuals exert less effort when working in a group than when working individually, such as when one’s individual contributions are less identifiable or when one feels less identified with the group (either socially or in terms of ability). Understanding how motivation in groups (partners in particular) affects individual performance is important to helping sustain physical activity and to improve training and performance efforts in sport. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three virtually-presented exercise partners under conjunctive-task conditions (i.e., where the group’s performance depends on the weaker 19 member): white partner (WP; control); black partner (BP); or Asian partner (AP). Participants performed the first series of exercises alone. After resting, participants in the experimental conditions performed the remaining trials with a same-sex partner and then took the Implicit Bias Test (IAT) to assess the association between race and the traits of physical strength (e.g., muscular) or weakness (e.g., frail). Mean persistence was lower for participants in the BP condition (M = -3.97; SD = 11.1) than for those in the WP condition (M = 2.79; SD = 10.8). The findings suggest that, social comparison with a BP decreased persistence with abdominal isometric exercises in Caucasian college students and attenuated the Köhler effect of motivation gain in team performance. Participants in the BP condition may have had a motivational loss due to a stereotype threat that blacks are superior athletically and thus keeping up with a BP would seem unachievable in that situation. IAT results indicated that most participants more strongly associated black and Strong, suggesting that participants’ performance decrement was due to experienced stereotype threat. Experiment 2: The Köhler Effect: An Examination of Racial Diversity in an Intellectual Task, was built on the first experiment to explore the question of whether a BP also attenuates the Kmge in a non-physical task, suggesting that just the social situation of participating with a black partner, itself, may be stressful and lead to lower persistence as a way to end the situation. That is, the task should not invoke a stereotype belief that blacks are superior athletically. The design of the experiment was the same with one exception. The task was to complete a modified version of the cognitive vigilance task which was used in the Wittchen and colleagues (2007) study. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three partner conjunctive-task conditions (i.e., where the group’s performance depends on the weaker member): white partner (WP; 20 control); black partner (BP); or Asian partner (AP). Experiment 2 also included an individual control condition. Participants performed the vigilance task by becoming a member of the travel agency “MilesAway” and completed hotel package offers by managing incoming customer requests. Results showed no significant differences in mean persistence between the control condition (MIC = 25.07, SD = 11.50 ) and partnered conditions. (MAP = 22.5, SD = 18.60; MWP = 22.50, SD = 17.40; MBP = 17.24, SD = 12.11). The results did not align with our hypothesis, as well as other research that has incorporated cognitive tasks in the Köhler motivation paradigm (Seok, 2006, 2007; Wittchen et al., 2007). The absence of the usually robust overall Köhler effect suggests that participants may have not cared much about the group’s performance or evaluation, and may have stopped comparing themselves with their partner. Experiment 3: The Köhler Effect: Reducing Social-Category Outgroup Biases in a Group Exercise Task explored a solution that can facilitate cooperation between social ingroup and outgroup members. Previous results from Experiment 1, found that when white participants exercised with a black partner, there was a loss of motivation. This may have been due to an unfavorable comparison with a social outgroup member. A possible platform for enhancing intergroup relations among team members from different social categories and reducing outgroup biases involve social categorization-based solutions (Banker, Houlette, Johnson, & McGlynn, 2000). This experiment was concerned with facilitating group cooperation between individuals from racially diverse backgrounds. Participants were randomly assigned to individual control or one of the two virtually- presented exercise partners under conjunctive-task conditions (i.e., where the group’s performance depends on the weaker member): black partner (BP); or black partner with intervention (BPI). Participants performed the first series of exercises alone. After resting, 21 participants in the experimental conditions performed the remaining trials with a same-sex partner. Mean persistence was lower for participants in the IC (M = -22.53, SD = 20.30) and BP condition (M = -6.86, SD =12.77) than for those in the BPI condition (M = 3.34, SD = 9.60). The findings suggest that, recategorization strategies that strengthen a common ingroup identity, can mitigate against motivation losses under conjunctive-task conditions when stereotype threat perceptions are in play. 22 REFERENCES 23 REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Ashcraft, M. H., & Kirk, E. P. (2001). The relationships among working memory, math anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 224-237. Baron, R. S., & Kerr, N. L. (2003). Group process, group decision, group action (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Bain, L. L., Wilson, T., & Chaikind, E. (1989). Participant perceptions of exercise programs for overweight women. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 134-143. Baumeister, R. F. (1984). Choking under pressure: Self-consciousness and paradoxical effects of incentives on skillful performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 610-620. Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497– 529. Beilock, S. L., Bertenthal, B. I., McCoy, A. M., & Carr, T. H. (2004). Haste does not always make waste: Expertise, direction of attention, and speed versus accuracy in performing sensorimotor skills. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 373-379. Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2005). When high-powered people fail: Working memory and “choking under pressure” in math. Psychological Science, 16, 101-105. Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 701-725. Burke, S. M., Carron, A. V., Eys, M. A., Ntoumanis, N., & Estabrooks, P. A. (2006). Group versus individual approach? A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity. Sport and Exercise Psychology Review, 2(1), 19–35. Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Rosabianca, A., & Kiesner, J. (2005). Why do women underperform under stereotype threat? Evidence for the role of negative thinking. Psychological Science, 16, 572-578. Carron, A. V., Hausenblas, H. A., & Mack, D. (1996). Social influence and exercise: A meta- analysis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 1–16. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2012). Vital signs: walking among adults-- United States, 2005 and 2010. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 61(31), 595–601. 24 Dishman, R. K. (2001). The Problem of Exercise Adherence: Fighting Sloth in Nations with Market Economies. Quest, 53(3), 279–294. Dishman, R. K., & Buckworth, J. (1996). Increasing physical activity: a quantitative synthesis. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise June 1996, 28(6), 706–719. Feltz, D. L., Forlenza, S. T., Winn, B., & Kerr, N. L. (2014). Cyber Buddy Is Better than No Buddy: A Test of the Köhler Motivation Effect in Exergames. Games for Health Journal, 3(2), 98–105. Feltz, D. L., Irwin, B. C., & Kerr, N. L. (2012). Two-player partnered exergame for obesity prevention: Using discrepancy in players’ abilities as a strategy to motivate physical activity. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 6(4), 820–827. Feltz, D. L., Kerr, N. L., & Irwin, B. C. (2011). Buddy up: The Köhler effect applied to health games. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(4), 506–526. Feltz, D.L., & Samendinger, S. (in press). Exergames to enhance physical activity and performance. In T.S. Horn & A.L. Smith (Eds.), Advances in sport and exercise psychology, 4th ed (pp. ) Forlenza, S. T., Kerr, N. L., Irwin, B. C., & Feltz, D. L. (2012). Is My Exercise Partner Similar Enough? Partner Characteristics as a Moderator of the Köhler Effect in Exergames. Games for Health Journal, 1(6), 436–441. Gray, R. (2004). Attending to the Execution of a Complex Sensorimotor Skill: Expertise Differences, Choking and Slumps. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 10, 42- 54. Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., & Messé, L. A. (2000). Motivation gains in performance groups: paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Köhler effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 580–601. Ingham, A. G., Levinger, G., Graves, J., & Peckham, V. (1974). The Ringelmann effect: Studies of group size and group performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(4), 371-384. Irwin, B. C., Scorniaenchi, J., Kerr, N. L., Eisenmann, J. C., & Feltz, D. L. (2012). Aerobic exercise is promoted when individual performance affects the group: A test of the Köhler motivation gain effect. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 44(2), 151–159. Karau, S. J. & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706. Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 224-231. 25 Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 78. Kerr, N. L., Feltz, D. L., & Irwin, B. C. (2012). To pay or not to pay? Do extrinsic incentives alter the Köhler group motivation gain? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(2), 257-268. Kerr, N. L., Forlenza, S. T., Irwin, B. C., & Feltz, D. L. (2013). “... been down so long ...”: Perpetual vs. intermittent inferiority and the Köhler group motivation gain in exercise groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 17(2), 67–80. Kerr, N. L., Messé, L. A., Seok, D.-H., Sambolec, E. J., Lount, R. B., Jr, & Park, E. S. (2007). Psychological mechanisms underlying the Köhler motivation gain. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 828–841. Kerr, N. L., & Sullaway, M. E. (1983). Group sex composition and member task motivation. Sex Roles, 9(3), 403-417. Kohler, 0. (1926). ‘Kraftleistungen bei Einzel- und Gruppenarbeit’. (Strength performance in individual and group work). Industrielle Psychotechnik, 3, 274-282. Kravitz, D. A., & Martin, B. (1986). Ringelmann rediscovered: The original article. Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American psychologist, 36(4), 343. Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822. Lewis, B., & Linder, D. (1997). Thinking about choking? Attentional processes and paradoxical performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 937-944. Lount Jr., R. B., Messé, L. A., & Kerr, N. L. (2000). Trying harder for different reasons: Conjunctivity and sex composition as bases for motivation gains in performing groups. Zeitschrift Für Sozialpsychologie, 31(4), 221–230. Masters, R. S. (1992). Knowledge, knerves and know-how: The role of explicit versus implicit knowledge in the breakdown of a complex motor skill under pressure. British Journal of Psychology, 83, 343-358. Messé, L. A., Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., Lount, R. B., & Park, E. S. (2002). Knowledge of partner’s ability as a moderator of group motivation gains: An exploration of the Köhler discrepancy effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 935–946. Miyake, A., & Shah, P. (1999). Toward unified theories of working memory: Emerging general consensus, unresolved theoretical issues, and future research directions. In A. Miyake & 26 P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control (pp. 442-481). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Moss, T., Feltz., D. L., Kerr, N. L., Smith, A. L., Winn, B., & Spencer, B. (in press). Intergroup Competition in Exergames: Further Tests of the Köhler Effect. Games for Health Journal. Nevid, J. S. (2013). Psychology: Concepts and applications (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Nowak, A., Szamrej, J., & Latané, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97(3), 362. Roberson, L., & Kulik, C. T. (2007). Stereotype threat at work. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(2), 24-40. Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 440-452. Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613-629. Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811. Williams, K., Harkins, S., & Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303-311. Williams, K. D., Nida, S. A., Baca, L. D., & Latané, B. (1989). Social loafing and swimming: Effects of identifiability on individual and relay performance of intercollegiate swimmers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 73-81. Witte, E. H. (1989). Köhler rediscovered: The anti-Ringelmann effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 147–154. 27 A DOWNSIDE TO RACIAL DIVERSITY IN THE KÖHLER EFFECT CHAPTER 2 Preface Experiment 1, A Downside to Racial Diversity in the Köhler Effect (Moss, T., Kerr, N., Mac Intosh, A., & Feltz, D. L., in preparation), has not yet been submitted. The study began as a research practicum for the completion of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Michigan State University. The study was a follow-up of the first author’s thesis for a Master of Science, which examined the effect of intergroup competition with a software- generated exercise partner in an active video game and was conducted under the guidance of the fourth author (Feltz). Abstract Objective: Köhler motivation gain principles (based on group dynamics principles of upward social comparison and indispensability) were utilized to explore how individuals exercising with a racially dissimilar partner, as part of an exercise video game, affected individual motivation on a muscular endurance task as measured by effort. Methods: Michigan State University college students (N = 90; M = 19.81; SD = 1.51; Caucasian males) were randomly assigned to one of three virtually-presented exercise partners under conjunctive-task conditions (i.e., where the group’s performance depends on the weaker member): white partner (WP; control); black partner (BP); or Asian partner (AP). Participants performed the first series of exercises alone. After resting, participants in the experimental conditions performed the remaining trials with a same-sex partner. Partners were actually confederates recorded earlier and presented virtually as live, from another lab. Exercise persistence, self-efficacy beliefs, enjoyment, perceived exertion, perceptions of one’s own and 28 relative ability were collected. In addition, an implicit measure of the association of race with physical strength was employed, viz. an Implicit Association Test (IAT). Results: Mean persistence was lower for participants in the BP condition (M = -3.97; SD = 11.1) than for those in the WP condition (M = 2.79; SD = 10.8). Participants in the BP condition may have had a motivational loss due to a stereotype threat that blacks are superior athletically and thus keeping up with a BP would seem unachievable. IAT results were consistent with our findings and showed that participants more strongly associated being black with strong. Conclusions: The findings suggest that, social comparison with a BP decreased persistence with abdominal isometric exercises in Caucasian college students and attenuated the Köhler effect. Introduction The motivational influence of groups has been an important topic in sport training and physical activity contexts. Working out with a partner or in a group may motivate individuals to work harder. However, there may be situations where individuals exert less effort when working in a group than when working individually, such as when one’s individual contributions are less identifiable or when one feels less identified with the group. Understanding how motivation in groups (partners in particular) affects individual performance is important to helping sustain physical activity and to improve training and performance efforts in sport. One group dynamics approach to improving motivation in groups is the Köhler motivation gain effect (Kmge). The Kmge occurs when an inferior team member exerts more effort when paired with a more capable partner, from knowledge of his/her individual performance (Weber & Hertel, 2007). The Kmge is strongest in conjunctive team conditions where the team’s potential productivity is equal to the productivity of its least capable member. 29 The phenomenon is attributed to Otto Köhler, who showed that performance on a physical task (biceps curls) by weaker rowers was better when their efforts were yoked to stronger rowers (Köhler, 1926). Witte (1989) explained the historic importance of Köhler’s initial lifting experiment, being one of the few early studies to demonstrate that working in a group could encourage motivation. The Köhler effect can potentially be explained as a result of two processes: social comparison (i.e., the tendency to be motivated to match or exceed the performance of one’s more capable partner) and indispensability (i.e., the contingency between one’s own performance and other valued outcomes, such as good group performance and positive social evaluations) (Kerr et al., 2007). Thus, in conjunctive task conditions, where the team’s performance is based on the performance of its least capable member, the weakest member is indispensable to the team’s outcome. The implications of this indispensability to team performance on conjunctive tasks is important because the more the weakest team member’s performance can be improved, the better the team-level performance. In terms of practicality, there may be more room for improvement of weaker group members’ efforts for overall group performance than for the strongest group members because of performance limits (Feltz & Hill, in press; Hüffmeier et al., 2017). However, if there are situations in which the weakest member feels less indispensable, less identifies with the team, or too challenging in comparison to one’s teammates, it could lead to the weaker member’s discouragement and a decrement in performance for the entire team, The Köhler phenomenon has been shown to be reliable since Weber and Hertel (2007) examined 17 Köhler effect studies with over 2000 participants, and found that the Kmge is large in magnitude (g= 0.72). The Kmge also has been established as a robust phenomenon in group exercise contexts (Feltz, Forlenza, Winn, & Kerr, 2014; Feltz, Kerr, & Irwin, 2012). Weber and 30 Hertel’s (2007) meta-analysis also suggested that there are several moderators for the Köhler effect (i.e., additional factors that determine the strength of the motivation gain), such as an individual’s awareness and certainty of being the inferior person in the group. Kerr and Hertel (2011) built on Weber and Hertel’s (2007) manuscript and suggested 10 factors that individuals could apply to maximize the indispensability component in Köhler effect research. One of the suggested factors was that a person’s identification with ingroup/outgroup status (i.e., identification with or distance from a certain group or social category) might affect their motivation to perform a task. Recent research has provided information that intragroup group competition among those from different social categories can elicit motivational gains (e.g., Kerr & Sullaway, 1983; Lount & Phillips, 2007). Moreover, intragroup settings have been found to be more motivating for people who highly identify with their group (James & Greenburg, 1989). The reason for this may be due to individuals feeling threatened by individuals of their outgroup. An outgroup member is an individual within a social category to which a person does not psychologically identify with as a member of their own ingroup. Moreover, individuals typically categorize, and distinguish a social group according to their race, culture, gender, age, and religion (Tajfel, 1981). Various theoretical constructs such as social identity theory have been formulated to comprehend ingroup and outgroup categorization. Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and self-categorization theory (Turner et al., 1987) can provide some insight on why ingroup/outgroup settings can be threatening. According to social identity theory (SIT), members of the ingroup tend to show favoritism toward each other, while even behaving in discriminatory ways with outgroup members (Tajfel, 1981). Furthermore, individuals feel threatened when their group compares unfavorably to an 31 outgroup (e.g., social status). This threat may be provoked by a person being outperformed by a member of a lower status outgroup. Members of the ingroup will have an increase of motivation to support their group’s identity and maintain self-regard (e.g., Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001). Thus, individuals may have lower motivation when working with others belonging to their ingroup (e.g., individuals of the same race, gender, ethnicity) compared to others belonging to an outgroup (e.g., social category diversity). Lount and Phillips (2007) examined social category diversity and the results of their experiments found that individuals increased their effort more when being outperformed by an outgroup member compared to an ingroup member. The results of these studies are consistent with the social identity and self-categorization theories, showing that an increase of effort was due to being paired with an outgroup member (Pettit & Lount, 2010).. These findings suggest outgroup memberships can play a role in group member motivation, and hence, in group performance (e.g., Irwin & Thompson, 2016; Kerr et al., 2008; Kerr & Sullaway, 1983; Lount & Phillips, 2008). More specifically, in this paper we explored how one type of ingroup-outgroup category, surface diversity (i.e., race), might moderate the Kmge. One type of diversity, race, has not been applied in this Köhler paradigm. We examined how such racial diversity in dyads might moderate the Köhler motivation gain effect. Diversity and Team Performance The effects of diversity on team performance have been heavily examined in business settings, due to an increase in the use of multifunctional work teams (Zakarian & Kusian, 1999). However, there has not been much research on how racial diversity in groups or teams can affect performance in sport and exercise settings. According to Harrison and Klein (2007), team diversity is defined as distributional differences among members of a team in relation to a 32 common attribute. Research has provided evidence that demographic differences can affect performance both positively or negatively (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). Two perspectives have dominated thinking on this question. The diversity-cognitive resource perspective states that informational diversity from individuals of multiple intellectual, experiential, or cultural perspectives can improve team performance (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). However, the similarity-attraction paradigm (Bryne, 1971) suggests that teams with similar characteristics should be more productive due to a more salient mutual attraction among team members with similar attributes or characteristics. Consistent with the latter theory, Bell and colleagues (2011) conducted a meta-analysis on diversity and team performance and found a small negative effect between racial diversity and team performance (r = –.13). Racial Diversity Diversity is a term in which members of a team are dissimilar (heterogeneous) with respect to individual-level characteristics (Jackson, 1992). Some researchers like Larson (2010) make a distinction between surface level diversity (demographic characteristics) versus deep level diversity (values, skills, personality characteristics). Diversity in surface-level characteristics is salient in groups (e.g., race and gender), whereas diversity in deep-level characteristics (e.g., attitudes, opinions, and values), become known only after a certain amount of time through verbal and nonverbal communication (Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002). Diversity researchers have often found that surface diversity has a negative impact on communication and cohesion, and promotes higher levels of detrimental group conflict over time (Jackson, Joshi & Erhardt, 2003). Surface-level diversity. Devine (1989) explains that stereotypes are shared structures of knowledge pertaining to specific social groups. According to researchers, the common 33 stereotypes in the United States include beliefs that African Americans are less intellectually capable than whites and more talented in sports (Kellow & Jones, 2008). Moreover, throughout American culture, youth are commonly exposed to negative images of African Americans in the media. For example, when an African American is portrayed, he or she is usually an athlete or entertainer (Ward, 2004). Furthermore, research has found that racial stereotypes about skill differences can impact the performance of adults due to stereotype threat (Schmader, Jones, & Forbes, 2008). The purpose of this study was to investigate the motivational effects of racial diversity in a conjunctive group task. In particular, we explored the compelling question of whether stereotypic views about performance might impact one’s motivation on a taxing physical task -- one that requires muscular endurance. Based on previous work addressing partnering with an outgroup member within the Köhler effect paradigm, but also from research on stereotype threat within the United State hypothesized that participants in the conjunctive white partner experimental condition would improve exercise performance significantly more than participants in the conjunctive black partner condition. We also included an Asian partner experimental condition for purely exploratory reasons. Method Participants Ninety Michigan State University undergraduate students (90 Caucasian males), with a mean age of (M = 19.81; SD = 1.51) years, participated in the study for either course credit or $10 in cash. Compensation was not related to performance. Students were recruited using a research participant recruitment system through the university. The study was advertised as an exercise video game to examine the effect of exercise video games on exercise behavior. 34 Design The study employed a 3 (work condition) factorial design with difference scores between persistence in Trial block 1 and 2 as the primary dependent measure. Participants were randomly assigned into one of the three experimental conditions: white conjunctive partner (WP); black conjunctive partner (BP); and Asian conjunctive partner, (AP). There were 29 participants in the WP condition, 29 in the BP condition, and 30 in the AP condition. For each performance block, participants executed five different isometric exercises: front plank, side plank (left), one-leg plank (left), side plank (right), and one-leg plank (right), as detailed below. The main dependent variable was based on persistence in the plank exercises, which was defined by the summed time in seconds for the set of exercises in the performance block. An a priori power analysis was conducted with G*Power 3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). For a condition main effect, the results of the power analysis showed that 30 participants in each of the three conditions (for a total of 90 participants) would be sufficient to obtain a medium effect size of 0.30 with a power of 0.80 and an alpha level of 0.05. Experimental Task Following previous research on the Köhler effect and exercise, the experimental task involved holding a series of five abdominal planks for as long as possible (Feltz et al., 2011; Forlenza et al., 2012; Irwin & Thompson, 2016). These types of exercises are ideal for studying motivation gains and losses, because the planks are mostly effort-based, and little individual skill or team coordination is needed. There was a 30s break between each exercise. In addition, each series of plank exercises was performed twice, with a 10-min. break period between Block 1 and 2. 35 Participants completed a front plank, two side planks (left and right), and two one-legged planks (left and right) on an exercise mat. For the first exercise, participants were face down on the mat, with legs straight, and they raised their body by placing elbows and toes on the mat. This allowed participants to use their abdominals to elevate and lift their body. The legs, back, and neck should be all in line for this exercise. Comparable to the front plank, side planks required the body to be elevated from the mat. Participants arranged their body and propped themselves up with their right or left forearm so that their body formed a diagonal line. Lastly, the one-legged planks were similar to the front plank, except either the right or left leg was raised in the air; thus the participant performed these with only the left or right foot firmly on the ground. Procedure Institutional review board approval was obtained before conducting this study. Before each session, the experimenter confirmed the participant was free of hindering injuries to their arms, shoulders, back, or legs. Upon arriving at the lab and providing informed consent, the participant was asked to remove any wrist jewelry or watches. Afterwards, the participant watched a 9-min video that explained the experimental procedures and showed each of the five plank exercises. Participants were told that the nature of the experiment was to examine the effect of an exercise video game on exercise behavior. Following the video, the participant was given the opportunity to ask questions about the experimental protocol. The first performance block of plank exercises was completed individually, holding each of the five exercises for as long as possible, with 30 s of rest between each exercise. After Block 1 was completed, there was a 10-min. break before completing Block 2. This block involved partnered manipulations (WP, BP, AP). After the completion of Block 2, the enjoyment, team identity, implicit attitudes 36 test, and checks on participants’ perceptions were completed. Finally, participants were verbally debriefed regarding the use of deception in the study and signed a consent to use data form. Partnered Manipulations Conjunctive partner, all conditions (WP; BP; AP). The procedures that occurred within all three conjunctive partner conditions (e.g., WP; BP; AP) were identical except for the race of the partner. During the 10-min break following Block 1, the participant was told that the exercises would be completed again, but this time with another male partner. Moreover, participants were told that their partner was in another lab, connected via the Internet. Like previous experiments (e.g., Feltz, Kerr, & Irwin, 2011; Irwin et al., 2011) participants were led to believe they were interacting live with another person. However, their partner was actually a prerecorded confederate. Participants in all three partnered conditions were given an opportunity to meet their partner and exchange basic information (e.g., name, hometown, what you like to do for fun) through a Web camera-like connection. The text of the partners’ comments was identical for all three partners during the partner interaction. All three confederates were of similar height and weight; their introductory message was the same; the only difference was their racial appearance. After this brief interaction, the participant was informed that the second block of exercises would be completed with the partner as a teammate and that the team score would be defined as the score of the person who stopped holding the exercise first. This made the task conjunctive. In line with previous studies, the SGP’s Block 1 plank score was always stated as 40% better than the participant’s Block 1 score, which creates an unfavorable social comparison yet keeps the task engaging to the participant and allows an achievable goal that can be set (Feltz et al., 2012; Feltz et al., 2014). For instance, if the participant held his/her position for an average 37 of 60s on Block 1, he/she was told that the SGP had been averaging 84s. This moderate discrepancy (40%) in ability between partners has been shown to be optimal for producing the Köhler motivation gain (Feltz et al., 2012; Messe et al., 2001). Measures Persistence. The primary outcome variable of exercise persistence was operationalized as the length of time, measured in seconds, that the plank exercises were held, starting from when participants moved into position until the moment that they quit. A stopwatch was used for each of the exercises. To calculate the block scores, the experimenter summed the length of time each individual plank exercise was held. Enjoyment. Enjoyment was measured with the eight-item version of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES; Raedeke, 2007) following the completion of the experiment. This instrument consists of a primary stem, “Please rate how you currently feel about the physical activity you have been doing according to the following scales:”, followed by the items structured on a 1 to 7 bipolar scale (e.g., 1 = I loved it, 7 = I hated it; 1 = I found it pleasurable, 7 = I found it unpleasurable). Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT). Forsyth (2010) pointed out that an ingroup-outgroup bias may work on a subtle and unintentional or even unconscious level. Furthermore, there are strong social desirability biases that can undermine the validity of stereotype beliefs. For both reasons, an implicit measure of the association of race with physical strength was employed, viz. an Implicit Association Test (IAT). Previous research has used an IAT to assess the association between a social category and some evaluation or trait of interest (Arkes & Tetlock, 2004). Within our study, the procedure included pictures of white and African-American faces as the primes. The targets or ‘words’ were adjectives in relation to physical strength (e.g., muscular) or 38 weakness (e.g., frail) connotations. Participants had to push either the key labeled strong or the one labeled weak as fast as possible. Previous research incorporating this IAT to assess racial attitudes has found that white participants were quicker to respond to good words for white faces and quicker to the bad words for African-American faces (Fazio et al., 1995). The researchers determined if there was a significant difference between the average length of time it took individuals to associate strong or weak words with a specific race by computing a statistic called the “D score.” The score ranged from -2 to 2, and was calculated by subtracting the average response times for the screens that paired targets from Category A (for example, African American with strong) with one of the positive (or negative) terms from the mean response times for the round, pairing the same target from Category B (white- American/weak), then dividing this number by the standard deviation of all response times. Those with D scores that were less than 0.15 but more than -0.15 were classified as having little or no preference for one of the target races. Those with scores between 0.15 and 0.34 (or -0.15 and -0.34) were classified as having a “slight” preference. Scores between 0.35 and 0.64 (or - 0.35 and -0.64) were classified as reflecting a “moderate” preference, while scores of .65 and higher (or -0.65 and lower) were classified as indicating a “strong” preference (Morin & Rohal, 2012). Table 1. Sequence of Trial Blocks in the Experiment 1 Implicit Attitudes Test No. of Trials 20 20 20 40 20 20 40 Block 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Items assigned to left-key Items assigned to right-key Function response response Black face images Practice Strong “words” Practice Practice Strong “words” + Black faces Test Strong “words” + Black faces Practice Asian faces Practice Strong “words” + Asian faces Test Strong “words” + Asian faces Asian face images Weak “words” Weak “words” + Asian faces Weak “words” + Asian faces Black faces Weak “words” + Black faces Weak “words” + Black faces 39 Team identity. Participants in all three conditions completed a five-item questionnaire that assessed their perceptions of their working relationship with their partner (Brown et al., 1986). Participants rated a series of statements (e.g., “I felt like I was part of a team”) on a 9- point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree), with responses averaged to produce a scale score. Consistent with past research (Brown et al. 1986). Self-efficacy beliefs. Participants recorded how many seconds they believed they could hold each exercise at three different time points as a measure of self-efficacy beliefs (SE). Participants estimated the number of seconds they were completely confident they could hold each exercise before Block 1, before Block 2 (after meeting the partner and receiving comparative feedback), and after all exercises were completed. For each rating, a sum of the three estimated times was calculated as the total SE score. Perceived exertion. Immediately after quitting each plank exercise, participants were prompted to verbally report ratings of overall perceived exertion for that exercise using the Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion scale (RPE; Borg, 1998). The scale ranges from 6 to 20, with 6 being “no exertion at all” and 20 being “maximal exertion.” An explanation, including anchoring, and poster of the scale was provided. Perceptions of partner’s ability. Participants also estimated their partner’s relative competence by responding how their partner compared to them in ability (1 = “much less capable”, 9 = “much more capable”). This measure was included because participants may perceive their partner’s ability