THE EFFECTS OF CHARITABLE CAUSE ON PHYSICAL ACTIVITY MOTIVATION
By
Duygu Gurleyik

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Kinesiology - Doctor of Philosophy
2017

PUBLIC ABSTRACT
THE EFFECTS OF CHARITABLE CAUSE ON PHYSICAL ACTIVITY MOTIVATION
By
Duygu Gurleyik
People know that physical activity is good for their health. However, just having this knowledge
is not sufficient to motivate people to engage in regular physical activity. Current data shows that
52% of the U.S. population has chosen a lifestyle that is either sedentary or insufficiently active.
Recently, behavioral scientists have been searching for better ways to motivate people’s physical
activity levels. Providing an immediate reward of donating for a charitable cause for physical
activity behavior may be one way to increase motivation to engage in physical activity, and using
social media to make one’s physical activity public may be another motivational strategy. Thus,
the purpose of this study was to investigate whether or not linking an exercise task to a charitable
cause (earning money via cycling to be donated to a charity) influences the amount of effort
expended in a single bout of exercise on a stationary exercise bike. Additionally, the effect of
making exercise results public (e.g., posting on social media) on effort while cycling was
examined. Results of this dissertation demonstrated that immediate rewards following an
exercise bout increased motivation in terms of longer cycling minutes.

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECTS OF CHARITABLE CAUSE ON PHYSICAL ACTIVITY MOTIVATION
By
Duygu Gurleyik
Motivation is an important factor for the promotion of physical activity behavior, and
motivation to perform a given task can derive from various sources (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Ryan &
Deci, 2000). One source of motivation is the use of rewards. This dissertation addresses two
different characteristics of motivating rewards grounded in self-presentational theory: (a) the
time-based nature and (b) the image-based nature of a reward; and how they are associated with
physical activity motivation and behavior. The primary purpose of this study was to investigate
whether or not linking an exercise task to an immediate reward in the form of a charitable giving
opportunity influences the amount of effort expended in a single bout of exercise on a stationary
cycle ergometer. The secondary purpose was to examine the effect of adding an image-based
reward component in the form of making results public (e.g., posted on social media) on effort
expended in a cycling bout. Two studies were conducted using experimental designs where
participants were randomly assigned to four different treatment conditions: (a) Private pro-health
(i.e., control group-delayed reward, potential health benefit), (b) Private prosocial reward
(i.e.immediate reward - cycling for a monetary donation to charity), (b) Public self-presentational
reward (i.e., immediate reward – cycling results posted on social media), and (d) Both Public
prosocial and self-presentational reward (i.e., immediate reward, cycling and charity donation
results posted on social media). The first study was a pilot study (N=30) to test the research
process and protocol and also to identify variables of interest. The second study, grounded in
self-presentation theory, replicated the basic task, elaborating the theoretical framework and

methodology with a larger sample size. In Study 2, college students (N = 108) completed
questionnaires for assessment of previous physical activity levels, completed exercise eligibility
forms, and performed a single bout of cycling. The dependent variable was time spent (minutes)
cycling during a session. Analyses using current physical activity levels and altruistic personality
as covariates showed there was a significant difference in a way that more time was spent
cycling when immediate rewards such as charity donations and Facebook posts were used. In
addition, self-efficacy beliefs increased when immediate rewards were involved. The findings
from this study support the possibility that using motivating rewards (time and image based) is
positively associated with increased physical activity levels.

This dissertation is dedicated to Mom and Dad.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to have a dissertation.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
Research Questions ..........................................................................................................................7
Delimitations ...................................................................................................................................8
Definitions........................................................................................................................................9
CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................................................10
LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................................10
Physical Inactivity Problem ...........................................................................................................10
Motivation ......................................................................................................................................12
Self-Presentation ....................................................................................................................14
Self-Presentation in Exercise .................................................................................................15
Facebook ................................................................................................................................16
Altruism and Self-presentation. .............................................................................................19
Gender considerations in motivation. ....................................................................................21
Self-Efficacy ..................................................................................................................................21
CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................................23
METHODS ....................................................................................................................................23
Study 1:Pilot...................................................................................................................................23
Participants .....................................................................................................................................23
Questionnaires................................................................................................................................24
Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) and demographic questionnaire. .......24
The Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ). ................................................24
Apparatus .......................................................................................................................................24
Procedure .......................................................................................................................................25
Treatment Conditions.....................................................................................................................25
Condition 1: Private pro-health (Control).. ............................................................................25
Condition 2: Public Self-presentational reward (FB only). ...................................................26
Condition 3: Private prosocial reward (Charity only)............................................................26
Condition 4: Both public prosocial and Self-presentational reward (FB and charity). .........27
Results ............................................................................................................................................28
Preliminary Analysis. .........................................................................................................28
Experimental Analysis: Time Spent Cycling in Minutes. .................................................29
Experimental Analysis: Calories Burned During the Session. ..........................................30
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................30
CHAPTER 4 ..................................................................................................................................32

v

STUDY 2 .......................................................................................................................................32
Methods..........................................................................................................................................34
Participants .....................................................................................................................................34
Questionnaires................................................................................................................................34
Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q). ..........................................................35
Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire. ........................................................................35
Self-Efficacy Scale.................................................................................................................35
Altruistic Personality Scale (APS). ........................................................................................35
Self-Presentation in Exercise Questionnaire (SPEQ). ...........................................................36
Self-Presentation in Altruistic Behavior Scale(SPABS)........................................................36
Perceptual Value of Donating $1.00.. ....................................................................................36
Apparatus .......................................................................................................................................36
Procedure .......................................................................................................................................37
Treatment Conditions.....................................................................................................................38
Condition 1: Private pro-health (Control). . ...........................................................................38
Condition 2: Public Self-presentational reward (FB only).. ..................................................39
Condition 3: Private prosocial reward (Charity only)............................................................39
Condition 4: Both public prosocial and Self-presentational reward (FB and charity). .........40
Treatment of Data and Data Analysis ............................................................................................41
Current Level of Physical Activity. .......................................................................................41
Altruistic Personality Scale. ...................................................................................................41
Test of Hypotheses .........................................................................................................................41
Exploratory Analyses .............................................................................................................42
Results ............................................................................................................................................42
Descriptive Statistics, Data Screening and Correlations................................................................43
Correlations ..........................................................................................................................44
Preliminary Analyses ....................................................................................................................47
Internal consistency ...............................................................................................................47
Gender ....................................................................................................................................47
Nationality..............................................................................................................................47
Covariates ..............................................................................................................................48
Main Analyses and Hypotheses Testing ........................................................................................48
Exploratory Analyses .....................................................................................................................50
Discussion ......................................................................................................................................51
Main and Secondary Analyses ...............................................................................................52
CHAPTER 5 ..................................................................................................................................55
GENERAL DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................55
Self-presentation theory .................................................................................................................56
Strengths ........................................................................................................................................58
Limitations and Future Research Directions..................................................................................60
Limitations .............................................................................................................................60
Future directions ....................................................................................................................62
Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................63
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................64

vi

APPENDIX A: IRB APPROVAL LETTER FOR STUDY 1 PILOT ...........................................65
APPENDIX B: IRB APPROVAL LETTER FOR STUDY 2 .......................................................66
APPENDIX C: DEMOGRAPHICS ..............................................................................................67
APPENDIX D: PHYSICAL ACTIVITY READINESS QUESTIONNAIRE (PAR-Q) ..............68
APPENDIX E: GODIN LEISURE TIME SCALE .......................................................................69
APPENDIX F: ALTRUISTIC PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE..........................................70
APPENDIX G: SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS PRE .......................................................................72
APPENDIX H: SELF-PRESENTATION IN EXERCISE QUESTIONNAIRE ...........................74
APPENDIX I: SELF-PRESENTATION IN ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR QUESTIONNAIRE ..76
APPENDIX J: SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS POST .....................................................................77
APPENDIX K: HEALTH BULLETIN .........................................................................................79
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................80

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations (SD) for Previous Physical Activity Levels. ...............28
Table 2. Unadjusted Means of Minutes Cycled in Each Treatment Condition. ...........................29
Table 3. Means of Burned Calories in Each Treatment Condition. ..............................................30
Table 4. Number of Participants in Each Treatment Condition by Gender. .................................43
Table 5. Overall Means and Standard Deviations for All Variables by Gender............................44
Table 6. Overall Means and Standard Deviations for All Variables by Condition and Gender. ...45
Table 7. Correlations Between All Variables. ..............................................................................46
Table 8. Between-subject 2x2 ANOVA for Altruistic Condition and Gender .............................50
Table 9. Summary of the Multiple Regression Statistics for the Predictor Variables. ..................51

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure I. Mean Minutes Cycled for Each Condition. ....................................................................46

ix

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The beneficial health outcomes of physical activity are well acknowledged (Livingstone,
Robson, Wallace, & McKinley, 2003) and include numerous psychological and physiological
health benefits (e.g., weight loss, reduced risk of heart disease, lowered risk of depression, or
certain types of cancer) (CDC, 2012). However, explicit knowledge of these potential health
benefits is not sufficient to motivate people to engage in physical activity at the recommended
levels. Healthy People 2020 reported in 2008 that only 44% of adults meet recommended levels
of physical activity in The United States. Previous studies also show similar patterns throughout
the world. For example, adults in Europe (40%) and Australia (57%) are meeting minimum
guidelines of physical activity (De Cocker, De Bourdeaudhuij, Brown, & Cardon, 2007). As the
lack of physical activity may trigger health problems in individuals (CDC, 2012), it is crucial to
find ways to motivate people to adopt a physically active lifestyle to prevent some of the
common chronic diseases.
Recently, behavioral scientists have been searching for ways to better understand
motivation and the factors affecting motivation that may influence people’s physical activity
levels (Edwardson & Gorely, 2010; Katz & Kahn, 1966; Livingstone et al., 2003; Ryan & Deci,
2000). Motivation to perform a given task can derive from various sources (Katz & Kahn, 1966;
Ryan & Deci, 2000). One source is to use rewards that entice people to be more active,
especially for physical activities that are not inherently interesting or for people who need
additional motivation to exercise (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Researchers have been able to determine
several characteristics of motivating rewards. This dissertation addresses two different
characteristics of motivating rewards: (1) time-based nature and (2) image-based nature of

1

reward, and how they are associated with physical activity motivation and behavior.
First, time-based nature of the reward (i.e., when one gets rewarded) may have a
consequence on motivation, because when rewards are delayed, people have to rely on their
willpower (i.e., self-control) to regulate their behavior rather than relying on an external reward
(Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988). If two reward choices are offered (immediate vs. delayed),
individuals who have a weak willpower will be more likely to choose an immediate reward, even
if the delayed reward is more valuable and beneficial than the immediate reward. In the physical
activity context, the health benefits that are received from regular exercise are usually delayed
rewards (e.g., weight loss, low risk of common chronic diseases, etc.). Considering the recent
research demonstrating the upward trend of obesity and heart diseases in the U.S.A (CDC, 2010),
I assert that health benefits are delayed rewards but very valuable rewards for one’s health and
overall wellbeing such as obesity prevention, improved heart health and weight management
(CDC, 2010). On the other hand, the immediate reward of inactivity for people can be relaxation
(e.g., sitting and watching TV) while the immediate consequences of activity might entail pain,
soreness, and fatigue, especially for a novice exerciser (Dishman &Buckworth, 2010). This may
explain the potential reason why people would choose sedentary behavior; inactivity has
immediate rewards. However, inactivity has delayed consequences that can be detrimental for
one’s health: poorer health because of weight gain, metabolic syndrome, and heart-related
problems.
Even when individuals are motivated enough to initiate physical activity, the timing of
the reward may be important for how long or how much effort they put into their physical
activity. Therefore, I wanted to incorporate tangible immediate rewards to physical activity for
this study. Specifically, the rewards I investigated involved providing an opportunity to donate to

2

a charity by cycling and/or announcing the cycling results and charity donation on social media,
such as Facebook (FB). So, while using the time-based nature of the reward by immediately
rewarding people with the opportunity to provide charitable donations, I strengthened the reward
potential by adding the image-based nature of the reward (e.g., self-presentational concerns)
through the opportunity to post people’s results on social media (i.e., FB).
Second, researchers explained the importance of the image-based nature of rewards (also
called “image motivation hypothesis”). Image motivation is the desire to be perceived as kind
and nice by others. People like to be appreciated and recognized by others for a desirable
behavior, such as helping the elderly, donating to charities, or showing good health behavior.
Thus, image motivation is in effect when others can see one’s prosocial behaviors (Ariely,
Bracha, & Meier, 2009; Zimmerman, 2009).Image motivation is very similar to self-presentation
theory (Schlenker & Leary, 1982), which explains that people try to convey socially desirable
information and/or images about themselves to other people. Specifically, self-presentational
concerns occur when other people are present to evaluate them, and therefore experience social
anxiety. This anxiety motivates them to make a desired impression on other people. For the
purposes of this dissertation, image motivation and self-presentational motivation can be used
interchangeably.
In a series of experiments conducted by Ariely et al. (2009), the researchers demonstrated
that people are more motivated to show prosocial behaviors in public than they are in private. In
their experiment, they created two different conditions to complete a simple task. In the first
condition, participants were told that the task was to click on X and Y on a computer keyboard
simultaneously for 5 min as much as possible to earn money to be donated to the American Red
Cross, a charitable aid organization. In this condition, the amount of money earned by the

3

participant was confidential and only the participant and the researcher knew the donated
amount. Researchers referred to this condition as “private.”
The second “public” condition included the same task to click on X and Y as much as
possible for 5 min. However, this time, participants had to announce the amount earned at the
end of the session with the remaining people in that particular room. The hypothesis was that
image motivation (announcing the money earned to the other people in the room) would create a
difference in the number of clicks. Results supported the hypothesis; participants clicked
significantly more on the keyboard in the public image condition compared to the private
confidential condition. Therefore, there is some support indicating that people will exert more
effort on simple tasks if they know their contributions will be made public, and will, therefore,
enhance their image to others.
Ariely et al., (2009) conducted another experiment to examine the differences in
performance between two different motivating rewards while cycling on a stationary bike. In the
first condition participants were told that they would earn a dollar for each mile cycled during a
10-min exercise bout and that the earned money would be donated to a charity. In the second
condition, participants were told that they would earn money for charity and they would also
earn a dollar for themselves for each mile cycled. Results revealed that participants in the
condition with two rewards (charitable donation and individual payment) cycled longer than the
charitable donation-only condition. One should take into consideration that this experiment was
implemented in behavioral economics field, and thus lacks some of the typical features of an
exercise experiment conducted in the kinesiology field, such as controlling for exercise intensity,
measuring previous physical activity levels, etc. So, for this present study I conducted an
exercise experiment through a kinesiology lens, including some of typical features (e.g.,

4

checking exercise eligibility, assessing previous physical activity levels etc.)
Aforementioned, self-presentational motivation is contingent upon the visibility of one’s
behaviors. Recently, a milieu that allows people to freely self-present is social media. Facebook
(FB) is one of the most popular social networking site with 1.01 billion daily active members as
of September 2015 and, self-presentation is a significant element for FB- it gives people the
opportunity to post information about their lives, and others can “like” or comment on their
status (Hofmann & Nadkarni, 2013; Kim & Lee, 2011; Lee-Won, Shim, Joo, & Park, 2014;
Wong, 2012). People seem to enjoy receiving “likes” because it is a sign of appreciation and
approval and thus a reward. Wong (2012) explains that uploading photos and videos is very
popular on FB mainly because people have the chance to upload or write what they prefer to
show to others. Usually, people share photos that they look the best in. They write and post about
their success or the fun things that they are doing (e.g., graduating, traveling, etc.). FB provides a
nice opportunity for people to build good impressions in others’ eyes because they have the
control and time to decide in what way they would like to self-present (Chen & Marcus, 2012).
Besides they can reach many people all at once. Studies explain that people want to maintain a
positive image on FB in order to get appreciation and recognition in return online (e.g., receiving
“Likes” from many people). So, FB might motivate people to convey their desired image in
order to receive positive feedback. (Kim & Lee, 2011; Lee-Won et al., 2014; Wong, 2012).
In the physical activity context, people like to share the kilometers that they have ran, the
training that they conducted for various kinds sports and photographs while competing, etc.
However, little is known about self-presentational motivation on social media (e.g., FB) for
physical activity behavior and whether or not it enhances physical activity behavior. For the
present study, I used FB as the social-media milieu to announce participants’ cycling task

5

performances in order to make it visible to others. So, FB was the mechanism to publicize one’s
behavior.
To my knowledge no study has examined the relationship between the image-based
nature of a reward (self-presentational motivation) and physical activity behavior for the
intention to promote physical activity levels. Because the health benefits of exercise are delayed
rewards that compete with the immediate rewards of inactivity, time and image-based rewards
might be powerful tools to promote greater exercise.
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate whether or not linking an exercise
task to an immediate reward in the form of a charitable giving opportunity influences the amount
of effort expended in a single bout of exercise on a stationary cycle ergometer. The secondary
purpose was to examine the effect of adding an image-based reward component in the form of
making results public (e.g., posted on social media) on effort expended in a cycling bout.
This dissertation encompassed two studies; the first study was a pilot study in which I
conducted an experiment to test the research process and protocol and also to identify variables
of interest. The second study, grounded in self-presentation theory and image motivation, was an
extended version in which methodology was improved with a larger sample size. There is one
independent variable in this dissertation, the nature of a reward for exercise, with four levels: (a)
an anticipated health reward for exercising (delayed private pro health reward), (b) an immediate
reward for exercising by charitable giving (immediate private altruistic reward), (c) an
immediate image-based reward for exercising (immediate public pro health reward), and (d) an
immediate image-based reward for exercising and charitable giving (immediate public pro health
in FB and altruistic reward). The dependent variables were exercise duration, calories expended,
and self-efficacy for cycling. This dissertation investigated several hypotheses and research

6

questions.
Research Questions
1) What are the effects of using a motivating reward, that has a self-presentational
aspect, on exercise task performance?
2) What are the effects of using immediate a motivating reward, that is altruistic but
private in nature, on exercise task performance?
3) Does using a motivating reward affect performance-related constructs such as selfefficacy, duration of cycling?
Hypotheses – Study 1
(a) Participants in each of the three immediate reward conditions (Private prosocial
reward, Public self-presentational reward, Public prosocial and Self-presentational
reward) will spend significantly more time and burn more calories exercising
compared to participants in the control group (only for pro health reasons).
(b) Participants in Public prosocial and Self-presentational reward condition (FB and
charity together) will spend significantly more time and burn more calories exercising
compared to exercising for Private prosocial reward (only charity) and Public selfpresentational reward (only FB) treatment conditions.
(c) Exercising for Public self-presentational reward (for public recognition on social
media FB) will lead one to spend more time and burn more calories exercising
compared to exercising for for a private prosocial reward (private charitable reward).
Hypotheses – Study 2
(a) Participants in each of the three immediate reward conditions (Private prosocial
reward, Public self-presentational reward, Public prosocial and Self-presentational

7

reward) will spend significantly more minutes on exercise performance compared to
participants in the control group (Private pro-health reasons group).
(b) Participants in Public prosocial and Self-presentational reward condition (FB and
charity) will spend significantly more minutes exercising compared to exercising for
Private prosocial reward (only charity) and Public self-presentational reward (only
FB) treatment conditions
(c) Exercising for public Self-presentation reward (for public recognition on social
media) will lead one to spend more time exercising compared to exercising for a
private prosocial reward (private charitable
(d) Participants in each of the three immediate reward conditions (Private prosocial
reward, Public self-presentational reward, Public prosocial and Self-presentational
reward) will report greater self-efficacy changes compared to the control group
(Private pro-health)
(e) There will be a Gender X Altruistic Condition interaction, such that, females will
spend more time exercising in the Private prosocial condition compared to males who
will spend more time exercising in the Public self-presentation condition compared to
females.
(f) There will be no significant difference on any of the dependent variables between
American and Turkish students. Students from both nations will show similar
behavior patterns.
Delimitations
The study sample for this dissertation included undergraduate students between 18-35
years of age who are mostly physically active in recommended levels. For this reason, the results

8

of this dissertation may not be generalizable to other populations, such as people who are
sedentary or children. Also, college students are seen as interacting more with social media than
other age groups, so social media might be more motivating for them. However, charitable
donations might be more motivating for middle-aged audience (e.g., 35-55 years) as they might
want to “give back” and acknowledge the importance of helping others. As a result, the type of
motivating rewards might work differently among age groups.
Definitions
Altruistic personality: Person who promotes someone else’s welfare, primarily toward strangers.
Charities: The charity list included three big scale charities. Feeding America, American Red
Cross and UNICEF.
Image-based nature of the reward: The image-based reward was the posts on FB.
Physical activity: Physical activity in this research is operationalized as cycling on a stationary
bike.
Self-efficacy: an individual’s belief of his/her capabilities to organize and execute the courses of
action necessary to accomplish a specific task.
Self-presentation: Any behavior that is designed to convey a positive impression in others' eyes.
Self-presentation in exercise and altruistic behaviors are considered in this dissertation
Time-based nature of the reward: The immediate reward for physical activity was the charitable
donations or/and FB postings.