in holding plank exercises differently depending on their partner’s race. 40 Primary Analysis: Exercise Persistence Results To analyze persistence scores, the times for each exercise were summed within each Trial Block. The primary dependent variable was the difference score between both blocks (Block 2 – Block 1); use of a difference score controls for individual differences in task ability and motivation. To test the main study hypotheses, a series of planned comparisons was undertaken on the Block 2 – Block 1 difference scores (Figure 1). We expected that WP participants would persist significantly longer than BP participants but that WP and AP participants would not differ significantly. However, an independent t-test was employed to further examine exercise persistence between the BP and AP condition. The results found that there was a significant difference in scores for the WP condition (M = 2.79; SD = 10.8) and the BP condition (M = - 3.97; SD = 11.1), t(57) = 0.88, p = 0.02. This aligns with our hypothesis that participants in the BP condition would have a reduction of effort in the second block of exercises compared to participants in the WP conditions, and as expected, there was not a significant difference in exercise persistence for the WP condition (M = 2.79; SD = 10.8) and AP condition (M = -0.69; SD = 16.77), t(57) = 0.95, p = 0.35. Figure 1. Persistence: Block2 – Block1 (Mean seconds & 95% CI) 41 Ancillary Analyses In terms of enjoyment, one-way ANOVA by Condition was significant, F(2,87) = 5.42, p = .006. Participants in the WP (M = 4.08; SD = 0.44) condition enjoyed exercising with a partner of their own race compared to the BP partner (M = 3.81; SD = 0.32) or AP (M = 3.81; SD = 0.33). However, a one-way ANOVA by Condition on the team identity index, as a measure of social identification with their partner, showed a non-significant partnered condition main effect, F(2,87) = 0.55, p = 0.58. Likewise, there was no significant difference in SE between conditions for each measurement point. Overall mean RPE scores for Block 1 (M = 13.8, ± 1.93) and Block 2 (M = 14.9, ± 2.11) fell between the scale’s verbal anchors of “somewhat hard” (13) and “hard” (15). Exertion ratings did not differ across conditions, Block 1: F(2, 89) = 0.424, p = 0.66; Block 2: F(2, 88) = 0.04, p = 0.96, regardless of increased persistence in the partnered groups. Additionally, there were no differences among conditions in perceived partner ability, F(2,88) = 0.57, p = 0.57. All participants thought that their partner was superior to them. In terms of ingroup-outgroup bias, for the black IAT, high d scores indicate a stronger association between black and Strong (relative to white and Weak). Low d scores indicate a stronger association between black and Weak (relative to white and Strong). As expected the d scores were mostly positive (N = 42; M = 0.40), meaning that most participants more strongly associated black and Strong. For the Asian IAT, high d scores indicate a stronger association between Asian and Strong (relative to white and Weak). Low d scores indicate a stronger association between Asian and Weak (relative to white and Strong). The d scores were mostly negative (N = 45; M = -0.15), meaning that most people more strongly associated Asian and Weak. Unfortunately, we did not collect enough IAT data to sufficiently examine how IAT data related to performance. 42 Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate the motivational implications of cross- cultural differences (i.e., racial diversity) within a one group motivation gain paradigm. We explored whether stereotypic views about physical performance might influence one’s motivation while cooperating with a teammate of a dissimilar race. Unlike previous research (e.g., Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001), white participants who exercised with a BP (outgroup member) persisted significantly less and enjoyed the exercise less than participants who exercised with their own ingroup. However, even with significant differences with racial diversity of a partner, participants thought of themselves as part of a team. Further, there were no condition differences in perceptions of the partner’s comparative ability. That is, participants did not report that they thought their BP partner was any more capable (therefore not physically comparable) than those in the WP and AP conditions. White participants were not stating that they thought their BP was so much stronger than them, but their IAT responses suggest that they associated black with strong and that was not the case for Asians. This association of black and strong could support a stereotype threat explanation. white participants might have acted on their implicit perception of their black partner as being too strong for them to be engaged and challenged by the goal of keeping with him, which may have seemed less achievable then those with a white partner. However, another explanation could be that just the social situation of participating with a black partner, itself, may have been stressful because they implicitly perceived the partner to be strong and this may have led to lower persistence as a way to end the situation. That is, the type of task may have been irrelevant and just being involved in any task with a black partner, who is seen as higher in ability, is uncomfortable. One way to test this suggestion is to use a task that 43 does not invoke the stereotype perception. If no stereotype threat is present but the findings remain the same, that would suggest the uncomfortable situation explanation. This alternative explanation led to the next experiment. Experiment 2 Experiment 2 was designed to replicate and extend the findings of Experiment 1. In Experiment 2 only Caucasian males again will be employed as participants. The design of the experiment was exactly the same with two exceptions. First, the task was to complete a modified version of the cognitive vigilance task which was used in the Wittchen and colleagues (2007) study. Second, an individual control (IC) was added. In addition, self-report measures (evaluation apprehension; status; responsibility) were included to help explain the results. The Cognitive Interference Questionnaire (CIQ) was given to measure test anxiety. The IAT was also added in this Experiment for exploratory reasons. Based on results from Experiment 1 and the Kmge, the following hypotheses were put forward: Hypothesis and Research Question: Hypothesis: Participants in the partnered conditions (WP, BP, AP) will have a significant motivation gain compared to the individual control condition (IC). Research Question: Will participants in the BP condition have a significant motivation gain compared to participants in the WP or AP condition? No hypothesis was put forward for differences between WP, AP, and BP because of the exploratory nature of using a cognitive task with racially diverse partners in the Kmge. If WP or AP participants again show stronger performance than BP participants, this would suggest the “uncomfortable situation explanation” that teaming up with a black partner on any task is uncomfortable and leads to 44 lesser motivation to keep the performance going. On the other hand, a nonsignificant result between WP or AP and BP participants, would add support for the stereotype threat explanation in Experiment 1. Additionally, if participants with a BP performed significantly better than those with a WP or AP, this might suggest a “stereotype lift” effect (Walton & Cohen, 2003). That is, if white participants have a negative stereotype of blacks on cognitively challenging tasks, but are shown to be inferior to a black partner in their performance, white participants may be more motivated to increase their efforts when paired with that superior BP if they have a stereotyped expectation that they should the more cognitively capable team member. Participants Method One hundred-six Michigan State University undergraduate students (106 Caucasian males; Mage = 19.22; SD = 1.33) participated in the study for course credit. Students were recruited using a research participant recruitment system through the university. The study was advertised as a study measuring cognitive reactions to a computer task. Design The experiment utilized a one-way, three experimental condition design with performance difference scores in Trial block 1 and 2 as primary dependent measure. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the four conditions: white conjunctive partner (WP); black conjunctive partner (BP); Asian conjunctive partner; and no partner individual control (IC). The performance dependent variable was number of orders completed by an Internet travel agency in the modified version of the cognitive vigilance task which was used in Wittchen and her colleagues’ study (Wittchen, Schlereth & Hertel, 2007). The Köhler effect has 45 already been replicated using the very similar task in Wittchen et al.’s (in press) study. This task will be explained in detail in the following section. Experimental Task This experiment used a modified and reprogrammed version of the vigilance task that was used in Wittchen et al. study. In this task, participants’ job, as a member of the travel agency “MilesAway,” was to complete hotel package offers by computer according to incoming customer requests. The hotel package consists of two categories (i.e., room and board), and a participant must take into account the customers’ requests and choose the cheapest available alternative for the category where the customer has not expressed a preference. (To see an example and instructions for the task, refer to Appendix F.) During all work sessions, the number of completed (i.e., handled) inquiries of a participant was simultaneously presented on the screen. Also, the positions of the options in each category were randomly changed, but the prices of each option were not changed. That is, in the room category positions, double room, single room, apartment and bungalow were changed randomly, but the price of each room was always the same (i.e., $1500, $1750, $2000, $2250, respectively). In the board category, overnight stay, half-board, full board, and all-inclusive changed their positions randomly, but the price of each board option was always the same (i.e., $400, $530, $660, $790, respectively; refer to Appendix G and H). During the (second) group work session, participants additionally received information at regular intervals (i.e., after every 4th customer request) about their partner’s (alleged) previous performance at this point of the work session. 46 Procedure After reading and signing the consent form, all instructions, work sessions, and questionnaires were administered via the computer. During the rest of the session, the experimenter was sitting on the other side of the room to be available for any questions. On the first computer screen, participants were asked where they are logged in for the study and they were given choices such as names of states or universities (i.e., Ohio, Michigan State). Even though the answer for this question was obvious, the purpose of this question was to increase participants’ believability in an ostensible online connection by giving them an impression that another individual will be logged on for the study at the same time. Then, the task was explained in detail by the computer, and participants were given three practice trials. In the practice trials, participants received an error message if they committed a mistake. To proceed to the next screen, either they had to give correct responses or had to call the experimenter for help. This procedure ensured that all participants learned how to perform the task. Then, participants performed their 1st work session as an individual (To see an example of the performance screen, refer to Appendix H.). Each of the two work sessions in this experiment lasted 10 minutes but no information about trial length was given to participants to prevent them from timing themselves. During the 1st work session, participants always gave the updated number of inquiries they had already handled. However, this number did not tell them whether the offers they made were also correct. All participants had the same procedure until they finished performing the first work session. However, on the following screens, participants were given different information depending on their work condition (i.e., IC vs. conjunctive BP, AP, or WP). 47 After performing the first work session as individuals, participants in the conjunctive dyad work conditions (e.g., BP or WP) received information about how the next session (i.e., group work session) will be conducted. (Participants were not told exactly how many work sessions were left.) Participants were informed that they would work in a team with another person (i.e., his partner), who is working on another computer as a second employee of the travel agency, MilesAway. Then, participants were given instructions on the partner selection procedure. Participants were also informed that the present study will be conducted online with someone else at the same time. Also, they were told that they will work with their partner in a different lab on campus. Moreover, participants in both partnered conditions were given an opportunity to meet their partner and exchange basic information (e.g., name, hometown, what you like to do for fun) through a Web camera-like connection. The text of the partners’ comments will be identical for WP, AP, and BP partners during the partner interaction. Both confederates were similar in height and weight; their introductory message will be the same; the only difference was their racial appearance. After the partner introduction, participants in the conjunctive work conditions received information about how the remaining work sessions will be conducted. Participants were informed that their partner will be responsible for putting together travel packages while they are still responsible for putting together hotel package offers. As participant’s hotel package contains room and board alternatives, the travel package offers consist of two alternatives as well: how far the customer is willing to travel and the means of transport. Also, participants were informed that the travel inquiries will be from the same customer as the hotel inquiries, and handling the two kinds of inquiries would be equally difficult for them and their partner. 48 Then, the conjunctive nature of the task was explained by giving the following information: “In the next session, unlike the last session, only those customer inquiries that both of you handle correctly will count toward your performance total (and maximum pay). That is, offers will only count towards the team score if both parts of the inquiry - hotel and travel - are handled correctly. A correctly arranged travel package will not result in a point if the hotel package for that customer was not arranged correctly, and vice versa! So, for example, if your partner has handled 10 inquiries correctly, but you have only handled five correctly, your team will be credited with only five correct offers. The other completed offers of your partner would be lost (that is, not count toward the team score).” Then, participants were informed that during the second (group) work session, they would also receive information about the performance of their partner in addition to the number of inquiries they handled. Because the partner’s performance information was shown after every fourth offer participants complete, participants were given information about how many inquiries their partner has handled at the same point in time. In the conjunctive conditions, the performance of the partner was manipulated throughout the second (group) work session by showing the partner’s ostensible performance level (refer to Table 2), after the participant completes every fourth offer. The ability ratio varies due to past research finding discrepancy (40%) in ability between partners has been shown to be optimal for producing the Köhler motivation gain (Feltz et al., 2012; Messe et al., 2001). The partner’s performance was always 40% better during Block 2. After participants completed their second work session, they were administered four questionnaires that measured evaluation apprehension, anxiety over challenging the status of 49 one’s partner, responsibility for performance outcome, and cognitive interference. Then they were debriefed regarding the nature of the experiment. Table 2. Performance discrepancy manipulation schedule Performance Of Participant 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 52 56 60 64 68 72 ….. Performance Of Partner 6 11 17 23 29 34 39 43* 47* 51* 55* 59* 63* 67* 71* 75* 79* 83*….. Ability Ratio 1.50 1.38 1.42 1.44 1.45 1.42 1.39 1.34 1.31 1.28 1.25 1.23 1.21 1.20 1.18 1.17 1.16 1.15 …. * For actual Ss, the feedback will be within ± 1 of this value. Measures The main dependent measure was performance quantity, measured in terms of how fast participants could complete orders, rather than persistence as in Experiment 1. The performance results were based on performance quantity (i.e., how many orders participants completed regardless of accuracy). There are two reasons that I focused on only performance quantity. First, previous research (Seok, 2007) analyzed results with both performance quantity and quality, and the findings were nearly identical. Second, I thought that performance quantity should be most closely related to participants’ motivation because the task of this study was very simple (i.e., did not require any complicated mental calculation). Additionally, participants completed questions regarding enjoyment and team identity. Participants in the partner conditions responded to eight direct questions about three potential explanations (evaluation apprehension, status, responsibility) for how participants react to working with a black partner as well as 11 additional questions from the Cognitive Interference 50 Questionnaire (CIQ). These explanations were derived from previous work from Seok and colleagues (Seok at al., 2006). Enjoyment. Enjoyment was measured with the eight-item version of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES; Raedeke, 2007) following the completion of the experiment. This instrument consists of a primary stem, “Please rate how you currently feel about the physical activity you have been doing according to the following scales:”, followed by the items structured on a 1 to 7 bipolar scale (e.g., 1 = I loved it, 7 = I hated it; 1 = I found it pleasurable, 7 = I found it unpleasurable). Team identity. Participants in all three partner conditions completed a five-item questionnaire that assessed their perceptions of their working relationship with their partner (Brown et al., 1986). Participants rated a series of statements (e.g., “I felt like I was part of a team”) on a 9-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree), with responses averaged to produce a scale score. Consistent with past research (Brown