9

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a review of the literature that is relevant to the
variables, procedures, and hypotheses of this study. The chapter starts with an overview of
physical inactivity being a major problem for overall wellbeing and health. From there, it is
argued that incorporating immediate motivating rewards to physical activity can be a way to
motivate people to be more active. Motivating rewards include; using social media (e.g., FB) to
post the duration of an exercise bout and/or charity donations earned after completing certain
duration of exercise. Next, the literature on self-presentation is reviewed as it can provide
theoretical support to explain how motivating rewards might work to promote physical activity.
In addition, related to self-presentation theory; self-presentation in exercise settings, social media
usage and self-presentation in altruism is also reviewed. Lastly, self-efficacy beliefs and gender
components were reviewed.
Physical Inactivity Problem
The beneficial health outcomes of physical activity are well acknowledged (Livingstone
et al., 2003). However, explicit knowledge of these potential health benefits is not sufficient to
motivate people to engage in physical activity at the recommended levels. Studies also point out
that the occasions to engage in sedentary behaviors have also increased in the last decades, for
example driving versus walking, using elevators instead of stairs, using drive-troughs
(Brownson, Boehmer, & Luke, 2005). Healthy People 2020 reported in 2008 that only 44% of
adults meet recommended levels of physical activity in The United States. Previous studies also
show similar patterns throughout the world. For example, adults in Europe (60%) and Australia
(43%) follow a sedentary lifestyle (De Cocker et al., 2007). As the lack of physical activity may

10

trigger health problems in individuals (CDC, 2012), it is crucial to find ways to motivate people
to adopt a physically active lifestyle to prevent some of the common chronic diseases.
There are numerous psychological and physiological health benefits derived from regular
exercise. Examples include reduced risk of heart disease, depression and certain types of cancer
(CDC, 2012). In addition, regular exercise facilitates weight management; with an active
lifestyle people can maintain their optimal weight or lose the excessive weight and keep it off.
This is especially important as the obesity epidemic in the U.S.A still has an upward trend
(Dishman, 2004).
There are also neurocognitive benefits that come from exercise. These benefits might be
difficult to perceive and differentiate for people. Cognitive kinesiology research revealed that
physical activity might address some neurocognitive problems. For example, brain structures,
such as hippocampus, prefrontal cortex, and temporal and parietal cortices showed decline in
volume (e.g., shrinking), as adults aged. Fortunately, high levels of PA and/or fitness were
positively correlated with greater brain volumes specifically in the areas where shrinking
happens (Etnier & Chang, 2009; Hillman, Erickson, & Kramer, 2008). So, there is some
evidence that exercise might help to prevent brain atrophy and cognitive decline. These studies
suggest that exercise is not only important for maintaining physical and mental health, but it is
also an important factor in retaining cognitive health.
Many campaigns have been launched to increase public’s awareness about the
importance of having a physically active lifestyle to prevent chronic diseases such as National
Institute of Health’s campaign “Go4Life”. This is a campaign initiated to encourage older adults
(over 50 years of age) to exercise regularly and to be physically active in their daily life. The
aim of the campaign is to motivate older adults to become physically active for the very first

11

time, or return to exercise after a break in their routines by providing tip sheets, evidence-based
exercise articles, exercise tracking tools via an interactive website (Herman, 2014). Another one
is Sport England’s national campaign “This Girl Can” that encourages women to get involved in
sport and exercise regardless of their age, size and shape (“This Girl Can,” n.d.). However,
evidence suggests that increasing knowledge of the benefits of an active life is not sufficient for
people to move. Therefore, researchers need to find unique ways to improve motivation to
promote physical activity.
Motivation
Motivation is defined as the direction and intensity of effort (Gill, 1989). Direction refers
to the reason why people are attracted to a particular situation. Intensity refers to the amount of
effort given for that particular situation. Motivation to perform a given task can derive from
various sources (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Ryan & Deci, 2000). One source is the use of motivating
rewards, especially for physical activities that are not inherently interesting or for people who
need additional motivation to exercise (Ryan & Deci, 2002). An interesting aspect of motivating
rewards for exercise behavior might be the timing of when people get rewarded – immediate vs.
delayed rewards.
Mischel, Shoda, and Peake (1988) conducted one of the initial studies on timing of
rewards, although it was not in an exercise context, it might have implications on exercise
behavior. In their longitudinal study, they examined preschooler’s capability to delay
gratification for an extrinsic reward – a tangible award given to someone for achieving a
behavior. Children between 4-5 years of age were offered a choice between two rewards (one vs.
two marshmallows) and were asked to choose one of the options. Afterwards participants were
asked to wait alone in the room until the experimenter comes back in order to get the chosen

12

reward (e.g., two marshmallows). Children were not forced to wait until the experimenter returns
to the room, they had the option to ring a bell and experimenter would immediately come back to
the room. However, if they chose this option, the children would only get the less preferred
reward (e.g., one marshmallow instead of two). Researchers assessed the relation between the
current capability to delay gratification and future social and academic success of children.
Children were assessed again 10 years later via self-report survey filled out by their parents.
Results show that those children who were able to delay gratification when they were 4-5 years
old, received higher scores from their parents in terms of academic and social success when they
are 14-15 years old. Causality cannot be drawn from this experiment but these results show that
one’s ability to delay gratification in childhood might be an indicator of social and academic
success in the future.
In similar research (Weller, Cook, Avsar, & Cox, 2008), results revealed that obese
women were less likely to delay gratification compared to their normal weight counterparts. The
study was looking at the relationship between body weight and delay gratification because it was
argued that obese women lack inhibitory control. Participants were offered two different
amounts of money and were asked to choose between the options. One of the options had a
larger amount of money with a delayed delivery (e.g., 2 weeks) while the other had a smaller
amount with an immediate delivery. The findings indicated that obese women significantly
preferred the immediate smaller amounts of monetary rewards compared to normal-weight
women.
In some of the situations choosing immediate or delayed reward might seem like a
personal decision (some might not care about the marshmallow), but in other circumstances it is
more obvious that people are motivated by the immediate reward. In the physical activity

13

context, the health benefits that are received from regular exercise are usually delayed rewards
(e.g., weight loss, low risk of common chronic diseases, etc.). Considering the recent research
demonstrating the upward trend of obesity and heart diseases in the U.S.A (CDC, 2010), we
assert that health benefits are delayed rewards but very valuable rewards for one’s health and
overall wellbeing such as obesity prevention, improved heart health and weight management
(CDC, 2010). Most people know the health benefits of regular exercise but resting at home have
an immediate reward (e.g., enjoyment) compared to get ready to head to the gym for the delayed
reward of improving one’s cardiovascular health.
There is some evidence that shows that timing of the reward might be crucial for some
people to initiate a behavior – in this case physical activity. Therefore, I wanted to provide a
tangible immediate reward to physical activity for this study, beyond mere feedback on
performance, such as providing an opportunity to donate to a charity by cycling or/and
announcing the cycling result on social media (e.g., FB). So, in addition to the time-based nature
of the reward (my exercise with no immediate reward condition), I used the image-based nature
of the rewards.
Self-Presentation. An additional aspect of motivation is self-presentation. Selfpresentation theory indicates that individuals are motivated to manage the impressions others
shape of them, that is why impression management is used interchangeably with selfpresentation theory. According to research studies, people sometimes behave in ways that will
form positive impressions in others' eyes. This is important because the impressions people
create for themselves might have implications about how other people perceive and evaluate
them (e.g., dieting to be more physically attractive, trying to create a good first impression, being
active to be seen physically fit, etc.) (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Martin Ginis & Mack, 2012;

14

Martin, Leary, & O’Brien, 2001). Leary and Kowalski (1990) introduced the two–component
model of impression management. The two components are (a) impression motivation and (b)
impression construction. In the first, impression motivation, people are motivated to control
other people’s impressions of them and they are concerned about what people think of them.
Often, people are so preoccupied to reflect a desired image that they neglect the desired behavior
itself. In the second process, impression construction, people think and decide about a particular
image that they want to reflect and try to find the necessary strategies to convey that image
(Ginis & Leary, 2004; Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Martin Ginis & Mack, 2012). Even though
impression motivation and construction seem like two separate constructs, it is not easy to
untangle them in experimental and real world settings.
Self-Presentation in Exercise. This two-component model has been widely used in
exercise literature and can be considered a theoretical framework to investigate the effect of selfpresentation in exercise settings because of the social arena in which exercise often occurs. The
typical instrument used to measure self-presentation in exercise is the Self-Presentation in
Exercise Questionnaire (SPEQ). Conroy, Motl, and Hall (2000) developed the SPEQ based on
Leary and Kowalski's (1990) model to measure self-presentational tendencies for exercisers and
was designed to assess both impression motivation (IM) and impression construction (IC) in
exercise environments.
Some research demonstrated that self-presentational concerns in exercise are associated
with both unhealthy (e.g., avoiding to exercise because social physique anxiety) and healthy
(e.g., exercise to be perceived fit) behaviors amongst people. In this sense one can say that high
self-presentational concerns might courage or discourage physical activity behavior depending
on individual factors such as self-efficacy, age, gender, self-identity, etc. (Ginis & Leary, 2004;

15

Martin Ginis & Mack, 2012; Martin et al., 2001). For example, Martin et al. (2001) found that
some girls would avoid exercising because they were worried about the way their body would
look while they perform an exercise task (social physique anxiety), on the other hand there were
girls who were exercising to look fit and more attractive. Studies point out that self-presentation
may be an important antecedent of physical activity because it might influence people’s exercise
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Hausenblas, Brewer, & Van Raalte, 2004). Taking into
account this information, I tried to manipulate self-presentation in a way to encourage physical
activity. Performing a task in front of an audience can be intimidating for some people, such as
those who have social physique anxiety, but posting about an already completed workout on a
social media setting might be more comfortable for people. Besides one always has an option to
opt out and choose not to post it. In addition, I am including SPEQ as an individual difference
variable. Self-presentational concerns can vary greatly among participants (e.g., one might not
care about being seen fit and healthy).
Facebook. Self-presentation literature explains that people try to reflect images that are
consistent with their own characteristics and that they like to represent valued aspects of
themselves (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Recently a milieu that allows people to freely self-present
is social media. FB is one of the most popular social networking site with 1.01 billion daily
active members as of September 2015 and, self-presentation is a significant element for FB
(Hofmann & Nadkarni, 2013; Kim & Lee, 2011; Lee-Won et al., 2014; Wong, 2012).
FB is a social network site in which certain applications are used to communicate with
other members. These applications include status updates (e.g., writing and posting about an
interesting thing that happened that particular day), uploading photos and videos, having a
“Like” and comment option on each post. These are the ways to have interaction with many

16

people on FB (Kim & Lee, 2011; Lee-Won et al., 2014). Wong (2012) explains that uploading
photos and videos is very popular on FB mainly because people have the chance to upload or
write what they prefer to show to others. Usually, people share photos that they look the best in.
They write and post about their success or the fun things that they are doing (e.g., graduating,
traveling etc.). FB is providing a nice opportunity for people to build good impressions in others’
eyes because they have the control and time to decide in what way they would like to selfpresent (Chen & Marcus, 2012). Additionally, people who post can reach many people all at
once. Studies explain that people want to maintain a positive image on FB in order to get
appreciation and recognition in return online (e.g., receiving “Likes” from many people). People
like to be appreciated and recognized by others for a desired behavior and the “Like” button
option is for a member to tap on it to indicate they actually have seen/read what has been posted
(e.g., personal notes or photos) and really enjoyed doing it. So, FB might motivate people convey
their desired image in order to receive positive feedback. (Kim & Lee, 2011; Lee-Won et al.,
2014; Wong, 2012). However, little is known about self-presentational motivation on FB for
physical activity behavior.
A common assumption is that FB members potentially present their idealized self rather
than actual self over their profiles. Back, Stopfer, Vezire, Gaddis (2010) tested this hypothesis to
see whether FB profiles reflected actual selves or the idealized selves via a self-report surveys.
They found that people were conveying their real personalities instead of glorifying an idealized
version of themselves (Back et al., 2010). The main reason was that people fear to deceive others
with misinformation because this might deteriorate self-presentation in an irreversible way, if
others find out. However, it seems like there is a caveat, although people reflect their actual
personalities on FB profiles they do tweak reality a little in terms of behaviors (e.g., hobbies,

17

interests). For example, adding a socially desirable behavior (e.g., doing Yoga) that they seek to
have in the future (Zhao, Grasmuck, & Martin, 2008). By adding a socially desirable behavior,
the need to belong (e.g., being among people who practice Yoga) and need to self-presentation
(e.g., I am cool I am doing Yoga) is met. Authors suggest that FB usage is increasing self-esteem
levels by increasing users’ sense of belonging.
In the review of studies in social media, Nadkarni and Hofmann (2012) explained FB’s
popularity in two areas: (a) the need to belong and (b) the need for self-presentation. The need to
belong refers to the innate desire to relate to a group, and the need for self-presentation is the
constant activity of impression management. These two factors can co-exist, but can also each be
the single reason of FB’s popularity.
In another study examining the relation between self-presentation and FB usage,
researchers assessed the effects of FB usage on subjective well being among college students.
Researchers assessed whether the number of FB friends and displaying a positive selfpresentation on FB affected subjective well-being or not (Kim & Lee, 2011). Results showed that
both number of FB friends and positive self-presentation had a positive association with
subjective well-being. Researchers explained that this association was mediated by the
perceived social support they receive from friends via FB. The authors deduced that because FB
allows quick social support and recognition, it indirectly enhances users’ self-esteem and
happiness. Also, in another study, Yu, Tian, Vogel, & Kwok (2010) found a positive correlation
between FB usage and higher levels of self-esteem. Researchers implemented a survey to college
undergraduates in China. The results showed that FB use was beneficial for students’
socialization in universities resulting in having more students happy and satisfied with their
university life. Further, positively affected their self-esteem level.

18

All these studies suggest that the need for self-presentation has an influence while people
create and manage their FB profiles. This need seems to influence the member’s choices, such as
choice of profile photo, posts about an event and the number of friends, these are all some sort of
an indication of a user's desired impression management.
Altruism and Self-presentation. According to studies, some of the personality
characteristics (e.g., being empathetic) are positively correlated with increased helping
tendencies. This evidence suggested that there might be an altruistic personality (Carlo,
Eisenberg, Troyer, Switzer, & Speer, 1991; Khalil, 2004). However there are mixed findings in
the literature and other researchers claim that altruistic behavior is due to other motives.
According to studies, there are several underlying motivations to voluntarily donate to
charitable causes or support such organizations. It appears that there are two extreme
standpoints. At one end, donors might be pure altruists. They only care about the well being of
the receiver. The other end, donors get satisfaction simply from the act of donating(Andreoni,
1990; Bénabou & Tirole, 2006; Harbaugh, 1998). Andreoni (1990) has named this as “warm
glow” – the feeling good effect that you get from helping others. So, people might have a purely
egoistic motivation for contributing to a charity, and they might like the warm glow they get
from giving. However, research suggests that one cannot label people with such strict boundaries
because in real life givers are neither pure altruists nor pure egoists. Rather, the evidence shows
that givers are impure altruists, motivated by both altruism and warm glow (Andreoni, 1990;
Bénabou & Tirole, 2006).
Research from both economics and psychology fields confirm that people are sensitive
about the perceptibility of their behavior in pro-social contexts and that people’s behaviors reveal
a combination of altruism and self-presentational concerns. Besides the warm glow effect that

19

people receive from helping, altruism is also seen as a socially desirable behavior and people do
it to some extent for self-presentational concerns (e.g., people do not want to seen as reckless,
indifferent) (Eisenberg et al., 1989; Harbaugh, 1998; Khalil, 2004). Reasons include prestige,
respect, recognition, which cumulatively improves one’s social-image. Benabou and Tirole
(2006) explain that charities make a very good use of people’s self-presentational concerns.
Charities provide prestige and recognition in return for people’s donation by printing donors’
names in newspapers and newsletters, naming public centers on behalf of donors, organizing
events for acknowledgment and appreciation, and giving bumper stickers or award certificates.
Trivers (1971), an evolutionary biologist, explains reciprocal altruism. This is a
phenomenon where people help others with some sort of cost in expectation for similar treatment
when needed in the future (the cost will be physical activity in this case). Researcher also
explains that individuals are capable of detecting and punishing selfish individuals in the long
run. A selfish individual who refuses to help will eventually harm his/her own interests because
people will be less likely to help him/her in the future. The study points out that the human
altruistic system is a sensitive and unstable one (Trivers, 1971). Therefore, the tendency to help,
and the response to other’s acts of helping are complex. Individuals act differently in the degree
of these tendencies and responses. In this current research proposal, I propose an experiment to
investigate how individuals differ in these tendencies given them an opportunity to be altruistic
via physical activity.
In another qualitative study (Vorvoreanu, 2009), college students, who were in a focus
group, explained that they liked the “causes” application on FB. The causes application on FB
provided a milieu for people and non-profit organizations to interact; for example, people can
support organizations and fundraisers, organizations can announce their campaigns, etc. Students

20

reported to have positive feelings towards the non-profit organizations. They expressed their
support via FB pages, but they usually did not prefer to donate money, mostly because they were
not sure if FB was safe for money transactions (Vorvoreanu, 2009).
Gender considerations in motivation. Studies provide substantial evidence for the
assumption that gender matters in terms of altruism. Research explains that women are more
likely to partake in charitable giving (e.g. donating money for causes) than men. Even though
there are numerous studies supporting the gender differences in charitable giving, the essential
reason for this difference is not thoroughly explained. In a few attempts to explain this gender
gap in charitable giving, researchers explain that females are more prone than males to
demonstrate concern and to act like a nurturer which naturally provides them the motive to be
altruistic (Carlo et al., 1991). In another study, researchers claim that gender differences in
charitable giving may lie in social emotions such as empathy and compassion. Being empathetic
is considered as an underlying motivator to be altruistic and women score significantly higher
than men on empathy (Willer, Wimer & Owens, 2012). So, it seems that gender differences can
have important implications for this study.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy theory is a subcategory of the bigger theory of social cognitive theory
(SCT) and described as, “Beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of
action required to produce given attainments,” (Bandura, 1997). In simple words, self-efficacy is
one's belief of what he/she is capable to do for a given task. Self-efficacy beliefs, according to
Bandura, influence behavior in terms of the choices one engages in, the effort to reach given
attainments at a task, and the perseverance in those efforts, especially in the face of obstacles.
High-efficacious individuals pursue more challenging goals, cope with pain better, and persevere

21

through setbacks to a greater extent than low-efficacious individuals.
Self-efficacy beliefs are formed from various sources of information. Bandura (1997)
categorized these as four main sources: (a) mastery experiences (i.e., past accomplishments), (b)
vicarious experiences (i.e., modeling), (c)verbal persuasion (e.g., “you are doing great”, “keep up
the good work”), and (4)physical and emotional states (e.g., feeling energetic enough accomplish
a task). Other researchers have suggested a separate category for emotional states (Maddux,
1995; Schunk, 1995) and imaginal vicarious experiences (Maddux, 1995). In the most
comprehensive review of efficacy research in sport, Feltz et al. (2008) described the previously
mentioned six categories (i.e., mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion,
physical states, emotional states, and imaginal states) when describing the sources of efficacy in
sport.
For the present study, I was interested in participant’s self-efficacy beliefs before and
after completing the cycling task. Individuals who perform up to or better than their efficacy
expectations should show increases in their efficacy beliefs. Individuals who fall short of their
expected performance should show decreases in their efficacy beliefs. If individuals are
motivated to exercise longer through the opportunity to raise money for a charitable cause, or
through the opportunity to post their exercise performance results on social media, they should
be expected to show accompanying increases in self-efficacy.

22

CHAPTER 3
METHODS
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether or not linking an exercise task to a
charitable cause influences the amount of effort expended in a single bout of exercise on a
stationary cycle ergometer. Additionally, I examined the effect of making one’s exercise results
and charitable giving, based on exercise, public (e.g., posted on social media such as FB).
Therefore, I evaluated differences in cycling duration between groups exercising for four
different reward types: (a) Private pro-health-Control (i.e., delayed potential health reward) (b)
Public Self-presentational reward-FB Only (i.e., image-based pro health reward - results posted
on social media) (c) Private prosocial reward-Charity Only (i.e., private prosocial reward cycling for a monetary donation to charity) and (d) both Public prosocial and Self-presentational
reward- FB and charity (i.e., image-based prosocial and pro health reward).
First, a pilot study was conducted to test the research process and protocol and also to
identify variables of interest. Based on results from the pilot data, a full-scale Study 2 was
designed establishing the theoretical framework and improving methodology of Study 1 and to
test the hypotheses put forth in Chapter 1.
Study 1: Pilot

Participants
Participants (25 females, 5 males) were recruited from kinesiology classes at Michigan
State University on voluntary basis. They ranged in age from 18 and 25 years (M= 20.20, SD=
1.75).

23

Questionnaires
Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q) and demographic
questionnaire. Participants were initially screened with the PAR-Q to ensure they were healthy
enough to engage in moderate-intensity exercise. This is a 7-item assessment designed to screen
for health problems, which may be triggered by aerobic exercise (Thomas, Reading, Shephard &
Roy, 1992). According to the American College of Sports Medicine (2010), completion of this
questionnaire prior to an exercise experiment is considered sufficient for the college-aged
population because they are at low risk of suffering any problems from exercise. Participants
also answered a demographic questionnaire with questions including age, gender, class, major
and race and ethnicity.
The Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ). Previous physical activity
level was operationalized as the frequency and type of physical activity performed in the
previous 7-day period. Participants reported the amount and type of physical activity that they
engaged in for more than 15 min during the past 7-day period. A total score for physical activity
was calculated by multiplying weekly rates of strenuous, moderate, and light activities by nine,
five, and three, respectively (Godin & Shephard, 1985). The GLTEQ measures physical activity
as METS per week. The survey was used to assess the regular patterns of physical activity of
participant on a regular week.
Apparatus
Participants performed exercise by cycling on a stationary bike located in an exercise
science lab on Michigan State University campus. The bike was equipped with a built-in screen
control panel. The screen control panel displayed information concerning total calories burned
and time cycled. Participants were able to see duration and calories while they cycled and knew

24

the progress being made during the cycling session.
Procedure
All participants signed up for one 60-min. session. Once they arrived at the lab and
completed the informed consent forms, participants in all treatment conditions were handed the
health bulletin to read for a few minutes. Participants in all treatment conditions received
information about the beneficial health outcomes of physical activity. This was in a format of a
flyer. The text of this flyer was taken from the CDC website. I used only the bulleted points
available in this text in order to be concise and to avoid boredom. Example outcomes included
“Physical activity can help reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease” and “physical activity can
help control your weight.” The flyer is contained in Appendix B. Afterwards they completed the
pack of questionnaires including demographics, PAR-Q, GLTEQ. Upon completing surveys,
participants were randomly assigned to one of four treatment conditions.
Participants then began the exercise session. Experimenters reminded the participants that
the time and intensity they chose to cycle was up to them. Experimenters checked on
participants every 5 min. to ensure they were not having any difficulties. The exercise bout was
completed as soon as the participant decided he/she wanted to finish the session or reached 60
min; participants stopped cycling, dismounted the stationary bike and read the debriefing form.
At the end of the session, the experimenter wrote down the time and calories burned.
Treatment Conditions
A randomized control design was employed to examine the differences in physical
activity, operationalized as total duration (time) cycled and calories burned from a single cycling
session, between four different conditions:
Condition 1: Private pro-health (Control). This is considered a delayed potential health