et al. 1986). Evaluation apprehension. For the evaluation apprehension explanation, three direct questions (“How much did you feel that your partner would accept and excuse you even if you performed poorly during the 2nd work session?” [EA1; 1 = not at all, 9 = very much], “How much did you feel that your partner would reject and criticize you if you performed poorly during the 2nd work session?” [EA2; 1 = not at all, 9 = very much], and “How much were you concerned about your partner’s criticism if you performed poorly during the 2nd work session?” [EA3; 1 = not at all, 9 = very much]) were asked to measure whether race manipulation may have altered participants’ general evaluation apprehension about their performance. Status. For the status explanation, to measure anxiety over challenging the status of one’s partner, the following two questions were asked: “How uneasy did you think that your 51 partner might feel if you had outperformed him during the second work session?” (S1; 1 = not at all, 9 = very much) and “How much did you feel that it would be fine for your partner to do better than you during the second work session?” (S2; 1 = not at all, 9 = very much). Responsibility. For the responsibility explanation, the following three questions were asked to measure presumed responsibility of participants: “How much responsibility did you feel personally for the performance outcome of your group during the 2nd work session?” (My responsibility; 1 = not at all, 9 = very much), “How much responsibility did you feel that your partner had for the performance outcome of your group during the 2nd work session?” (Partner’s responsibility; 1 = not at all, 9 = very much), and “Who do you think was most responsible for the performance outcome of your group during the 2nd work session?” (Relative responsibility; 1 = I was completely responsible, 5 = We were equally responsible, 9 = My partner was completely responsible). Cognitive Interference Questionnaire (CIQ). Cognitive interference is defined as intrusive thoughts, that may result in an individual being unfocused at the task at hand. Experimental studies relating to test anxiety have found that cognitive interference is an important factor in lowering performance for individuals with test anxiety (Sarason & Stoops, 1978). Participants in the partnered conditions completed 11 questions probing emotional responses in the situation (See Appendix I). The CIQ intends to learn about the kinds of thoughts that go through people’s heads while they are working on a task. The questionnaire includes a list of thoughts participants may have had while doing the task on which they have just worked (Sarason, 1978). Implicit Attitudes Test. Unlike Experiment 1, the IAT procedure included pictures of white and Asian faces as the primes. The targets or ‘words’ were adjectives in relation to 52 intelligence (e.g., muscular) or weakness (e.g., unintelligent) connotations. Participants had to push either the key labeled intelligent or the one labeled unintelligent as fast as possible. Table 3 contains the sequence of trial blocks in the IAT. Table 3. Sequence of Trial Blocks in the Experiment 2 Implicit Attitudes Test No. of Trials Function 20 Practice 20 Practice 20 Practice 40 Test 20 Practice 20 Practice Test 40 Block 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Items assigned to left-key response Asian face images Intelligent “words” Items assigned to right-key response Black face images Unintelligent “words” Intelligent “words” + Asian faces Unintelligent “words” + Black faces Intelligent “words” + Asian faces Unintelligent “words” + Black faces Asian faces Intelligent “words” + Black faces Unintelligent “words” + Asian faces Intelligent “words” + Black faces Unintelligent “words” + Asian faces Black faces Manipulation Check – Error Rate Results Within the 106 students who participated in the study, eight participants were removed because of high error rates (i.e., less than 35% of performance correct answer rate in any of the two work sessions). The main analysis was executed with and without the participants with high error rates, but the pattern in the results did not alter. Primary Analysis: Motivation Gains Before presenting the results on the performance measure, it should again be mentioned that the presented results are all based on the speed (i.e., how many orders participants completed regardless of accuracy). We expected that participants in the partner conditions (WP, BP, AP) would have a significant motivation gain compared to the individual control condition (IC). However, a one-way ANOVA by Condition conducted on the Block 2 – Block 1 performance dependent variable (number of orders completed; Figure 2) showed no significant differences between conditions, F(3,105) = 1.20, p = 0.32 (MAP = 22.50, SD = 18.60; MWP = 22.48 SD = 53 17.40; MBP = 17.24, SD = 12.11; MIC = 25.07, SD = 11.50). Previous studies in this line of research have found consistent patterns between ANOVAs on difference scores and ANCOVAs on Block 2 scores with Block 1 scores as a covariate (e.g., Feltz et al., 2011; Forlenza et al., 2012). Because the difference score means are more directly interpretable than adjusted means produced by ANCOVA, the difference score analysis is presented. Our results do not align with our hypothesis, as well as other research that has incorporated cognitive tasks in the Köhler motivation paradigm (Seok, 2006, 2007; Wittchen et al., 2007). Figure 2. Number of Orders Completed Block2 – Block1 Ancillary Analyses The means and standard deviations for the ancillary analyses are contained in Table 4. In terms of enjoyment, a one-way ANOVA by Condition was not significant, F(3,96) = 1.04, p = 0.38. A one-way ANOVA by Condition on the team identity index, as a measure of social identification with their partner, showed a non-significant partnered condition main effect, F(2,71) = 1.98, p = 0.14. Likewise, there were no significant differences in evaluation apprehension, F(2,78) = 1.11, p = 0.33; status, F(2,78) = 0.58, p = 0.56; or responsibility, F(2,78) = 1.43, p = 0.24. Lastly, there were no significant differences between conditions in the 54 Cognitive Interference Questionnaire, but there was a trend favoring the AP condition F(3,96) = 1.04, p = 0.06. Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for All Ancillary Dependent Variables by Condition (Exp. 2). Measure Enjoyment IC 3.46 BP 3.40 WP 3.57 AP 3.90 (0.81) (1.06) (1.08) (0.97) Team Identity Evaluation Apprehension Status Responsibility 4.37 4.07 3.72 (1.06) (1.23) (1.13) 4.64 4.29 4.85 (0.77) (1.79) (1.34) 4.65 4.37 4.85 (1.20) (2.05) (1.54) 5.74 5.05 5.69 (0.94) (2.11) (1.70) CIQ 2.64 2.62 2.80 3.10 (0.70) (0.64) (0.70) (0.70) In terms of ingroup-outgroup bias, the Asian IAT, high d scores indicate a stronger association between Asian and intelligent (relative to black and unintelligent). Low d scores indicate stronger association between Asian and unintelligent (relative to Black and intelligent). The d scores were slightly positive (N = 49; M = 0.09), meaning that most participants had little preference associated with Asian and intelligent. For the black IAT, low d scores indicate a stronger association between black and unintelligent (relative to Asian and intelligent). High d scores indicate a stronger association between Asian and unintelligent (relative to black and intelligent). The d scores were slightly negative (N = 44; M = -0.06), meaning that most people have little preference associated with black and unintelligent. 55 Discussion The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend the findings of Experiment 1 in a cognitive vigilance task. The results found that there were no significant differences in motivation between the partnered conditions and individual control. This non-significant result was unexpected, given the robust Köhler motivation gains observed in previous studies using physical persistence tasks (e.g., Kerr et al., 2007, in press; Seok, 2004; Seok et al., 2006, Exp. 1) and cognitive tasks (e.g., Hertel et al., 2003; Seok, 2007; Wittchen et al., 2007). The Köhler effect requires that (a) a weaker group member compares his/her performance with his partner’s (social comparison mechanism), and (b) a weaker group member cares about his group and/or its evaluation of him (indispensability mechanism; Kerr et al., 2007). The absence of the usually robust overall Köhler effect suggests that participants may have not cared much about the group’s performance or evaluation, and may have stopped comparing themselves with their partner. Secondly, this study was employed to understand how participating with a black partner in a different task (i.e., cognitive) may provide an alternate explanation for lower motivation found in Experiment 1. Results showed no differences in participating with a BP versus other partners, but also no difference compared to performing alone. If all of the partnered groups were significantly superior to the alone condition, we would be in a better position to state that the type of task is relevant to a stereotype threat response in the Köhler effect and would add support for the stereotype threat explanation in Experiment 1. However, this was not the case. The present results suggest that to produce a Köhler motivation gain, it is not enough simply to make somebody indispensable to the group or to give them the opportunity to compare their performance with more capable group members. 56 Even though there was no Köhler effect, the IAT results suggest that there were no stereotype perceptions for this type of cognitive task as there was for the physical endurance task in Experiment 1. This association of black and strong could support a stereotype threat explanation in the physical task. The fact that the performance and IAT results were nonsignificant for condition, could be interpreted that the type of task is a relevant factor and that being involved in a task with a black partner, who is seen as higher in ability, is not uncomfortable when there is no perceived stereotype threat. We should also note a couple limitations in Experiment 2 that could help explain our nonsignificant findings. First, there could be an issue related to the internal validity of the study. An issue might be whether the researchers really manipulated the ability discrepancy at a moderate level or might this manipulation have been too extreme (too small or too large). If the discrepancy is too small, trying to persist for as long as one’s partner might not present a challenge that would be motivating. If the discrepancy is too large, the weaker member might not be motivated because he does not believe that he can match the performance standard of his partner. Future work might be needed to find an appropriate level of ability discrepancy manipulation by varying the ability discrepancy at several levels. Second, this study may have not had enough power to find differences between the conditions and could provide another explanation for the non-findings. An a priori power analysis was conducted with G*Power 3 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). For a condition main effect, the results of the power analysis showed that 30 participants in each of the four conditions (for a total of 120 participants) would be sufficient to obtain a medium effect size of 0.30 with a power of 0.80 and an alpha level of 0.05. Unfortunately, the total participant count for Experiment 2 was 106 (IC = 27; BP = 25; WP = 27; AP = 27). 57 Third, another potential reason for the non-findings could be due to the believability in the participant’s partner. Unlike Experiment 1, participants did not ostensibly see their partner on a screen during the second experimental block. Furthermore, participants did not have any sense that they could close the gap with their partner. The qualitative findings from Experiment 2 found that 49 participants had an expression of strong suspicion about the experimental procedure, and the cover story/ability regarding their partner. Further research should incorporate a novel methodology to increase the partner’s believability. Including a bogus skype video of the partner during the second experimental block may be a plausible future research direction. Forth, the Köhler effect requires an to individual to work harder over time. Moreover, the task in the Köhler paradigm will become harder the longer an individual performs. However, the findings within Experiment 2 found the opposite, which may be another limitation within our study. The cognitive demands of the vigilance task may have not been a sufficient experimental task for the Köhler paradigm. The qualitative findings from Experiment 2 found that 42 participants included thoughts about how the cognitive vigilance task was simple and/or boring. Fifth, the computer software utilized for this study was outdated, and may have deterred the motivation of participants. Future research should seek to further develop the experimental design and application of the Köhler effect motivation paradigm to strengthen the weakness mentioned above. Additionally, future computer tasks incorporating the Köhler paradigm may need to include different design features, such as incorporating out-group competition; more efficient partner inter-game interaction; and adding game or sport elements to the generate a more appealing interface. Researchers might also consider a different task that is not cognitive but also not strength-oriented to test the stereotype threat explanation. Tasks such as those 58 involving balance are physical and involve effort but may not invoke a stereotype that one racial or ethnic group is better than another. Conclusion Our results from Experiment 1 supported our hypothesis that participants will have a loss of motivation due to stereotype threat when partnered with a black partner. white participants might have acted on their implicit perception of their black partner as being too strong to be engaging and challenging and the goal of keeping up with him seemed less achievable than those with a white partner. However, the results of Experiment 2 did not support the Köhler motivation effect with college students in a cognitive vigilance task. Results found that there were no significant differences in motivation between the partnered conditions and individual control. Moreover, the Köhler effect was not moderated by the race of the participant’s partner. The next step in this line of research is to create a type of intervention to reduce the uncomfortable social situation of participating with a black partner. 59 APPENDICES 60 APPENDIX A The Borg Scale of Perceived Exertion The Borg Scale No exertion at all Extremely light Very light Light Somewhat hard Hard (heavy) Very hard Extremely hard Maximal exertion 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 61 APPENDIX B Self-Efficacy Beliefs _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ The FIRST exercise (front plank)? The FOURTH exercise (left side plank)? The SECOND exercise (right side plank)? The FIFTH exercise (left one-legged plank)? The THIRD exercise (right one-legged plank)? For Time 1 (prior to Block 1) and Time 2 (prior to Block 2): What is the number of seconds which you are completely confident that you can hold: For Time 3 (following Block 2): If you were to hold these exercises one more time (after a similar break as before), what is the number of seconds which you are completely confident that you can hold: The THIRD exercise (right one-legged plank)? The FIFTH exercise (left one-legged plank)? The SECOND exercise (right side plank)? The FOURTH exercise (left side plank)? The FIRST exercise (front plank)? _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ 62 Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES) and Intention to Exercise APPENDIX C Please rate how you currently feel about the physical activity you have been doing according to the following scales: 1 = I loved it, 7 = I hated it 4 2 5 3 7 1 6 1 = I felt bored, 7 = I felt interested 6 4 3 5 2 1 7 1 = I disliked it, 7 = I liked it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 = I found it pleasurable, 7 = I found it unpleasurable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 = I was very absorbed in this activity, 7 = I was not at all absorbed in this activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 = It was no fun at all, 7 = It was a lot of fun 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 = It was very pleasant, 7 = It was very unpleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 = I felt as though I would rather be doing something else, 7 = I felt as though there was nothing else I would rather be doing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 63 APPENDIX D Examples of the Partners in Experiment 1 64 APPENDIX E An Example of Participant View During Block 2 65 APPENDIX F An Example and Instruction of the Task 66 APPENDIX G 1st Work Session 67 APPENDIX H The 2nd Work Session With a Partner 68 APPENDIX I Cognitive Interference Questionnaire (CIQ) 69 REFERENCES 70 REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 98. Blake, R. R., Shepard, H. A., & Mouton, J. S. (1968). Managing intergroup conflict in industry. Bodenhausen, G. V., Kang, S. K., & Peery, D. (2012). Social categorization and the perception of social groups. The Sage handbook of social cognition, 311-329. Borg, G. (1998). Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales (Vol. viii). Champaign, IL, US: Human Kinetics. Brown, R. J. (1978). Divided we fall: An analysis of relations between sections of a factory workforce. Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations, 395-429. Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. (1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59(4), 273–286. Brown, T. N., Jackson, J. S., Brown, K. T., Sellers, R. M., Keiper, S., & Manuel, W. J. (2003). “There’s No Race On The Playing Field” Perceptions of Racial Discrimination Among White and Black Athletes. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 27(2), 162-183. Brown, R. J., & Wade, G. (1987). Superordinate goals and intergroup behavior: The effect of role ambiguity and status on intergroup attitudes and task performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17, 131-142. Deschamps, J. C., & Brown, R. (1983). Superordinate goals and intergroup conflict. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22(3), 189-195. Feltz, D. L., Irwin, B., & Kerr, N. (2012). Two-player partnered exergame for obesity prevention: using discrepancy in players’ abilities as a strategy to motivate physical activity. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 6(4), 820–827 Gockel, C., Kerr, N. L., Seok, D. H., & Harris, D. W. (2008). Indispensability and group identification as sources of task motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1316-1321. 71 Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. J. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the "contact hypothesis." In M. Hewstone & R. J. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1-44). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., & Messé, L. A. (2000a). Motivation gains in performance groups: Paradigmatic and theoretical developments on the Köhler effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 580-601. Irwin, B. C., Scorniaenchi, J., Kerr, N. L., Eisenmann, J. C., & Feltz, D. L. (2012). Aerobic exercise is promoted when individual performance affects the group: a test of the Köhler motivation gain effect. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 44(2), 151-159. Irwin, B. C., Feltz, D. L., & Kerr, N. L. (2013). Silence is golden: Effect of encouragement in motivating the weak link in an online exercise video game. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(6). Kahn, A., & Ryen, A. H. (1972). Factors influencing the bias towards one's own group. International Journal of Group Tensions. Kohler, 0. (1926). ‘Kraftleistungen bei Einzel- und Gruppenarbeit’. (Strength performance in individual and group work). Industrielle Psychotechnik, 3, 274-282. Messé, L. A., Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., Lount, R. B., Jr., & Park, E. S. (2002). Knowledge of partner’s ability as a moderator of group motivation gains: An exploration of the Köhler discrepancy effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 935-946. Miller, N., Brewer, M. B., & Edwards, K. (1985). Cooperative interaction in desegregated settings: A laboratory analogue. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 63-79. Feltz, D. L., Kerr, N. L., & Irwin, B. C. (2011). Buddy up: the Köhler effect applied to health games. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 33(4), 506-526. Forlenza, S. T., Kerr, N. L., Irwin, B. C., & Feltz, D. L. (2012). Is my exercise partner similar enough? Partner characteristics as a moderator of the Köhler effect in exergames. GAMES FOR HEALTH: Research, Development, and Clinical Applications, 1(6), 436-441. Irwin, B. C., & Thompson, N. S. (2016). The impact of social category diversity on motivation gains in exercise groups. American journal of health behavior, 40(3), 332-340. Rabbie, J. M., & De Brey, J. H. (1971). The anticipation of intergroup cooperation and competition under private and public conditions. International Journal of Group Tensions. 72 Raedeke, T. D. (2007). The relationship between enjoyment and affective responses to exercise. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(1), 105-115. Roberson, L., & Kulik, C. T. (2007). Stereotype threat at work. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(2), 24-40. Samendinger, S., Beckles, J., Forlenza, S. T., Pfeiffer, K. A., & Feltz, D. L. (2015). Partner Weight as a Moderator of Exercise Motivation in an Obese Sample. Medical Research Archives, (3). Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 929. Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 440. Segall, M. H., Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. H. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly discipline: On the flowering of culture in behavioral research. American Psychologist, 53(10), 11017-1110. Seok, D. H. (2007). Does age matter more in Korea? A cross-cultural study on the Köhler motivation gain effect. ProQuest. Seok, D., Messé, L. A., Hahn, D. W., & Kerr, N. L. (2006). Cross-cultural studies of group motivation gains. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL. Sherif, M. (1954). Integrating field work and laboratory in small group research. American Sociological Review, 19(6), 759-771. Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63(4), 349-356. Sherif, M. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10, pp. 150-198). Norman, OK: University Book Exchange. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1954). 1961. Social Judgment. Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Smith, S. J., Axelton, A. M., & Saucier, D. A. (2009). The effects of contact on sexual prejudice: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 61(3-4), 178-191. 73 Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811. Tajfel, H. (1972). Some developments in European social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2(3), 307-321. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. CUP Archive. Urban, L. M., & Miller, N. (1998). A theoretical analysis of crossed categorization effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 894-908. Walton, G.M., & Cohen, G.L. (2003). Stereotype lift. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 456-467. Wittchen, M., Schlereth, D., & Hertel, G. (2007). Social indispensability in spite of temporal and spatial separation: Motivation gains in a sequential task during anonymous cooperation on the internet. International Journal of Internet Science, 2(1), 12-27. Worchel, S., Andreoli, V. A., & Folger, R. (1977). Intergroup cooperation and intergroup attraction: The effect of previous interaction and outcome of combined effort. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(2), 131-140. 74 THE KÖHLER EFFECT: REDUCING OUTGROUP BIASES IN A GROUP EXERCISE CHAPTER 3 TASK Preface This study was the third and final experiment for this dissertation, and included a categorization- based strategy intervention here. Tayo Moss managed the project, and collected the data. Abstract Objective: Köhler motivation gain principles were utilized (based on group dynamics principles of upward social comparison and indispensability) to further explore how individuals exercising with a racially dissimilar partner affected individual motivation at a motor task as measured by effort. This experiment was concerned with facilitating group cooperation between individuals from racially diverse backgrounds. Methods: Michigan State University college students (N = 87; Caucasian males) were randomly assigned to one of two conjunctive-task conditions (i.e., where the group’s performance depends on the weaker member): black conjunctive partner (BP); black partner with added social identity (BPI), and an individual control group (IC). Participants performed the first series of exercises alone. After resting, participants in the experimental conditions performed the remaining trials with a same-sex partner. Partners were actually confederates recorded earlier and presented virtually as live, from another lab. Before Block 2, group identification for participants was enhanced by creating a categorization-based strategy for reducing outgroup bias. Exercise persistence, self-efficacy beliefs, enjoyment, team identity, perceptions of one’s own and relative ability were collected. Results: Mean persistence was significantly lower for participants in the IC (M = -22.53, SD = 20.30) and BP condition (M = -6.86, SD =12.77) than for those in the BPI condition (M = 75 3.34, SD = 9.60). Participants in the BPI condition may have had a motivational gain due to an enhancing social identification with their BP. Conclusions: The findings suggest that the recategorization strategy enhanced the Köhler effect and created an intergroup structure that fostered an enhanced team identity between group members to create a more inclusive, superordinate representation of the group. Introduction The Köhler motivation gain effect (Kmge) in team performance (i.e., when an inferior team member exerts more effort when paired with a more capable partner, from knowledge of his/her individual performance) has been established as a robust phenomenon in group exercise contexts (e.g., Feltz, Forlenza, Winn, & Kerr, 2014; Feltz, Kerr, & Irwin, 2012). The Kmge is based on conjunctive task demands. Conjunctive task conditions stress the indispensability of a weaker member’s efforts for the team. Motivation is likely to be enhanced when the person sees his/her efforts as being highly instrumental in achieving team success. One motivation in these contexts also involve upward social comparison, where a weaker member of a group attempts to revise his/her performance upward to match a stronger group member’s performance (Weber & Hertel, 2007). In group exercise contexts of the Kmge, studies used simple muscular endurance tasks (e.g., abdominal plank exercises) and aerobic cycle ergometer tasks while participants interacted with a human partner presented to them through an internet connection (e.g., Feltz et al., 2011; Feltz et al., 2012; Forlenza et al., 2012; Irwin et al., 2012). Some of these experiments investigated the effectiveness of various moderating variables (e.g., partner characteristics) within the exercises with virtual partners. Partner characteristics have included age, weight, 76 intergroup competition, and external incentives. One partner characteristic that has been studied recently is the racial diversity of the partner (Moss, Kerr, Mac Intosh, & Feltz, in preparation). Moss and his colleagues (in preparation) found that white participants had a loss of motivation on a muscular endurance task when partnered with an ostensibly superior black partner in a conjunctively-based team task, but experienced a motivation gain when partnered with an ostensibly superior white partner. The researchers were investigating how individuals exercising with a racially dissimilar partner might influence the Köhler motivation gain effect (Kmge). The Kmge (based on group dynamics principles of upward social comparison and indispensability) occurs when an inferior team member exerts more effort when paired with a more capable partner on a conjunctive-based team task, compared to his/her individual performance (Weber & Hertel, 2007). To help explain the results, Moss et al. used the Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT) to measure, in an implicit way, the association of race with physical strength, post-experimentally. IAT results suggested that the motivation loss among white participants was due to a potential stereotype threat that blacks are superior athletically, and thus keeping up with a black partner would seem unachievable. The results from Experiment 1, found that when white participants exercised with a black partner, there was a loss of motivation. This may have been due to an unfavorable comparison with a social category outgroup member. The aim of this experiment was to explore a possible a solution that can facilitate cooperation between ingroup and outgroup members as they pertain to the social category of race. Finding a solution that would lead to a more favorable Köhler effect would enhance not only weaker team members’ performances but overall team performance when individuals are partnered with outgroup members in group exercise tasks. A possible 77 platform for enhancing intergroup relations and reducing intergroup biases involve social categorization-based solutions (Banker, Houlette, Johnson, & McGlynn, 2000). Implication of Social Categorization for Reducing Bias Social categorization is the process in which individuals are sorted into various categories (e.g., women, men, student, African-American, etc.). Categorization is a natural, innate human process, which assists in organizing and structuring knowledge about the world. Furthermore, social categorization provides individuals with the opportunity to connect those who share group memberships (i.e., ingroups). Social categories can also serve as a function for shaping the perceiver’s sense of belonging and connection to, or alienation from others (Bodenhausen, Kang, & Peery, 2012). Below are three different categorization-based solutions that have been empirically supported to reduce intergroup bias. Decategorization. The decategorization perspective posits that when members of the two groups have personalized self-revealing interactions with one another, the strength of the outgroup stereotypes are undermined, thus leading to the reduction of bias (Miller, Brewer, & Edwards, 1985). Moreover, repeated personal interactions with outgroup members should decrease the value of stereotypic views about members of an outgroup. Depersonalization relates to contact theory (Allport, 1954), which has also been found to improve relations among conflicting groups. Brown and colleagues (2003) found that white athletes who played team sports were less prejudiced against black athletes compared to white athletes who competed in individual or non-team oriented sports. Moreover, the contact theory has been found to alleviate prejudice toward homosexuals as well (Smith, Axelton, & Saucier, 2009). In conclusion, decategorization is aimed at weakening the salience of category distinctions, and altering how individuals perceive one another from “us and them” to “you and me” (Banker et al., 2000). 78 Recategorization. Rather than reducing or elimination categorization, recategorization is designed to “structure a definition of group categorization at a higher level of category inclusiveness in ways that reduce intergroup bias and conflict” (Banker et al., 2000, p. 102). For instance, making ingroup members aware that members of an outgroup are similar to one’s own group on a different dimension can assist in improving intergroup attitudes (Urban & Muller, 1998). An additional recategorization strategy is to increase the salience of ingroup-outgroup memberships by introducing factors, such as common goals, which may lead to common ingroup identity (Allport, 1954). When recategorization strategies strengthen a common ingroup identity, the motivational processes that produced ingroup favoritism are not readdressed to the former outgroup members who currently share the superordinate group identity (Banker et al., 2000). Mutual differentiation. This perspective encourages groups to embrace their mutual intergroup differences, but in the context of cooperative interdependence (Hewstone & Brown, 1986). This can be done by dividing a task in a manner to capitalize mutually on each group’s relative superiorities and inferiorities, which allows the members of each groups to recognize and become appreciative of the indispensable contribution of the outgroup (Banker et al., 2000). The outcomes of these win-win cooperative relationships can cause members of an ingroup to express mutually favorable feelings towards outgroup members. Brown and colleague (1987) found support of this perspective by conducting a study in which teams composed of students worked to produce a two-page magazine article. The results found that when the two groups worked apart but were assigned separate roles on the joint task (e.g., one group worked on the layout, other on magazine text), they had a more positive effect on intergroup attitudes compared to when groups worked apart but were given similar roles (Brown & Wade, 1987). 79 Social Identity Theory Policies should also be incorporated to enhance the social identities of group members to assist with intergroup tension. Social identity theory (SIT) is another perspective that provides research on how people categorize themselves and others in relation to their social group members. Social identity is defined as “the individual’s knowledge that he/she belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional significance to him/her of the group membership (Tajfel, 1972, p. 31). According to SIT, members of the ingroup tend to show favoritism toward each other, while even behaving in discriminatory ways with outgroup members (Tajfel, 1981). Furthermore, individuals feel threatened when their group compares unfavorably to an outgroup (e.g., social status). Gockel and researchers (2008) explained that a salient social identity can enhance motivation in group members as a result of depersonalization. This means that in a group task, an individual will become assimilated with the group’s aim of performance rather than focusing on his or her own individual thoughts and behaviors (Gockel, Kerr, Seok, & Harris, 2008). Incorporating the techniques mentioned above (e.g., recategorization) may cause an individual to perceive their social identity as salient when partnered with an individual of a dissimilar race. Thus, the purpose of the present study will be to include white male participants with a black partner and with or without the recategorization intervention compared to individual control. Main Hypothesis Hypotheses Hypothesis 1: Participants in the partnered conditions (black conjunctive partner [BP]; black partner with added social identity [BPI]: 30 participants per condition) will have a significant motivation gain compared to the control condition (IC = 27 participants). 