25

benefit. Although participants may not expect to receive any health benefits from one-time
exercise, they read the short health bulletin on the health benefits and recommendations of
physical activity. Participants were then asked to perform a cycling task. Experimenter explained
that the duration and intensity of the task was totally up to their preference. They were able to
stop and leave the experiment anytime they desired (i.e., “You are cycling for your health and
you can decide whenever you want to stop, You can follow up the calories your progress from
the screen panel in front of you) .
Condition 2: Public Self-presentational reward (FB only). This was the image-based
pro health reward condition. In this condition, the immediate reward was a posting on social
media. Participants were asked to perform the same exact procedure as the control condition.
However, in addition they were told, before starting their exercise, that after the first 50 calories
burned during the session, they would get a FB post on the university’s Kinesiology FB page
regarding their total calories expended. (i.e., “ You are cycling for your health and also for each
50 calories you burn on the stationary bike, you will be getting a FB post. You can follow up the
calories burned from the screen panel in front of you. We will be posting on behalf of you, for
example if you burn 100 calories we will be posting; Tom burned 100 calories cycling for his
health”. Do you have any questions?).
Condition 3: Private prosocial reward (Charity only). This was the private pro
social/pro health reward condition. Participants were asked to exercise for altruistic reasons. The
immediate reward was a charity donation. Participants were asked to perform the same exact
procedure as the control condition, and in addition, before starting their exercise, they were
informed that for each 50 calories expended while cycling, they would earn $1.00 for a chosen
charity. The experimenter handed a list of charities to the participant (American Red Cross, Food

26

for America, Unicef) and. they chose their preferred charity prior to cycling. At the end of the
session, they learned how much they accumulated.
(i,e., You are cycling for your health and also for each 50 calories you burn on the
stationary bike, you will be earning a dollar for a charity that you prefer, here is the list of the
available charities, please take a second and choose one of them. We will be donating to this
charity on behalf of you, for example if you burn 100 calories we will be donating 2 dollars to
charity X”. Do you have any questions? )
Condition 4: Both public prosocial and Self-presentational reward (FB and charity).
This condition combined the image-based prosocial and prohealth rewards. In this condition, the
immediate reward was a social media post regarding their total calories expended combined with
an accumulated charity donation based on their exercise performance. Participants followed the
same procedures as the only charity group. However, at the beginning of the session they were
told that the burned calories and the donated amount to their preferred charity would be
announced as a post in an MSU-Kinesiology FB page (i.e., You are cycling for your health and
also for each 50 calories you burn on the stationary bike, you will be earning a dollar for a
charity that you prefer, in addition you will be getting a FB post about these results. Here is the
list of the available charities, please take a second and choose one of them. We will be donating
to this charity on behalf of you and we will be posting the result on FB for you. For example, if
you burn 100 calories we will be posting; Tom burned 100 calories cycling for his health and
earned 2 dollars for American Red Cross”. You can follow up the calories burned from the
screen panel in front of you. Do you have any questions?). Tom donated $2.00 to American Red
Cross by burning 100 calories).
A debriefing form was given to participants for each of these conditions to explain that

27

that the university Kinesiology FB page was actually fictitious and their cycling results were not
posted. In addition, donations were not really given to charities. Each participant read the
debriefing sheet immediately after completing the cycling session.
Results
Preliminary Analysis. The initial analysis focused on previous physical activity levels,
as it can become a potential confounder. Students who are regularly physically active might be
able to cycle more without undue fatigue compared to inactive students regardless of the
treatment condition. Therefore, we wanted to check whether there was a significant difference
between treatment groups on the GLTEQ. The GLTEQ assesses the number of days per week
spent doing mild (3 METS), moderate (5 METS), and strenuous (9 METS) activities. GLTEQ
scores can range between 0 and 119. According to previous research, 24 points is near the
minimal recommended physical activity guidelines (Godin & Shepard, 1985). The lowest
GLTEQ score in this sample was 7 while the highest was 92. The mean scores and standard
deviations of each treatment condition are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations (SD) for Previous Physical Activity Levels.

GLTEQ

Control
(n=7)
62.14 (23.30)

Only FB
(n=9)
32.11 (12.88)

Only Charity
(n=8)
42.00 (17.30)

FB & Charity
(n=6)
40.83 (9.90)

One-way ANOVA resulted in a significant difference, F (3, 26) = 3.67, p= .016. An LSD
post-hoc test revealed that the control group was significantly more physically active than the
remaining groups (only FB, only charity, and FB & charity)as can be seen in Table 1. Random
assignment was successful in composing conditions that did not differ in physical activity levels
except the control condition.

28

Experimental Analysis: Time Spent Cycling in Minutes. Data obtained from the
GLTEQ was used as a covariate to control current level of physical activity. It was important to
control for current level of physical activity as it could affect the duration of the cycling task.
Between-subjects one-way ANCOVA showed a statistically significant difference in minutes
cycled between treatment conditions after controlling for self-reported physical activity, F(3, 25)
= 4.65, p=.01. Means of minutes cycled in treatment conditions can be seen in Table 2.
Additionally, planned contrasts were conducted to test the hypotheses. The first hypothesis
comparing the control group to only charity-private reward, FB for pro health, and FB for pro
health and charity showed that the three treatment groups spent significantly more time
exercising compared to participants in the control group (M = 16.53, SD = 6.68), t(26) = 2.47,
p=.014. The second hypothesis that participants in FB for pro health and charity will spend
significantly more time exercising compared to exercising for only charity-private reward and
FB for pro health treatment conditions. Results showed that there was not a significant difference
(M= 7.21, SD=4.29) t(26)= 1.67, p=.105. The third hypothesis compared exercising for selfpresentation reward only (for public recognition in FB for pro health) to exercising for a private
prosocial reward only (private charitable giving). Results showed that there was not a significant
difference (M= .174, SD= 2.19) t (26)= .079, p=.938
Table 2. Unadjusted Means of Minutes Cycled in Each Treatment Condition.
Minutes

N

M

SD

Control

7

22.28

8.17

FB only

9

31.77

12.41

Charity only

8

32.12

6.77

FB & charity

6

39.16

5.91

29

Experimental Analysis: Calories Burned During the Session A separate betweensubjects ANCOVA, with GLTEQ as a covariate, for calories burned revealed that there was no
significant difference (p=.11) in calories burned between treatment conditions, F (3, 25) = 2.15,
p > .05, thus not supporting any of the calories burned aspects of the hypotheses. However, mean
scores for calories burned showed a trend by condition similar to time spent cycling as seen in
Table 3.
Table 3. Means of Burned Calories in Each Treatment Condition.
Calories

N

M

SD

Control

7

126.43

82.34

Only FB only

9

165.22

75.02

Charity only

8

181.38

42.96

FB& charity

6

216.00

61.75

Discussion
In this randomized control trial, time and image based nature of rewards were used to
investigate cycling duration and calorie expenditure across four different conditions: (1) Private
pro-health (i.e., delayed potential health reward) (2) Public self-presentational reward (i.e., using
social media FB) (3) Private prosocial reward (i.e., private prosocial reward - cycling for a
monetary donation to charity) and (4) both Public prosocial and self-presentational reward (i.e.,
Charity donation and social media usage together).
The experiment, having four different treatment conditions, was designed to compare and
contrast the treatment effects. In this case, charitable donations and FB postings seem to have a
positive effect on physical activity behavior as participants in these conditions willingly cycled
longer compared to the control group. In fact, both public prosocial and self-presentational
reward group increase their cycling time 75.76% over the private pro-health group (i.e., Control

30

group) and Public self-presentational reward group (i.e., FB only) and Private prosocial reward
group (i.e., Charity only) by 42.59% and 44.17% respectively. The findings from this pilot study
demonstrated that using motivating rewards (e.g., image and time-based rewards) for cycling
resulted in a significant increase in cycling duration as compared to a solely health related
purpose for cycling where people need to wait in order to receive the rewards.
This pilot study showed some promising results but had some limitations that Study 2
addressed, such as improving the theoretical framework and methodology. In the pilot study, the
majority of the participants were female and the sample size was small. Thus, it was not possible
to investigate a potential gender effect. Having a balanced number of males and females in order
to examine gender differences across treatment groups with a larger sample size might moderate
the findings.
Another limitation was the lack of accounting for individual differences. Exploring the
individual differences in altruistic personality, self-presentation in exercise and self-presentation
in altruistic behavior can enhance the design and methodology of the study while enhancing the
understanding about the relation between motivation and self-presentation.
Also, intensity of cycling was not pre-determined; participants were free to choose their
intensity level, which could lead to different exercise efforts for each participant (e.g., one can
raise more money for charity with a higher intensity in a shorter time period). Controlling for
intensity can provide all participants to have a somewhat similar experience. Lastly, exploring
the effects of motivating rewards on self-efficacy beliefs could be interesting to improve our
understanding of physical activity behavior.

31

CHAPTER 4
STUDY 2
In the light of the results from the pilot study a full-scale study was designed. The
purpose of Study 2 was to replicate the basic task while elaborating the theoretical framework
and methodology of Study 1 in order to test the hypotheses put forth in Chapter 1.
To address the problematic aspects of Study 1, multiple changes were made for Study 2.
First, this study integrated self-presentation theory (e.g., also image motivation hypothesis) and
research from several different areas, including motivation, characteristics of motivating rewards
(e.g., time and image based), and altruism to constitute a strong theoretical framework that
supports the research questions and gives a rationale to the hypotheses.
Second a larger sample with a balance between males and females is targeted to provide
an opportunity to investigate gender differences in effect of charity donations and usage of social
media in an exercise context.
Third, it was vital to initially explore the individual differences in altruistic personality,
as it could become a potential confounder. Students who are more altruistic might give more
importance to charity conditions (e.g. only charity and charity & FB) compared to students who
are less altruistic in personality.
Fourth, the extent to how people would like to self-present can vary greatly. Therefore, to
account for individual differences, additional measures such as self-presentation in exercise and
self-presentation in altruistic behavior were included to the second study.
Fifth, the self-efficacy belief scales before and after completing the cycling task were
added to Study 2. This way, it was possible to investigate whether individuals who are motivated
to exercise longer - through the opportunity to raise money for a charitable cause, or through the

32

opportunity to post their exercise performance results on social media- increased self-efficacy
beliefs or not.
Further, it was important to exercising at an individualized target HR to fix the intensity
across participants and treatment conditions in order to further explore the relation of charity
donations, social media use, and the resultant exercise behavior. The hypotheses for Study 2,
therefore, included:
(a) Participants in each of the three immediate reward conditions (Private prosocial
reward, Public self-presentational reward, Public prosocial and Self-presentational
reward) will spend significantly more minutes on exercise performance compared to
participants in the control group (Private pro-health reasons group).
(b) Participants in Public prosocial and Self-presentational reward condition (FB and
charity) will spend significantly more minutes exercising compared to exercising for
Private prosocial reward (only charity) and Public self-presentational reward (only
FB) treatment conditions
(c) Exercising for public self-presentation reward (for public recognition on social media
FB only) will lead one to spend more time exercising compared to exercising for a
private prosocial reward (private charitable giving)
(d) Participants in each of the three immediate reward conditions (Private prosocial
reward, Public self-presentational reward, Public prosocial and Self-presentational
reward) will report greater self-efficacy changes compared to the control group
(Private pro-health)
(e) There will be a Gender X Altruistic Condition interaction, such that, females will
spend more time exercising in the Private prosocial condition compared to males who

33

will spend more time exercising in the Public self-presentation condition compared to
females.
(f) There will be no significant difference on any of the dependent variables between
American and Turkish students. Students from both nations will show similar
behavior patterns.