80 Hypothesis 2: Participants in the partnered condition (BPI) will have a significant motivation gain compared to the participants in the (BP) condition. Secondary Hypotheses Hypothesis 3: Participants in the partnered condition (BPI) will have a significantly higher team identity and enjoyment scores compared to participants in the BP condition. Method Participants Participants (N = 87) included 80 Michigan State University white male college students and seven white male IC participants, randomly selected from Moss et al. (in press) study. Participants (Mage = 20.11; SD = 0.36) were Michigan State University college students, and all Caucasian males. Participants were given course credit, and were recruited from SONA. Experimental Design As in the Moss et al. (in preparation), the study employed a 3 (work condition) factorial design with difference scores between persistence in Trial block 1 and 2 as the primary dependent measure. Participants were randomly assigned into one of the two experimental conditions: black conjunctive partner (BP), black partner with added social identity (BPI), and an individual control group (IC). The Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT) was not included in this Experiment because we did not have enough time in the experimental protocol. Experimental Task Following previous research on the Köhler effect and exercise, the experimental task was holding a series of five abdominal planks for as long as possible (Feltz et al., 2011; Forlenza et al., 2012; Irwin & Thompson, 2016). These types of exercises are ideal for studying motivation gains and losses, because the planks are mostly effort-based, and little individual skill or team 81 coordination is needed. There was a 30s break between each exercise. In addition, each series of plank exercises was performed twice, with a 10-min. break period between Block 1 and 2. Participants completed a front plank, two side planks (left and right), and two one-legged planks (left and right) on an exercise mat. For the first exercise, participants were face down on the mat, with legs straight, and they raised their body by placing elbows and toes on the mat. This allowed participants to use their abdominals to elevate and lift their body. The legs, back, and neck should be all in line for this exercise. Comparable to the front plank, side planks were required the body to be elevated from the mat. Participants arranged their body and prop themselves up with their right or left forearm so that their body formed a diagonal line. Lastly, the one-legged planks were similar to the front plank, except either the right or left leg was raised in the air; thus the participant performed these with only the left or right foot firmly on the ground. Procedure Institutional review board approval was obtained before conducting this study. Before each session, the experimenter confirmed that the participant is free of hindering injuries to their arms, shoulders, back, or legs. Upon arriving at the lab and providing informed consent, the participant was asked to remove any wrist jewelry or watches. Afterwards, the participant watched a 9-min video that explained the experimental procedures and showed each of the five plank exercises. Following the video, the participant was given the opportunity to ask questions about the experimental protocol. The first performance block of plank exercises was completed individually, holding each of the five exercises for as long as possible, with 30 s of rest between each exercise. After Block 1 was completed, there was a 10-min. break before completing Block 2. This block involved partnered manipulations (BP, BPI). After the completion of Block 2, self- 82 efficacy, enjoyment, team identity, and other measures of participants’ perceptions were completed. Finally, participants were verbally debriefed regarding the use of deception in the study and signed a consent to use data form. Partnered Manipulations Individual-control (IC). During the 10-min. break period, participants in the IC were instructed to wait patiently for further instructions. After a few minutes, participants were told they would complete the same set of exercises again after the end of the break. Each participant was given veridical feedback on his/her performance (i.e., the average of the number of seconds they held each exercise), and then completed the second SE measure. (For all conditions, participants did not know that they would complete a second set of exercises until after they completed Block 1). Following the break period and the manipulations, participants were given a brief synopsis of the protocol immediately before performing Block 2, which was in the same sequence as Block 1, but with small changes to the format. In the IC condition, participants completed the Block 2 exercises without a partner. Conjunctive partner (BP; BPI). The procedures that occurred within the two conjunctive partner conditions (e.g., BP; BPI) were identical except for the recategorization intervention. During the 10-min break following Block 1, the participants were told that the exercises would be completed again with a same-sex partner. Moreover, participants were told that their partner was in another lab, connected via the Internet. Like previous experiments (e.g., Feltz, Kerr, & Irwin, 2011; Irwin et al., 2011) participants were led to believe they were interacting live with another person. However, their partner was actually a prerecorded confederate. Participants in both partnered conditions were given an opportunity to meet their 83 partner and exchange basic information (e.g., name, hometown, what you like to do for fun) through a Web camera-like connection. The text of the partners’ comments was identical for both partners during the partner interaction. Both confederates were of similar height and weight; their introductory message was the same. After this brief interaction, the participant was informed that the second block of exercises will be completed with the partner as a teammate and that the team score would be defined as the score of the person who stopped holding the exercise first. This will make the task conjunctive. To help reduce potential outgroup biases, the researcher incorporated a recategorization technique to create a common goal for participants and their partner. During the break before Blocks, the experimenter also mentioned to the participant that their partner will be choosing a team shirt for them to wear to future represent the team’s identity. After the team shirt is worn, participants then chose a team name out of 20 various names (i.e., Dragons, Bears, Vipers; please refer to Appendix A for the list of team names and the amount of times chosen) to represent their team for Block 2. This strategy was based on a previous study (Moss, Kerr et al., in press). Moss and colleagues (in press) incorporated the manipulations of team identity, in which both partnered groups were told to wear same-colored t-shirts and were assigned team names. The results found significant increases in persistence compared to control, and provided evidence that ingroup/outgroup differences within a dyadic group may impact performance. Measures Persistence. The primary outcome variable of exercise persistence was operationalized as the length of time, measured in seconds, that the plank exercises were held, starting from when participants moved into position until the moment that they quit. A stopwatch was used for 84 each of the exercises. To calculate the block scores, the experimenter summed the length of time each individual plank exercise was held. Enjoyment. Enjoyment was measured with the eight-item version of the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale (PACES; Raedeke, 2007) following the completion of the experiment. This instrument consists of a primary stem, “Please rate how you currently feel about the physical activity you have been doing according to the following scales:”, followed by the items structured on a 1 to 7 bipolar scale (e.g., 1 = I loved it, 7 = I hated it; 1 = I found it pleasurable, 7 = I found it unpleasurable). Team identity. Participants in both partner conditions completed a five-item questionnaire that assessed their perceptions of their working relationship with their partner (Brown et al., 1986). Participants rated a series of statements (e.g., “I felt like I was part of a team”) on a 9-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree), with responses averaged to produce a scale score. Consistent with past research (Brown et al. 1986). Self-efficacy beliefs. Participants recorded how many seconds they believed they could hold each exercise at three different time points as a measure of self-efficacy beliefs (SE). Participants estimated the number of seconds they were completely confident they could hold each exercise before Block 1, before Block 2 (after meeting the partner and receiving comparative feedback), and after all exercises were completed. For each rating, a sum of the three estimated times was calculated as the total SE score. Perceptions of partner’s ability. Participants also estimated their partner’s relative competence by responding how their partner compared to them in ability (1 = “much less capable”, 9 = “much more capable”). 85 Preliminary Analyses Results Manipulation Check – Partner Conditions. Results from the partner manipulation check (refer to Appendix A) signified that participants in the BPI (93%, n = 28) and BP (90%, n = 27) conditions understood the conjunctive nature of the task by stating that the team score was the time of whoever quit holding the plank exercise first. Four participants reported suspicion on an open-ended question that asked if there was anything confusing or odd about the experiment. This participant sensed that his partner would not fatigue and could hold the plank exercises indeterminately. The main analysis was executed with and without the suspicious participant, but the pattern in the results did not alter. Primary Analysis: Exercise Persistence To analyze persistence scores, the times for each exercise were summed within each Trial Block. The primary dependent variable was the difference score between both blocks (Block 2 – Block 1); use of a difference score controls for individual differences in task ability and motivation. To test the main study hypotheses, a one-way ANOVA was undertaken on the Block 2 – Block 1 difference scores (Figure 3). Previous studies in this line of research have found consistent patterns between ANOVAs on difference scores and ANCOVAs on Block 2 scores with Block 1 scores as a covariate (e.g., Feltz et al., 2011; Forlenza et al., 2012). Because the difference score means are more directly interpretable than adjusted means produced by ANCOVA, the difference score analysis is presented. We expected that BPI participants would persist significantly longer than BP and IC participants. The results found that there was a significant difference in scores in the BPI condition (M = 3.34, SD = 9.60), compared to the BP (M = -6.86, SD =12.77) and IC conditions (M = -22.53, SD = 20.3), F(2,86) = 22.44, p < 0.001. 86 Post-hoc follow-up tests, conducted by means of the Tukey procedure indicated that participants in BPI and BP group persisted significantly longer than IC group (p < 0.001). Moreover, the BPI group persisted significantly longer than the BP group (p < 0.05). These results align with our main hypotheses that participants in the partnered conditions (BP, BPI) would have a significant motivation gain compared to the control condition, and that participants in the partnered condition (BPI) would have a significant motivation gain compared to the participants in the (BP) condition. Figure 3. Persistence: Block2 – Block1 (Mean seconds & 95% CI) Ancillary Analysis The means and standard deviations for the ancillary analyses are contained in Table 5. In terms of enjoyment, a one-way ANOVA by Condition was not significant, F(2,86) = 2.36, p = 0.10. Likewise, there was no significant difference in SE between conditions for each measurement point, Time 1: F(2,85) = 0.34, p = 0.72; Time 2: F(2,86) = 0.11, p = 0.90; Time 3: 87 F(2,85) = 1.33, p = 0.27. An independent samples t-test on the team identity index, as a measure of social identification with their partner, showed a non-significant finding, t(58) = 0.13, p = 0.72. An independent samples t-test on the one-item partner concern measure was non- significant as well, t(58) = 3.04, p = 0.09. Thus, the third hypothesis was not supported. Table 5. Means and Standard Deviations for All Ancillary Dependent Variables by Condition (Exp. 3). Measure Enjoyment IC 4.41 BP 4.90 BPI 4.76 (0.73) (0.93) (0.87) Team Identity 4.55 5.08 (1.56) (1.72) SE Time 1 58.32 58.28 53.18 (sec) (26.02) (28.27) (27.50) SE Time 2 44.24 43.54 43.43 (sec) (16.60) (20.89) (18.50) SE Time 3 38.08 32.05 34.10 (sec) (20.42) (13.40) (13.16) Partner Concern 2.00 2.16 (0.76) (0.97) The aim of this Experiment 3 was to explore a possible a solution that could facilitate Discussion cooperation between ingroup and outgroup members as they pertain to the social category of race. Finding a solution that would lead to a more favorable Köhler effect would enhance not only weaker team members’ performances but overall team performance when individuals are partnered with outgroup members in group exercise tasks. The platform incorporated for 88 enhancing intergroup relations and reducing intergroup biases involved a social categorization- based solution (Banker et al., 2000). The main analysis supported Hypothesis 1 – participants in the BP and BPI experimental condition improved upon their Block 1 performance during Block 2 compared to the control group (IC). To put that another way, participants in the experimental conditions had larger difference scores than participants in the control group. Additionally, the main analysis supported Hypothesis 2 – participants in the BPI condition performed significantly better than compared to participants in the other two conditions (BP, IC). In Experiment 1, we found that the social situation of participating with a black partner, itself, may have been stressful because participants implicitly perceived the partner to be strong and this may have led to lower persistence as a way to end the situation. In fact, the BP mean persistence scores in Experiment 3 were even lower (M = -6.86) than those in Experiment 1 (M = -3.97). Even though the IAT was not included to test for implicit biases, the pattern in both experiments was similar. Also, similar to Experiment 1, participants with a black partner thought of themselves as part of a team. These results support the view that white participants might have acted on their implicit perception of their black partner as being too strong to keep up with him and stay engaged on a challenging physical task. However, the BP group still showed a Köhler effect in that they fatigued less compared to those in the IC group who performed their second trial block alone. The BP participants reported that they felt like they were a part of a team. Our main analysis revealed that the incorporated intervention aided in improving differences scores. In fact, the BPI group’s persistence increase was comparable (M = 3.34) to those who performed with a white partner in Experiment 1 (M = 2.79). Simply being allowed to choose a team name and wear the same color team shirt eliminated the fatigue effect in Trial 89 Block 2 and significantly improved performance scores. Moreover, including this intervention aided in enhancing an individual’s strength in social identification with their group, and created an environment that increased the salience of the group and the participant’s social identity. In conclusion, our intervention caused participants to have a better sense of social identification and stronger team identity with their partner. The ancillary analyses, however, did not support Hypothesis 3 – participants in the partnered condition (BPI) did not have higher team identity and enjoyment scores compared to participants in the BP condition. The outcome of these results are surprising due to such an increase of motivation in the BPI condition. Even though participants were not consciously aware that they felt like they were a part of a team, they may have subconsciously felt more obligation to not let their partner down when they had a team name and team shirt. Greater game-like features may be needed to enhance a more conscious sense of team identity and enjoyment, such as competition with dyad (Moss et al., in press). Theoretical Explanation The Köhler effect requires that (a) a weaker group member compares his/her performance with his partner’s (social comparison mechanism), and (b) a weaker group member cares about his group and/or its evaluation of him (indispensability mechanism; Kerr et al., 2007). Experiment 1 results found that in the BP condition, participants may have had less of a motivational gain due to a stereotype threat that blacks are superior athletically and thus keeping up with a BP would seem unachievable. That is, the BP may not have been a relevant social comparison partner, and there was not enough sense of team identity to feel a greater sense of indispensability to the partner. Experiment 3 added to the previous results, and found that the team intervention helped make the black partner a more relevant social comparator. Future 90 research should utilize recategorization interventions to foster team identity between individuals of a dyadic group. Experiment 3 introduced a recategorization strategy that created an intergroup structure to try to foster an enhanced team identity between group members to create a more inclusive, superordinate representation of the group (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1999). This type of intervention may be a plausible method for reducing both traditional and contemporary forms of prejudice, as well as stereotype assumptions (Dovidio & Gaetner, 1999). Moreover, past research has found that intergroup contact, such as cooperative intergroup interaction used in our study, is a powerful technique to reduce intergroup bias and conflict (Pettigrew, 1998). Research has found that diversity issues are sources of considerable turmoil and uneasiness in organizational settings (Tsui & Gutek, 1999). Our experimental model may be useful in reducing uneasiness by assisting cross-culturally composed teams in generating a common ingroup identity to promote positive attitudes towards outgroup members. 91 APPENDICES 92 APPENDIX A Partner Manipulation Check In which of the following conditions did you perform the last series of exercises? 1. Except for the experimenter, I performed these exercises alone. 2. I performed these exercises with another person through an internet connection. 3. I performed these exercises with two other persons through an internet connection. How was your Total Score determined during the last series of exercises? 1. My score is the number of seconds I held each exercise. 2. My score is an average of how long I held each exercise and how long the other person held each exercise. 3. My score is the sum of my team’s score on each exercise, where the team’s score is the number of seconds each exercise was held by the first team member to quit. 4. My score is the sum of my team’s score on each exercise, where the team’s score is the number of seconds each exercise was held by the last team member to quit. 93 1. Dragons 2. Griffins 3. Warriors 4. Falcons 5. Mustangs 6. Cobras 7. Vikings 8. Pirates 9. Rams 10. Reds 11. Penguins 12. Werewolves 13. Giants 14. Vipers 15. Bears 16. Bulldogs 17. Stripes 18. Dolphins 19. Leopards 20. Huskies APPENDIX B List of Team Names 94 APPENDIX C Example of Participant With Red Shirt 95 REFERENCES 96 REFERENCES Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Arkes, H. R., & Tetlock, P. E. (2004). Attributions of implicit prejudice, or" would Jesse Jackson 'fail' the Implicit Association Test?". Psychological Inquiry, 15(4), 257-278. Banker, B. S., Houlette, M., Johnson, K. M., & McGlynn, E. A. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4(1), 98. Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting specific about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta- analysis. Journal of management, 37(3), 709-743. Bodenhausen, G. V., Kang, S. K., & Peery, D. (2012). Social categorization and the perception of social groups. The Sage handbook of social cognition, 311-329. Borg, G. (1998). Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales (Vol. viii). Champaign, IL, US: Human Kinetics. Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. (1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59(4), 273–286. Brown, R., & Wade, G. (1987). Superordinate goals and intergroup behaviour: The effect of role ambiguity and status on intergroup attitudes and task performance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17(2), 131-142. Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm (Vol. 11). Academic Press. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(1), 5. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1999). Reducing prejudice: Combating intergroup biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(4), 101-105. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(6), 1013. 97 Feltz, D.L., Forlenza, S. T., Winn, B., Kerr, N.L. (2014) Cyber buddy is better than no buddy: A test of the Köhler motivation effect in exergames. Games for Health Journal, 3(2), 98- 105. Feltz, D. L., Kerr, N. L., & Irwin, B. C. (2011). Buddy up: The Köhler effect applied to health games. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(4), 506–526. Forlenza, S. T., Kerr, N. L., Irwin, B. C., & Feltz, D. L. (2012). Is My Exercise Partner Similar Enough? Partner Characteristics as a Moderator of the Köhler Effect in Exergames. Games for Health Journal, 1(6), 436–441. Forsyth, D. R. (2010). Group Dynamics (Wadsworth, Cengage Learning). Belmont, CA. Gockel, C., Kerr, N. L., Seok, D. H., & Harris, D. W. (2008). Indispensability and group identification as sources of task motivation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1316-1321. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of management journal, 45(5), 1029-1045. Hewstone, M. E., & Brown, R. E. (1986). Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters. Basil Blackwell. Hertel, G., Kerr, N. L., Scheffler, M., Geister, S., & Messé, L. A. (2000). Exploring the Köhler motivation gain effect: Impression management and spontaneous goal setting. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 31(4), 204–220. Irwin, B. C., Scorniaenchi, J., Kerr, N. L., Eisenmann, J. C., & Feltz, D. L. (2012). Aerobic exercise is promoted when individual performance affects the group: A test of the Köhler motivation gain effect. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 44(2), 151–159. doi:10.1007/s12160-012-9367-4 Irwin, B. C., & Thompson, N. S. (2016). The impact of social category diversity on motivation gains in exercise groups. American journal of health behavior, 40(3), 332-340. Jackson, S. E. (1992). Diversity in the workplace: Human resources initiatives. Guilford Press. Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of management, 29(6), 801-830. James, K., & Greenberg, J. (1989). In-group salience, intergroup comparison, and individual performance and self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 604–616. 98 Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative science quarterly, 44(4), 741-763. Kellow, J. T., & Jones, B. D. (2008). The effects of stereotypes on the achievement gap: Reexamining the academic performance of African American high school students. Journal of Black Psychology, 34(1), 94-120. Kerr, N. L., Messé, L. A., Seok, D.-H., Sambolec, E. J., Lount, R. B., & Park, E. S. (2007). Psychological mechanisms underlying the Köhler motivation gain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 828–841. doi:10.1177/0146167207301020 Kerr, N. L., & Hertel, G. (2011). The Köhler group motivation gain: How to motivate the “weak links” in a group. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 43–55. Kerr, N. L., Seok, D., Poulsen, J., Harris, D., & Messé, L. M. (2008). Social ostracism and group motivation gain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(4), 736-746. Kerr, N. L., & Sullaway, M. E. (1983). Group sex composition and member task motivation. Sex Roles, 9(3), 403-417. Larson, M. S. (2002). Race and interracial relationships in children's television commercials. Howard Journal of Communication, 13(3), 223-235. Lount, R. B., Jr., Messé , L. A., & Kerr, N. L. (2000). Trying harder for different reasons: Conjunctivity and sex differences as bases for motivation gains in performing groups. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 31, 221–230. Lount, R. B., & Phillips, K. W. (2007). Working harder with the out-group: The impact of social category diversity on motivation gains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 214-224. McCann, C. D., Ostrom, T. M., Tyner, L. K., & Mitchell, M. L. (1985). Person perception in heterogeneous groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1449. Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization science, 7(6), 615-631. Pettit, N. C., & Lount, R. B. (2010). Looking down and ramping up: The impact of status differences on effort in intergroup contexts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), 9-20. Phillips, K. W., & Lount, R. B. (2007). Chapter 1 The Affective Consequences of Diversity and Homogeneity in Groups. In Affect and Groups (pp. 1-20). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 99 Raedeke, T. D. (2007). The relationship between enjoyment and affective responses to exercise. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 19(1), 105-115. Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological review, 115(2), 336. Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2001). The good, the bad, and the manly: Threats to one's prototypicality and evaluations of fellow in-group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37(6), 510-517. Smith, S. J., Axelton, A. M., & Saucier, D. A. (2009). The effects of contact on sexual prejudice: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 61(3-4), 178-191. Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1996). Social compensation and the Köhler effect: Toward a theoretical explanation of motivation gains in group productivity. Understanding group behavior, 2, 37-65. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. CUP Archive. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter group behavior in S Worchel & WG Austin (Eds) Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson. Taylor, D. A., & Moriarty, B. F. (1987). Ingroup bias as a function of competition and race. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 31(1), 192-199. Timmerman, T. A. (2000). Racial diversity, age diversity, interdependence, and team performance. Small Group Research, 31(5), 592-606. Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions. Lexington Books. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Basil Blackwell. Urban, L. M., & Miller, N. (1998). A theoretical analysis of crossed categorization effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 894. Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of applied psychology, 89(6), 1008. Ward, L. M. (2004). Wading through the stereotypes: positive and negative associations between media use and black adolescents' conceptions of self. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 284. 100 Weber, B., & Hertel, G. (2007) Motivation gains of inferior group members: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 973-993. Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1998). A review of 40 years of research. Res Organ Behav, 20, 77-140. Witte, E. H. (1989). Köhler rediscovered: The anti-Ringelmann effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 147–154. Zakarian, A., & Kusian, A. 1999. Forming teams: An analytical approach. IEE Transactions, 31, 85–97. 101 CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY AND GENERAL DISCUSSION The Three Experiments The three manuscripts presented in this dissertation expanded previous Köhler motivation gain research by examining diversity as moderator of a dyadic conjunctive paradigm to examine motivation in group exercise contexts. The Köhler effect is a conjunctive task paradigm in which the team outcome is dependent upon the least capable member’s performance and performance gains are thought to be the result of increased levels of motivation that stem from being indispensable to the group and making an upward comparison to one’s moderately higher-ability partner (Kerr & Hertel, 2011; Köhler, 1926). This motivation gain effect is unique in that it is derived from a group task structure that restricts potential group motivation losses, such as social loafing (Latane, Williams, Harkins, 1979), free-riding (Kerr & Bruun, 1983), and the sucker effect (Kerr, 1983). Experiment 1 examined whether or not partner race characteristics moderate the Köhler effect with all white male participants. Participants completed the first block of five isometric abdominal exercises alone and the second block either with a same-race (Control), with a black partner (BP), or with an Asian partner (AP). Partners were actually confederates recorded earlier and presented as live, from another lab. Experiment 1 demonstrated that the Köhler motivation effect attenuated persistence with abdominal isometric exercises in adult white males when exercising with a black partner. Participants in the BP condition may have had a motivational loss due to a stereotype threat that blacks are superior athletically and thus keeping up with a BP would seem unachievable. IAT results were consistent with our findings and showed that participants more strongly associated being black with strong. However, in order to test an 102 alternative explanation, that just the social situation of participating in any task with a black partner who is seen as higher in ability is uncomfortable, Experiment 2 was conducted. Employing a task that does not invoke the stereotype perception could test whether or not the findings remain the same. If they were the same, that would suggest the uncomfortable situation explanation. Experiment 2 extended the investigation from Experiment 1 to see if the results can be replicated in a cognitive task using the same experimental conditions, and included an individual control. Participants, again, were white males. The cognitive task was a modified and reprogrammed version of the vigilance task that was used in Wittchen et al. (2007) study. In this task, participants’ job, as a member of the travel agency “MilesAway,” was to complete hotel package offers by computer according to incoming customer requests. In Block 1, participants completed a 10-minute work session alone. In Block 2, participants completed a second 10- minute work session with either a black partner (BP), white partner (WP), Asian partner (AP), or individually again. The results found that there were not any significant differences in motivation between the partnered conditions and individual control. Furthermore, the Köhler effect was not moderated by the race of the participants’ partner. The absence of the usually robust overall Köhler effect suggests that participants may have not cared much about the group’s performance or evaluation, and may have stopped comparing themselves with their partner. Even though there was no Köhler effect, the IAT results suggest that there were no stereotype perceptions for this type of cognitive task either. The association of black and strong could support a stereotype threat explanation in the physical task in Experiment 1. The fact that the performance and IAT results were nonsignificant for condition in Experiment 2, could be interpreted that the type of task actually is a relevant factor for perceived stereotype threat. Being 103 involved in a task with a black partner, who is seen as higher in ability, is not uncomfortable in task situations where there is no perceived stereotype threat. Experiment 3 was concerned with facilitating group cooperation between individuals from racially diverse backgrounds. Participants were randomly assigned into individual control (IC) one of the two experimental conditions: black conjunctive partner (BP); black partner with added social identity (BPI). Before Block 2, group identification for participants in the BPI condition were enhanced by creating a categorization-based strategy for reducing outgroup bias. The results found that participants in the BPI condition performed significantly better than compared to participants in the other two conditions (BP, IC). Experiment 1 found that the social situation of participating with a black partner, itself, may have been stressful because participants implicitly perceived the partner to be strong and this may have led to lower persistence as a way to end the situation. Our main analysis revealed that the incorporated intervention aided in enhancing the Köhler effect and improving differences scores, possibly by reducing the stereotype threat perceived by White participants. This explanation can only be inferred because no measures of implicit bias were taken. However, performance was enhanced, and this experimental model may be useful in reducing uneasiness by assisting cross-culturally composed teams in generating a common ingroup identity to promote positive attitudes towards outgroup members. These three experiments together provide some context on how being partnered with a dissimilar race partner can impact motivation in certain tasks. Experiment 1 found that there was an attenuated motivation gain due to a stereotype threat that blacks are superior athletically and thus keeping up with a BP would seem unachievable in that situation. Experiment 2 followed up the previous findings, and examined whether the social situation of participating with a black 104 partner, itself, may have been stressful because participants may have implicitly perceived the partner to be strong and this may have led to lower persistence as a way to end the situation. To test this suggestion, I employed a task that did not invoke the stereotype perception. However, the results found that the Köhler effect was not moderated by race in this particular cognitive vigilance task. Experiment 3 found that the BP condition may not be a relevant social comparison partner because there was not enough team identity, but the team intervention assisted in making the partner a more relevant social comparator. Furthermore, the results found that the intervention worked, and could be incorporated in other applied settings. The recategorization intervention provided an overarching team identity that superseded the racial identity/stereotype threat found in Experiment 1. Applied Implications This research has applied implications, and may be beneficial in white/black dyad situations. There are certain dyadic circumstances where a partner may think that he/she cannot contribute their designated part in a physical task (e.g., holding up his/her part of a firehose, carrying a piece of military weaponry that requires two people, working together in a two-person bobsled event, etc.). If simply giving these types of dyads a greater sense of team identity helps the weaker group member give greater effort, it might have important, even life-saving consequences. More research should examine how recategorization techniques may enhance the team identity of a dyadic group in applied circumstances. Dissertation Strengths There were multiple strengths to this dissertation. First, this dissertation’s research questions and methodologies were based on a strong foundation of theory and prior research. Studies over the past 20 years have explored the Köhler effect and variables that potentially 105 moderate this effect (Weber & Hertel, 2007). Several recent studies have focused on applying this effect in exercise contexts (Feltz et al., 2011; Forlenza et al., 2012; Kerr et al., 2013) and this dissertation built on those well-designed experiments. However, to my knowledge, no prior studies had investigated the effects of diversity in exercise contexts prior to this dissertation. Thus, these results extend the group dynamics and exercise psychology literature to suggest that people will team up with and increase their efforts with persons of a dissimilar race when they are given techniques that enhance their team awareness. Second, this dissertation integrated theory and research from several different areas of study, including group dynamics, social psychology, motivational processes, and racial identity development. Within the current landscape of the world, there is a lot of distress between people of different cultures and races. Alleviating this problem will require that people work together from different fields to create interdisciplinary solutions. This dissertation was an attempt in this direction and its results suggest that incorporating group dynamics principles with social categorization interventions can lead to statistically significant extensions in exercise duration. More research of this nature should be conducted to develop innovative methods to address the multifaceted issue of understanding how diverse groups interact in exercise settings. Overall Limitations and Future Work As with any research project, this dissertation had limitations. The first is that participants might have felt that they could never surpass their partner’s performance. The participants were told that their partner would become fatigued over time and stop holding the plank exercise. However, participants might not have believed this because their never displayed any signs of being fatigued (i.e., tensing muscles, facial expressions). Moreover, in Experiments 1, 2, and 3, participants were informed of the partner superiority but were also provided information that 106 participants had the opportunity to match or surpass the partner. It is plausible that after performing as the weaker partner on one or two abdominal planks/computer orders, that the participant lost confidence in the ability to match the performance on the final three or four planks. All experiments were designed so that the participant never matched or surpassed the partner’s performance. It is plausible that “losing” to a moderately superior partner over multiple sessions may lessen an individual’s motivation to compare and increase one’s effort. It may be worth revisiting the reliability of the human partner ability discrepancy manipulation to understand how to strengthen the Köhler effect. Second limitation is how the results of our different tasks (e.g., plank, computer) of this dissertation cannot be generalized to different age groups, such as people outside the millennial generation. My participants were also young and healthy college students, and have different cultural viewpoints compared to older adults. Research has found that there has been a steep decline in the past 40 years that blacks are biologically different than, and inferior to whites (Schuman et al., 1997). Incorporating older white adults as participants may incorporate a higher sense of ethnocentrism (negative attitude towards individuals unlike oneself; Kam & Kinder, 2007), which may result in different experimental findings. College students also have more experience with electronic and internet-based devices on a common basis throughout most of their lifetime as well. Thus, the results from this dissertation may not generalize to people who are not as familiar with computer technologies. More research is also needed to understand the implications of how different age groups respond to their partners of different race in the Köhler paradigm. Third, the most substantial limitation for this dissertation is that the research occurred within a controlled laboratory setting, which raises external reliability concerns. Unlike research 107 environments, organizational settings provide a constant reinforcement of demographic differences, which can contribute to stress that is associated with diversity (Tsui & Gutek, 1999). However, the demographic reinforcement in our experiments were only short-lived, and may have minimized the implications if the partners interacted for a longer period of time. Future research may need to compare the pattern of results found in this dissertation to settings outside of the laboratory. There are further research avenues that can be explored from this dissertation. One potential research direction is exploring the implication of other races as participants in this novel Köhler paradigm. This dissertation only included white participants due to accessibility through the participant recruitment pool. Future research should also include black and Asian participants to examine the potential attenuation of motivation with certain outgroups, as well as to see if our recategorization intervention can be applied cross culturally. It may also be beneficial to compare a white partner (WP) intervention group with a WP with white participants to see if there is an additive effect of enhancing team identity regardless of race of partner. Additionally, using black participants and comparing a BPI with a BP may enhance the Köhler effect. For the BPI group, seeing if the stereotype threat phenomenon can be found within a participant’s own race may also be an important question for further investigation. Overall, this research may assist in understanding how individuals collectively work with others from different outgroups in exercise settings. Second, the initial research employing the Köhler paradigm in an exercise setting, Feltz et al. (2011) three partnered conditions (coactive, additive, or conjunctive) and a no-partner control condition. Participants in the coactive condition were told they could observe their partner during the next block of trials, just as their partner could observe them. However, each 108 person’s performance would be determined individually. Participants in the additive condition were told their team score would simply be the average of the two partners’ individual persistence scores. Feltz et al. found that participants in all partnered conditions persisted significantly longer than those in the control condition, but there were no differences in persistence between the partnered conditions. Though subsequent research has shown stronger Köhler effects for partnered conditions that are conjunctive (Irwin, Scorniaenchi, Kerr, Eisenmann, & Feltz, 2012), there are more applied team task situations that are additive in nature. Future researchers might considered extending this paradigm with racially diverse dyads to see if recategorization interventions can be applied in additive task situations. 109 APPENDICES 110 APPENDIX A Approval Documents 111 Initial IRBApplicationApprovalAugust 29, 2016To:Deborah L. Feltz130 IM Sports CircleDept. of KinesiologyMSURe:IRB# 16-886 Category: EXPEDITED 5, 6, 7Approval Date: August 29, 2016Expiration Date: August 28, 2017Title:Diversity as a Moderator of the Kohler EffectThe Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to adviseyou that your project has been approved.The committee has found that your research project is appropriate in design, protects the rights andwelfare of human subjects, and meets the requirements of MSU's Federal Wide Assurance and theFederal Guidelines (45 CFR 46 and 21 CFR Part 50). The protection of human subjects in research isa partnership between the IRB and the investigators. We look forward to working with you as weboth fulfill our responsibilities.Renewals: IRB approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. If you are continuing yourproject, you must submit an Application for Renewal application at least one month before expiration.If the project is completed, please submit an Application for Permanent Closure.Revisions: The IRB must review any changes in the project, prior to initiation of the change. Pleasesubmit an Application for Revision to have your changes reviewed. If changes are made at the timeof renewal, please include an Application for Revision with the renewal application.Problems: If issues should arise during the conduct of the research, such as unanticipated problems,adverse events, or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects, notify the IRB officepromptly. Forms are available to report these issues.Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project, or on anycorrespondence with the IRB office.Good luck in your research. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517-355-2180 orvia email at IRB@msu.edu. Thank you for your cooperation.Ashir Kumar, M.D.BIRB Chairc: Tayo MossSincerely,Office of Regulatory AffairsHuman ResearchProtection ProgramsBiomedical & HealthInstitutional Review Board(BIRB)Community ResearchInstitutional Review Board(CRIRB)Social ScienceBehavioral/EducationInstitutional Review Board(SIRB)Olds Hall408 West Circle Drive, #207East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 355-2180Fax: (517) 432-4503Email: irb@msu.eduwww.hrpp.msu.eduMSU is an affirmative-action,equal-opportunity employer. 112 Initial IRBApplicationApprovalSeptember 26, 2017To:Deborah L. Feltz130 IM Sports CircleDept. of KinesiologyMSURe:IRB# 17-1146 Category: EXPEDITED 7Approval Date: September 22, 2017Expiration Date: September 21, 2018Title:A Cross-Cultural Comparison Study On The Koehler Motivation Gain EffectThe Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to adviseyou that your project has been approved.The committee has found that your research project is appropriate in design, protects the rights andwelfare of human subjects, and meets the requirements of MSU's Federal Wide Assurance and theFederal Guidelines (45 CFR 46 and 21 CFR Part 50). The protection of human subjects in research isa partnership between the IRB and the investigators. We look forward to working with you as weboth fulfill our responsibilities.Renewals: IRB approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. If you are continuing yourproject, you must submit an Application for Renewal application at least one month before expiration.If the project is completed, please submit an Application for Permanent Closure.Revisions: The IRB must review any changes in the project, prior to initiation of the change. Pleasesubmit an Application for Revision to have your changes reviewed. If changes are made at the timeof renewal, please include an Application for Revision with the renewal application.Problems: If issues should arise during the conduct of the research, such as unanticipated problems,adverse events, or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects, notify the IRB officepromptly. Forms are available to report these issues.Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project, or on anycorrespondence with the IRB office.If we can be of further assistance, please contact us at 517-355-2180 or via email at IRB@msu.edu.Thank you for your cooperation.c: Tayo MossOffice of Regulatory AffairsHuman ResearchProtection ProgramsBiomedical & HealthInstitutional Review Board(BIRB)Community ResearchInstitutional Review Board(CRIRB)Social ScienceBehavioral/EducationInstitutional Review Board(SIRB)4000 Collins RoadSuite 136Lansing, MI, 48910 (517) 355-2180Fax: (517) 432-4503Email: irb@msu.eduwww.hrpp.msu.eduMSU is an affirmative-action,equal-opportunity employer. 113 RenewalApplicationApprovalSeptember 6, 2017To:Deborah L. Feltz130 IM Sports CircleDept. of KinesiologyMSURe:IRB# 16-886 Category: EXPEDITED 5, 6, 7Renewal Approval Date: September 1, 2017Project Expiration Date: August 31, 2018Title:Diversity as a Moderator of the Kohler EffectThe Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to adviseyou that the renewal has been approved.This renewal revision includes changes in the study design and sample size (180). There was noresearch conducted from the closure date until the renewal revision approval.The review by the committee has found that your renewal is consistent with the continued protectionof the rights and welfare of human subjects, and meets the requirements of MSU's Federal WideAssurance and the Federal Guidelines (45 CFR 46 and 21 CFR Part 50). The protection of humansubjects in research is a partnership between the IRB and the investigators. We look forward toworking with you as we both fulfill our responsibilities.Renewals: IRB approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. If you are continuing yourproject, you must submit an Application for Renewal application at least one month before expiration.If the project is completed, please submit an Application for Permanent Closure.Revisions: The IRB must review any changes in the project, prior to initiation of the change. Pleasesubmit an Application for Revision to have your changes reviewed. If changes are made at the time ofrenewal, please include an Application for Revision with the renewal application.Problems: If issues should arise during the conduct of the research, such as unanticipated problems,adverse events, or any problem that may increase the risk to the human subjects, notify the IRB officepromptly. Forms are available to report these issues.Please use the IRB number listed above on any forms submitted which relate to this project, or on anycorrespondence with the IRB office.MSU is an affirmative-action,equal-opportunity employer.Office of Regulatory AffairsHuman ResearchProtection ProgramsBiomedical & HealthInstitutional Review Board(BIRB)Community ResearchInstitutional Review Board(CRIRB)Social ScienceBehavioral/EducationInstitutional Review Board(SIRB)4000 Collins RoadSuite 136Lansing, MI, 48910 (517) 355-2180Fax: (517) 432-4503Email: irb@msu.eduwww.hrpp.msu.edu APPENDIX B Experimental Scripts Conjunctive partner with Black Partner Intervention Spoken to participants at the start of the 10 min break: Okay. So, after a break, you will perform the same set of exercises again. However, during the next set of exercises, you will be paired with a partner as a team. You and your partner will be working together towards a team score, which will be defined by the score of the person who quits first. So while you are both holding the planks, when one person stops, the other person has to stop too, and the team’s score will be the time of the person who stopped first. Before you two exercise together against the other team, we’d like you to meet your teammate. Give me one more moment to set up everything, and then I’ll have you come up here to take a seat. Spoken to participants and before their partner introduction: For your introduction, you and your partner will have a short conversation. After your partner introduces him/herself, you will be able to select response options using the mouse. Please press the spacebar to start the conversation. Spoken to participants and in the middle of their partner introduction: Now to make you and your partner more of a team, your teammate will chose a team shirt for you to wear. Okay, now that we have a team shirt for both of you, I would like you to choose a team name from the list of these names on this sheet. Spoken to participants early in the 10 min break: So, on the coming set of exercises, you will both begin at the same time; you will be able to see his/her display, just as he/she will be able to see yours. You will both hold each exercise for as long as you can, saying STOP when you have to quit and dropping back down to your mat. After one of you stops, the other person has to stop. The team score is the number of seconds the first team member lasts, and both teammates receive that score. Like before, tell me your perceived exertion after each exercise. After you have both stopped the exercise and after a brief rest period, we’ll move on to the next exercise, just as before. Again, the score on the next series is equal to the team score, which is how long the first group member to quit lasts at each exercise. Any questions so far? Okay, so, during the set of five exercises you just completed, you held each exercise an average of (S’s average from the spreadsheet) seconds. He did the same exercises you just completed, and his average was: Spoken to participants in the final min of the break, before starting Block 2: Okay. We’re now ready to do the next set of exercises. When the countdown begins, focus your attention on getting into the proper position. As before, try to hold each exercise as long as you can consistent with your own physical well-being and comfort. Again, please say STOP when 114 you can no longer continue. Then, report your exertion that best represents how you felt during the last exercise, and wait for the next exercise to begin. Again, when one of you stops, the other has to stop. I will let you know if Adam stops before you, in which case you should drop down to the mat and say your exertion number. I will let you know when you have completed the last exercise, and once you do, just sit on the mat until I give further instructions. Please watch the screen. Conjunctive partner/Black; White; Asian Spoken to participants at the start of the 10 min break: Okay. So, after a break, you will perform the same set of exercises again. However, during the next set of exercises, you will be paired with a partner as a team and you will be able to see how well you do at each exercise compared to him. The two of you will be working together towards a team score, which will be defined by the score of the person who quits first. So while you are both holding the planks, when one person stops, the other person has to stop too, and the team’s score will be the time of the person who stopped first. Before you two exercise together, we’d like you to meet your teammate. Give me one more moment to set up everything, and then I’ll have you come up here to take a seat. Spoken to participants and before their partner introduction: For your introduction, you and your partner will have a short conversation. Spoken to participants and in the middle of their partner introduction: Now to make you and your partner more of a team, your teammate will chose a team shirt for you to wear. (Okay, now that we have a team shirt for both of you, I would like you to choose a team name from the list of these names on this sheet. Spoken to participants early in the 10 min break: So, on the coming set of exercises, you will both begin at the same time; you will be able to see his/her display, just as he/she will be able to see yours. You will both hold each exercise for as long as you can, saying STOP when you have to quit and dropping back down to your mat. After one of you stops, the other person has to stop. The team score is the number of seconds the first team member lasts, and both teammates receive that score. Like before, tell me your perceived exertion after each exercise. After you have both stopped the exercise and after a brief rest period, we’ll move on to the next exercise, just as before. Again, the score on the next series is equal to the team score, which is how long the first group member to quit lasts at each exercise. Any questions so far? Okay, so, during the set of five exercises you just completed, you held each exercise an average of (S’s average from the spreadsheet) seconds. As I mentioned earlier, your partner, Adam also completed the first set of exercises just like you. Spoken to participants in the final min of the break, before starting Block 2: 115 Okay. We’re now ready to do the next set of exercises. When the countdown begins, focus your attention on getting into the proper position. As before, try to hold each exercise as long as you can consistent with your own physical well-being and comfort. Again, please say STOP when you can no longer continue. Then, report your exertion that best represents how you felt during the last exercise, and wait for the next exercise to begin. Again, when one of you stops, the other has to stop. I will let you know if Adam stops before you, in which case you should drop down to the mat and say your exertion number. I will let you know when you have completed the last exercise, and once you do, just sit on the mat until I give further instructions. Please watch the screen. Individual control (IC) script. Spoken to participants early in the 10 min break: OK. During the five exercises you just completed, you held each exercise an average of _____ seconds. In a few minutes, you will be performing a series of the same exercises again. As before, you are going to hold each exercise as long as you can, consistent with your own physical well-being and comfort. Now, please have a seat over here in front of the computer. Before we move on to the rest period, answer the questions on the screen. Spoken to participants in the final min of the break, before starting Block 2: OK. We’re now ready to do the next series of exercises. When you hear the countdown, focus your attention on getting into the proper position. As before, try to hold each exercise as long as you can, consistent with your own physical well-being and comfort. Again, please say STOP when you can no longer continue. Then, report your exertion by saying the number from the scale on the wall that best represents how you felt during the last exercise, and wait for the next exercise to begin. I will let you know when you have completed the last exercise. 116 REFERENCES 117 REFERENCES Feltz, D. L., Kerr, N. L., & Irwin, B. C. (2011). Buddy up: The Köhler effect applied to health games. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33(4), 506–526. Forlenza, S. T., Kerr, N. L., Irwin, B. C., & Feltz, D. L. (2012). Is My Exercise Partner Similar Enough? Partner Characteristics as a Moderator of the Köhler Effect in Exergames. Games for Health Journal, 1(6), 436–441. Irwin, B. C., Scorniaenchi, J., Kerr, N. L., Eisenmann, J. C., & Feltz, D. L. (2012). Aerobic exercise is promoted when individual performance affects the group: A test of the Köhler motivation gain effect. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 44(2), 151–159. doi:10.1007/s12160-012-9367-4 Kam, C. D., & Kinder, D. R. (2007). Terror and ethnocentrism: Foundations of American support for the war on terrorism. Journal of Politics, 69(2), 320-338. Kerr, N. L., Forlenza, S. T., Irwin, B. C., & Feltz, D. L. (2013). “... been down so long ...”: Perpetual vs. intermittent inferiority and the Köhler group motivation gain in exercise groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 17(2), 67–80. Kerr, N. L., & Sullaway, M. E. (1983). Group sex composition and member task motivation. Sex Roles, 9(3), 403-417. Kerr, N. L., & Hertel, G. (2011). The Köhler group motivation gain: How to motivate the “weak links” in a group. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(1), 43–55. Kohler, 0. (1926). ‘Kraftleistungen bei Einzel- und Gruppenarbeit’. (Strength performance in individual and group work). Industrielle Psychotechnik, 3, 274-282. Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(6), 822. Schuman, H. (1997). Racial attitudes in America: Trends and interpretations. Harvard University Press. Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions. Lexington Books. Weber, B., & Hertel, G. (2007) Motivation gains of inferior group members: A meta-analytical review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 973-993. Wittchen, M., Schlereth, D., & Hertel, G. (2007). Social indispensability in spite of temporal and spatial separation: Motivation gains in a sequential task during anonymous cooperation on the internet. International Journal of Internet Science, 2(1), 12-27. 118