Methods
Participants
University students from the U.S.A and Turkey were recruited for this research study.
Students from Turkey were included to diversify and extend the sample size and for convenience
in conducting the study in my home country. There were 108 participants in total (50 females)
with a more equal numbers of males and females in the sample compared to Study 1. Participants
were between ages of 18 and 35 years of age. College students were recruited from two different
settings: American college students East Lansing, Michigan - United States (Michigan State
University, N = 36) and Turkish college students in Istanbul, Turkey (Turkish Universities, N =
72).
Questionnaires
All participants completed questionnaires in a lab setting prior to and after the cycling
session. The packet of questionnaires consisted of eight sections: a questionnaire on
demographic information, Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q), Godin Leisure
Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ), Pre-Self Efficacy Scale, Prosocial-Altruistic Personality
Scale, Self-presentation in Exercise Questionnaire (SPEQ), Self-Presentation in Altruistic
Behavior Scale, Post Self-Efficacy Scale. All assessment tools can be seen in Appendix A.

34

The questionnaires were not translated into Turkish because Koc University’s educational
language is English and all courses are held in English. Thus, students’ English language level is
proficient. The demographic questionnaire included questions about participants’ age, gender,
class, major and race.
Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire. This is a 7-item assessment designed to
screen for any problems, which may be triggered from exercising. According to the American
College of Sports Medicine (2010), completion of this questionnaire prior to an exercise
experiment is considered sufficient for the college-aged population because they are at low risk
of suffering any problems from exercise.
Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire. This is a self-report survey, which asks
participants to report the amount and type of physical activity that they engaged in for more than
15 minutes during a 7-day period. Total score for physical activity was calculated by multiplying
weekly rates of strenuous, moderate, and light activities by nine, five, and three, respectively
(Godin & Sheppard, 1985). The survey was used to assess the regular patterns of physical
activity of the participant during a regular week.
Self-Efficacy Scale. SE was measured with a scale developed specifically for this study.
I asked participants to rate their confidence that they can cycle at 65% of their maximum heart
rate for a specified range of minutes just prior to starting their cycling session and again at the
end of the session regarding the next time they cycle at 65% of their maximum ability.
Altruistic Personality Scale (APS). This is a 14-item scale to measure altruistic
personality by assessing how often one engages in altruistic acts primarily toward strangers (e.g.,
“I would donate to charity”). Participants answered on a 5-point scale ranging from never (0) to
very often (5). The reliability of this scale is reported as 0.84 (Rushton, Chrisjohn, & Fekken,

35

1981).
Self-Presentation in Exercise Questionnaire (SPEQ). This is a 14-item scale to
measure self-presentational concerns while one is exercising. SPEQ includes both impression
motivation (e.g., “I enjoy the praise I often receive for exercising” and construction (e.g., “I
exercise so that regular exercisers will like me”) scales (Conroy, Motl, & Hall, 2000).
Participants answered on 6-point Likert scale. The reliability was reported as .83 and .81 for the
impression motivation and construction scales, respectively.
Self-Presentation in Altruistic Behavior Scale (SPABS). To my knowledge no scale
exists to measure self-presentation in altruistic behavior. Therefore, this questionnaire was
specifically designed for this dissertation. Adapted from the self-presentation in exercise scale,
this is a 5-item scale to measure self-presentational concerns while one is engaging in altruistic
behavior. The items include “I value to be seen altruistic by others”, “I enjoy the praise I often
receive for being an altruistic person”, “I value the attention and praise offered by others in
regard to appearing altruistic”, “Appearing altruistic to others is not important to me”, and “I
want to be thought of as a person who is altruistic”. Participants answered on 6-point Likert
scale.
Perceptual Value of Donating $1.00. Perceptual value of donating a dollar to charity
was assessed with a 6-item Likert-type question that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6
(strongly agree). It was a one-question scale only applied to a sub-sample of 15 who were in
charitable donation groups. The item stated “I value the donation of a $1 for each 12 min I
cycle.”
Apparatus
The apparatus is the same as that used in Study 1. Participants performed exercise by

36

cycling on a stationary bike located in an exercise science lab on a university campus. The bike
was equipped with a similar built-in screen control panel that displayed information concerning
total calories burned and time cycled.
Procedure
The pre-exercise procedure is similar to Study 1, except for the addition of heart-rate
monitors. All participants signed up for one 60-minute session and they were able to stop
whenever they want during the experiment and leave the experiment site. Participants were
randomly assigned to one of four treatment conditions. Participants in all treatment conditions
received a document about the health benefits of physical activity and exercise. These benefits
are listed in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website. All participants filled
out the PAR-Q pre-screening questionnaire. If participants indicated that they have any of the
health conditions listed on the PAR-Q they were not eligible to participate to this study.
New to Study 2, all participants were fitted with a polar rs300X heart rate monitor when
they came to the lab. First, participants were asked to sit quietly for 5 min in order to record their
resting heart rate. At the end of the 5 min the experimenter wrote down the resting heart rate and
calculated each participant’s target heart rate using the Karvonen formula (Target Heart Rate =
[Maximal heart rate (220-age) – resting heart rate] x 0.65 + resting heart rate).
After being fitted with the monitor, participants mounted the stationary bike, were given
2 min to warm up at the lowest gear, and were told to keep the pace between 66 and 74 rpm and
ideally at 70. Participants were able monitor their rpm on the bike screen. At the end of the 2-min
warm-up, the participant’s heart rate was checked. If they had not achieved 65% HRR, the
experimenter would increase the gear by one level every 10 s, for up to 3 min, until the
participant reached 65% HRR. If the participants’ heart rate rose above 65% HRR during the 3

37

min period, the gear would be decreased by one level every 10 s until they achieved steady state
at 65% HRR. Participants were told that they must attempt to stay within the interval of 66-74
rpm at all times. The experimenter would monitor the participant until the participant decides to
stop cycling.All participants completed paper questionnaires and surveys before starting to cycle
including a questionnaire on demographic information, Physical Activity Readiness
Questionnaire (PAR-Q), Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ), Pre-Self
Efficacy Scale, Altruistic Personality Scale (APS), Self-presentation in Exercise Questionnaire
(SPEQ) and, Self-Presentation in Altruistic Behavior Scale. At the end of the exercise session, all
participants completed the post self-efficacy scale.
Treatment Conditions
Condition 1: Private pro-health (control). This condition was the same as the control
condition used in Study 1. This is considered a delayed potential health benefit. Although
participants may not expect to receive any health benefits from one-time exercise, they read the
short health bulletin on the health benefits and recommendations of physical activity.
Participants were asked to cycle as long as they want. They were informed that they have the
control over time and they could stop at any time. (i.e., “Today you will be cycling for your
health, you can cycle as long as you want and decide whenever you want to stop, you can follow
up the duration to see your progress from the screen panel in front of you. Do you have any
questions?).
Condition 2: Public Self-presentational reward (FB only). This was the image-based
pro health reward condition. In this condition, the immediate reward was a posting on social
media. Participants were asked to perform the same exact procedure as the control condition.
In addition, before starting their exercise, participants were informed that for each 12 min cycled,

38

they would get a post on the university’s Kinesiology FB page regarding their total time spent
cycling. (i.e., Tom spent 24 min cycling for his health). (i.e., “Today you will be cycling for your
health, you can cycle as long as you want and also please know that for each 12 min you spent
on the stationary bike, you will be getting a FB post. You can follow up the duration from the
screen panel in front of you. We will be posting on FB behalf of you, for example if you cycle 24
min, we will be posting; Tom cycled 24 min for his health”. Do you have any questions?) The
FB posts consisted of multiples of 12. So, a participant who cycled 15 minutes would get a post
that he/she cycled for 12 min unless completed to 24 min. This was done to mimic charitable
donation condition in which participants raised $1.00 for each 12 min timespan that they cycle.
Identical to Study 1, participant's written consent about FB post was collected in advance.
Condition 3: Private prosocial reward (Charity only). This was the private prosocial
reward condition. Participants were asked to exercise for purely altruistic reasons. The
immediate reward was a charity donation. Instead of informing participants that for each 50
calories expended while they cycled, they would earn $1.00 for a chosen charity, participants
were informed that they will earn $1.00 to be given to a charity for each 12 min timespan that
they cycle. (i,e., “Today you will be cycling for your health, please cycle as long as you want and
also please know that for each 12 min you spent on the stationary bike, you will be earning a
dollar for a charity that you prefer, here is the list of the available charities, please take a second
and choose one of them. We will be donating to this charity on behalf of you, for example if you
spend 24 min we will be donating 2 dollars to charity X”. You can follow up the duration from
the screen panel in front of you. Do you have any questions?)
Identical to Study 1, participants chose their preferred charity from a list of charities
prepared by the researcher (e.g., American Red Cross, Feeding for America and UNICEF). At

39

the end of the session, they learned how much they accumulated for their preferred charity.
Condition 4: Both public prosocial and Self-presentational reward (FB and charity).
Participants followed the same exact procedures as the only charity group. However, at the
beginning of the session they were told that their total time cycled and the total money raised to
be donated to their preferred charity was announced in university’s Kinesiology FB page. Their
written consent was collected in advance. (i.e., Today you will be cycling for your health, you
can cycle as long as you want and also please know that for each 12 min you spent on the
stationary bike, you will be earning a dollar for a charity that you prefer and you will be getting a
FB post about these results. Here is the list of the available charities, please take a second and
choose one of them. We will be donating to this charity on behalf of you and we will be posting
the result on FB for you. For example, if you spend 24 min we will be posting; “Tom spent 24
min cycling for his health and earned 2 dollars for American Red Cross”. You can follow up the
duration from the screen panel in front of you. Do you have any questions?). Written consent
about FB post were collected in advance.
Similar to Study 1, a debriefing form was given to participants for each of these
conditions to explain that that the university Kinesiology FB page was actually fictitious and
their cycling results were not posted. In addition, donations were not really given to charities.
Each participant read the debriefing sheet immediately after completing the cycling session.
Treatment of the Data and Data Analysis
Data were screened for outliers, normality. Alpha coefficient was calculated to assess
internal consistency for the Self-Presentation in Altruistic Behavior. Descriptive statistics,
including correlations, were calculated for all variables.
Preliminary t tests were conducted for all variables on Gender, including Hypothesis (d)

40

that females will be more altruistic compared to males. In addition, a similar analysis was
conducted between American and Turkish students.
Current Level of Physical Activity. As was employed in Study 1, data from the GLTEQ
was used as a covariate to control current levels of physical activity. It was important to control
for physical activity level as it could predict minutes cycled.
Altruistic Personality Scale. Students who are more inclined to partake in altruistic
behavior might cycle more compared to students who are less inclined to partake in altruistic
behavior regardless of the treatment condition. Therefore, the correlation between altruistic
personality and the dependent variable of duration was examined. If the correlation was at .29 or
higher, scores from the Altruistic Personality Scale also were used as a covariate.
Tests of Hypotheses
The primary dependent variable is the time spent cycling. Time was analyzed while
controlling for individual differences including previous physical activity levels and altruistic
personality. Scores obtained from GLTEQ and APS were used as covariates. Therefore, a
between-subjects ANCOVA was performed to assess differences in minutes cycled between
treatment groups. The analysis was supplemented with planned contrasts and post-hoc tests. A
planned contrast of three conditions (only charity-private reward, FB for pro health, FB for pro
health &charity) compared to Control was used to test Hypothesis (a). The planned contrast for
Hypothesis (b) was that Public prosocial and Self-presentational reward plus Public selfpresentational reward alone would have longer minutes of cycling compared to Private prosocial
reward alone (i.e., Charity only). Also another planned contrast was conducted for Hypothesis
(c) to see whether was a significant difference between Private prosocial reward condition and
Self-presentational reward condition. For the hypothesis (d) regarding self-efficacy, first, the

41

difference between Pre and Post Self-efficacy scores was calculated in order to obtain a
difference score for change in SE. Then, one-way ANOVA across treatment conditions was
conducted on SE difference score. For hypothesis (e), a between-subjects 2x2 (Gender by
Altruistic Condition) ANOVA was conducted to see whether or not females will spend more
time exercising in the Private prosocial condition compared to males who will spend more time
exercising in the Public self-presentation condition.
Finally, Independent sample t tests were conducted to see if there are any differences on
any of the dependent variables between American and Turkish students. Hypothesis (f) stated
that students from both nations will show similar behavior patterns.
Exploratory Analyses. A between-subjects one-way ANCOVA with GLTEQ as a
covariate and Altruistic Personality Scale scores as another, was executed to explore all
treatment differences in minutes cycled between treatment groups. In addition, a multiple
regression analysis was employed to examine the predictive strength of treatment, GLTEQ,
Altruistic Personality, SPEQ, SPABS, and pre-SE on Cycling duration
Results
The results are organized into three major subdivisions. The first part provides preliminary
analyses, including data screening, correlations and descriptive statistics. The second section
presents the main analyses, and hypothesis testing. The third section presents exploratory
analyses, including regression analyses.
Descriptive Statistics, Data Screening and Correlations
The sample consisted of 108 (Mage = 24.5, SD = 4.85) participants, with 58 males and 50
females, distributed across the four treatment conditions (control= 15 males, 14 females, only
Facebook = 13 males, 12 females, only charity = 18 males, 12 females, Facebook & Charity=

42

12males, 12 females) as can be seen in Table 4. Most of the participants 88 % (n= 95) were
Caucasian, 67% were Turkish (n=72) while the remaining participants were categorized as
American.
Table 4. Number of Participants in Each Treatment Condition by Gender.
Condition

Gender

Total

Male

Female

Control

15

14

29

Only FB

13

12

25

Only Charity

18

12

30

FB & Charity

12

12

24

Total

58

50

108

The data were evaluated for univariate outliers that were outside of ±3 SD from the overall
mean. Based on z-scores, several outliers were identified. Two scores were found for the
difference score in change in SE (the difference between Pre and Post Self-efficacy scores). One
score was found for GLTEQ score and another for the difference of SE score obtained from pre
and post SE beliefs scale. All analyses were performed once with and without the outliers. The
results of the analyses were not different and therefore results including the outliers were
reported in this dissertation.
The data were also evaluated for multivariate outliers using Mahalanobis distance.
Findings showed that there was one outlier for the SPABS score and two for the difference score
for change in SE. The analyses were conducted with and without those outliers; there was not
any difference. Thus, the results with the outliers were reported.

43

Normality was assessed using skewness statistics while looking at the histograms for each
of the main variables. All analyses resulted in normal distributions.
Correlations. Bivariate correlations were computed between all study variables.
Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 5 and 6 and the correlations between all variables are
presented in Table 7.
Table 5. Overall Means and Standard Deviations for All Variables by Gender.
Descriptive Statistics

PA Levels - Godin

Altruistic Personality

SPEQ
Image Management

SPEQ
Image Construction

Mean

Standard Deviation

Male

37.66

21.46

Female

35.30

17.35

Male

45.83

1.04

Female

49.08

1.00

Male

29.43

6.53

Female

28.18

5.02

Male

18.71

6.24

Female

17.14

5.99

Male

20.12

4.47

Female

20.42

3.871

Male

1.21

1.57

Female

.940

1.15

Table 5 (cont’d)
SPABS

Post-Pre SE Difference

Table 6. Overall Means and Standard Deviations for All Variables by Condition and Gender.

44

Condition

Sex
Male

1

Female
Total
Male

2

Female
Total
Male

3

Female
Total
Male

4

Female
Total

Male
Total

Female
Total

PA Levels
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD

31.71
19.11
35.38
18.39
33.48
18.5
33.46
18.45
30
22.33
31.8
20.05
43.66
26.23
38.9
16.75
41.96
23.07
38.33
18.77
41.091
11.65
39.65
15.49

Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD

37.28
21.45
36.1
17.78
36.75
19.81

Descriptive Statistics
Image
Image
APS
Managemen Constructio
n
t
45.28
28.57
19
7.76
7.33
6.83
51
27.69
16.84
6.74
6.22
6.5
48.03
28.14
17.96
7.71
6.7
6.64
47
30.61
18.07
8.15
7.91
4.66
45.75
27.08
18.58
4.76
4.48
6.41
46.4
28.92
18.32
6.63
6.61
5.45
46.22
30.66
17.72
8.63
4.01
4.61
49.7
27.4
17.2
6.39
3.4
5.45
47.46
29.5
17.53
7.96
4.06
4.83
45.08
26.83
21
7.46
7.03
8.9
50.909
30.545
16.727
8.38
5.93
6.6
47.87
28.6
18.95
8.28
6.65
8.03
45.93
7.89
49.32
6.8
47.44
7.58

29.33
6.55
28.15
5.22
28.8
5.99

18.8
6.25
17.34
6.13
18.15
6.21

SPABS

post-preSE

Min

19.92
5.22
19.23
5
19.59
5.032
20.15
4.18
20.25
2.59
20.2
3.44
19.88
4.12
20.9
3.21
20.25
3.79
21.16
4.6
22.455
4.08
21.78
4.31

0.47
0.79
0.41
1.42
0.44
1.11
2.02
1.79
0.9
0.95
1.49
1.53
1.05
1.77
1.15
1.26
1.089
1.58
1.4
1.41
1.46
0.86
1.43
1.15

20.21
4
17.53
4.66
18.92
4.46
26.76
5.55
21.58
6.05
24.28
6.26
25.44
6.53
23.8
3.22
24.85
5.56
30.58
6.63
33.09
5.31
31.78
6.04

20.22
4.43
20.63
3.94
20.4
4.2

1.2
1.58
0.95
1.18
1.09
1.41

25.54
6.69
23.67
7.53
24.7
7.11

Note: Condition 1 = Private pro-health (Control). Condition 2 = Private prosocial reward.
Condition 3 = Public self-presentational reward. Condition 4 = Public prosocial and Selfpresentational reward.
Figure 1. Mean Minutes Cycled for Each Condition.

45

Table 7. Correlations Between All Variables.
PA
Godin
PA Levels Godin
Altruistic
Personality
SPEQ
Management
Table 7 (cont’d)

1

Altruistic
SPEQ
Personality Management

SPEQ
Construction

SPABS

Post-Pre SE
Difference

.17

1

.16

.08

1

SPEQ
Construction
Table 7.(con

-.08

-.24**

.35**

1

SPABS

.02

.37**

.30**

.07

1

Post-Pre SE
Difference
Minutes cycled

.10

.14

.10

-.06

.12

1

.24**

.27**

.21*

.00

.29**

.20*

Preliminary Analyses
Internal consistency. Alpha coefficient was calculated to assess internal consistency for

46

the Self-Presentation in Altruistic Behavior (SPAB), which was specifically designed for this
dissertation. Cronbach's alpha was 0.83, which indicates a high level of internal consistency for
the scale.
Gender. Preliminary t tests were conducted for all variables on Gender. The results
revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between males and females in
terms of self-presentational concerns for exercise, self-presentational concerns in altruistic
behavior, and previous physical activity levels (GLTEQ). The only significant gender difference
was for altruistic personality with females being more altruistic than males, t(106) = -2.306, p <
0.05. This finding aligned with previous literature (Einolf, 2011; Mesch, Brown, Moore, &
Hayat, 2011).
Nationality. A similar analysis was conducted between American and Turkish students.
Independent sample t tests were conducted for all variables on Nationality. There were
significant differences between Turkish and American students in terms of previous physical
activity levels and altruistic personality scores. American students (M = 43.53, SD = 21.78) were
more physically active compared to Turkish students (M = 33.08, SD = 17.57) with t(106) =
2.683, p < .05. In addition, American students (M = 49.94, SD = 8.53) were more altruistic
compared to Turkish students (M = 46.03, SD = 6.53) with t(56.133)= 2.422, p<.05 (df adjusted
for unequal variances with the Levene test) . These results did not support the hypothesis (f) that
stated there will no significant difference between American and Turkish students. Students from
both nations showed similar behavior patterns for self-presentational concerns for exercise and
altruistic behavior.
Covariates. As was employed in Study 1, previous levels of physical activity (data from
GLTEQ) were used as a covariate to control current levels of physical activity in order to control

47

for individual physical activity levels. A preliminary one-way ANOVA between conditions for
GLTEQ scores resulted in a non-significant difference, F(3, 104) = 1.252, p = .295. Random
assignment was successful in composing conditions that did not differ in physical activity levels,
however, GLTEQ scores significantly correlated with minutes cycled (r = .24).
Students who are more inclined to partake in altruistic behavior might cycle more
compared to students who are less inclined to partake in altruistic behavior regardless of the
treatment condition. Therefore, examining the correlation between altruistic personality and the
minutes cycled was important. Altruistic behavior and cycling duration were significantly
correlated, r = .27, p < .05. Therefore, scores from the Altruistic Personality Scale was also used
as a covariate.
Main Analyses and Hypothesis Testing
The primary dependent variable was the cycling duration as measured in minute. A 4x2
(groups x gender) ANCOVA was conducted to assess differences in minutes cycled between
treatment groups controlling for self-reported physical activity levels and altruistic personality.
Results indicated a significant effect for condition and gender after controlling for the covariates
F(3,98) =27.96 , p=.001. and F(1,98) =5.56 , p=.02, respectively. There was no significance for
the interaction between condition and gender F(3,98) = 1.57. p= .20.
The ANCOVA was supplemented with two different planned contrasts to test the
hypotheses. The first contrast showed that the Control group (M = 18.99, SD = 4.30) was
significantly lower than the immediate rewards conditions (Facebook pro health, only charityprivate reward and Facebook &charity) (M = 24.09, SD = 3.57), t(104) = 6.73, p = .001, which
supported the Hypothesis (a).
Public prosocial and Self-presentational reward condition (FB and charity together) will

48

spend significantly more time and burn more calories exercising compared to exercising for
Private prosocial reward (only charity) and Public self-presentational reward (only FB) treatment
conditions. The second contrast compared the Public prosocial and Self-presentational reward
condition (FB and charity together) (M = 31.70, SD = 5.92) with Private prosocial reward (only
charity) and Public self-presentational reward (only FB) treatment conditions, (M = 26.87, SD =
3.81) and was significant, t (104) = 7.05, p = .001, supporting Hypothesis (b) that FB and Charity
combined would result in longer cycling times than Facebook and Charity alone. Hypothesis (c)
compared exercising for self-presentation reward only (for public recognition in FB for pro
health) to exercising for a private prosocial reward only (private charitable giving), (M = .720,
SD = 1.48). Results showed that there was no significance t (104) = .485, p = .626.
To investigate self-efficacy beliefs, the difference between Pre and Post Self-efficacy
scores was calculated and a difference score for change in SE was obtained. Then, one-way
ANOVA across treatment conditions was conducted on SE difference scores and resulted in a
significant difference, F(3,104)= 3.33, p = .02. LSD Post hoc findings showed that FB for pro
health (M=1.49) and FB and charity (M=1.42) reported significantly higher change in selfefficacy beliefs than those in the control condition (M=0.46), t(104) = -.956, and t(104) = -1.030
, respectively, which partially supported Hypothesis (d). There was no significant difference
between only charity (M=1.09) and control condition.
Hypothesis (e) focused on gender and altruistic condition interaction. Data showed that
in this sample, females scored significantly higher in altruistic personality compared to male
participants. Afterwards, a 2x2 between-subjects ANOVA was conducted to examine whether
females cycled significantly longer in private prosocial group than males and whether males
cycled significantly longer in Public Self-presentational group than females. For conducting 2x2

49

between-subject ANOVA two conditions were omitted from the data: (1) private pro-health
(control group) and (2) Both Public prosocial and Self-presentational reward (Charity and FB).
As seen in Table 9, there was a significant difference in cycling minutes as a function of gender.
Males cycled longer (M= 26.00, SD= 6.08) than females (M= 22.96 , SD= 5.00)However, there
was no significance regarding the interaction of condition and sex. Please see table 9.Thus,
females’ higher altruistic personality scores did not result in longer cycling efforts in the private
prosocial group compared to males.
Table 8. Between-subject 2x2 ANOVA for Altruistic Condition and Gender.
Source

df

SS

MS

F

p

Condition

1

6.79

6.79

.213

.647

Sex

1

132.55

132.55

4.152

.047

Condition*Sex

1

55.51

55.51

1.738

.193

Total

55

35293.00

Exploratory Analyses
A multiple regression was run to predict minutes cycled in a session for age, gender,
GLTEQ, Altruistic Personality, SPEQ, SPABS, and pre-SE on cycling duration. These variables
statistically significantly predicted minutes cycled, F(8, 99) = 3.56, p = .001, R2 = 0.24. Table 10
presents the standardized beta coefficients for the predictor variables. As illustrated in Table 10,
Altruistic personality, GLTEQ and SPABS variables were the strongest predictors of cycling
duration, but did not quite reach statistical significance at p < .05. Also, even though Gender was
not as significant as other 3, the beta weight (-.161) was as strong as PA levels.
Table 9. Summary of the Multiple Regression Statistics for the Predictor Variables.

50

Predictor Variable

B

SE

P value

Age

.111

0.13

0.23

Gender

-.161

1.32

0.08

PA Levels - Godin

.156

0.03

0.06

Altruistic Personality

.211

0.10

0.06

SPEQ
Management

.087

0.12

0.42

SPEQ
Construction

.004

0.11

0.97

SPABS

.303

0.17

0.06

Pre SE

.615

0.33

0.16

Perceptual value of donating a dollar to charity was assessed with a 6-item Likert-type
question that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) with a sub-sample of 15
participants. The mean was 5.27 with a SD of .70, suggesting that participants found this amount
valuable.
Discussion
The main goal of Study 2 was to replicate the basic task in Study 1 while elaborating the
theoretical framework, study design and methodology to evaluate the effects of motivating
rewards. Study 2 differed from Study 1 in various ways. First, exploring the individual
differences in altruistic personality, self-presentation in exercise and self-presentation in
altruistic behavior enhanced the design and methodology of the study. Second, having a larger
sample size with balanced number of males and females provided an opportunity to examine
gender differences across treatment groups. Third, intensity of cycling was not pre-determined in

51

Study 1; controlling for the intensity in Study 2 provided participants to have a somewhat similar
exertion experience. Additionally, exploring the effects of motivating rewards on self-efficacy
beliefs gave some important insights that could be considered while conducting and designing
future experiments and or interventions.
Even though there were numerous differences between Study 1 and 2 in terms of
methodology, the results came out to be similar which confirms again the effectiveness of using
motivating rewards to increase physical activity. Consistent with the Study 1, participants spent
more effort and time on cycling in conditions where they had some kind of immediate reward
(e.g., either FB posts or charitable donations). Furthermore, participants spent the most time
when the immediate reward was strengthened with a self-presentational component. This finding
supports the idea that motivating rewards could be beneficial to promote physical activity
behavior.
Main and Secondary Analyses
The first hypothesis indicated that participants in control group would spend the least
amount of time cycling compared to the remaining conditions. The first hypothesis (a) was
supported as all experimental conditions outperformed the control group. These results were
aligned with the Study-1 Pilot conducted for this dissertation.
Similarly, the second hypothesis stated that participants in FB posting of pro health and
charity condition will spend significantly more minutes on cycling compared to only FB pro
health and only charity-private reward. The second hypothesis (b) was supported as the FB and
charity condition outperformed both remaining conditions.
These results also suggest that, when immediate rewards are involved in exercise settings,
people are motivated to perform for longer periods of time than people who need to delay

52

receiving rewards. Thus, the longest performance was achieved when strengthening the reward
potential by adding a real social media posts component (e.g., Facebook).
The third hypothesis stated that exercising for public self-presentation reward (for public
recognition on social media FB only) will lead one to spend more time exercising compared to
exercising for a private prosocial reward (private charitable giving). This hypothesis was not
supported and these results were aligned with the Study-1 Pilot conducted for this dissertation.
The fourth hypothesis (d) stated that there would be a significant difference between the
three experimental conditions (Public self-presentational reward, only charity-private prosocial
reward, Both FB and charity) and the control condition on self-efficacy beliefs. This hypothesis
was partially supported; post-hoc findings from One-way ANOVA revealed that there was a
significant difference between the control and FB plus charity group. In addition, there was a
significant difference between the control and Only FB group, but non-significant difference
between control and only charity – private reward condition. This could be merely by chance or
the explanation might rely on social media posts (announcing and sharing the information with
others). Making results public might be motivating for people in a way that increases selfefficacy beliefs for cycling in the future.
The main analysis also revealed that female participants had significantly higher altruistic
personality scores compared to male participants, not a surprising finding as it is consistent with
previous research (Carlo et al., 1991; Einolf, 2011).Thus, it appears that female participants
might be more motivated to exercise for charitable reasons than their male counterparts.
However, when we conducted the 2x2 ANOVA (gender and altruistic condition) no statistical
significance was found across conditions, in terms of cycling duration, between males and
females.

53

Lastly, it was hypothesized that Turkish and American students would show similar
behavior patterns. However, results indicated that Americans students were more active than
Turkish students. A potential reason for this difference might be the sample itself from the
United States. Kinesiology students participated to this study while there were not any
Kinesiology students in the Turkish sample as the field is non-existent in Turkey. Another
potential explanation can be logistics. There are more recreational options in the United States
such as avenues and facilities to be physically active compared to Turkey. Facilities and
recreational parks may encourage students to be more physically active in the United States.

54

CHAPTER 5
GENERAL DISCUSSION
The beneficial health outcomes of physical activity are well known by the public
(Livingstone et al., 2003). However, as of 2012, only 44% of people in the U.S. reported that
they were meeting the recommended guidelines of weekly-based physical activity (CDC, 2012).
This evidence indicates that explicit knowledge of these potential health benefits is not enough to
motivate people to engage in physical activity at the recommended levels. This physical
inactivity problem may be better understood by investigating how motivating rewards affect
behavior. Particularly, what are the effects of using motivating rewards, that has altruistic and
self-presentational aspects, on exercise task performance?
Ariely, Bracha, and Meier (2008) conducted a study that examined the association
between monetary type rewards (charitable donation and/or personal payment) for completing a
cycling task and the resultant performance on the cycling task. The results revealed that the
group earning both charitable donation and personal payment cycled the most miles. Although
their study was conducted in the field of behavioral economics, it showed that charitable
donation could be an efficient motivating reward for physical activity.
The present experiments conducted herein provide an important extension to our
understanding of how different motivating rewards for performing exercise (i.e., immediate vs.
delayed rewards) impact exercise behavior. Furthermore, a control group that contains a natural
form of a delayed reward (i.e., the health benefits of exercise) provides a suitable real world
comparison.
In summary, in Study 1, a cycling task was used that allowed participants to cycle at any

55

intensity level and duration they preferred. The self-selected duration allowed the total time
cycled to be used as an outcome variable between four different conditions in a randomized
control trial. In Study 2, the cycling task consisted of fix intensity (65% of maximal heart rate),
included a larger sample and greater number of male participants, and included measures of
individual differences in altruistic personality, self-presentation in exercise and self-presentation
in altruistic behavior. In both studies, participants in each treatment condition read a health
bulletin about the health benefits of exercise. The control condition received no further
information, the Facebook pro health condition received information relating to the posting of
the results of the exercise session on Facebook (e.g., for each 12 minutes getting a post on MSU
Kinesiology page), the charity-private reward condition received information concerning to the
charitable donation (immediate intrinsic) that would be earned from cycling. The Facebook and
charity condition received information about both charitable donation and Facebook posting. In
terms of the main analysis of treatment conditions, both studies showed that the control group
spent the least amount of time cycling compared to the remaining conditions and that the
Facebook and charity condition had significantly longer cycling times compared to Charity and
Facebook alone conditions. The general discussion section starts by discussing the results in the
light of self-presentation theory and then ends with an explanation of the dissertation’s strengths,
limitations and future research directions.
Self-presentation theory
Self-presentation theory indicates that individuals are motivated to manage the
impressions others shape of them. Specifically, self-presentational concerns occur when other
people are present to evaluate them, and therefore experience social anxiety. This anxiety
motivates them to make a desired impression on other people.

56

Little is known about self-presentational motivation on social media (e.g., FB) for
promotion of physical activity behavior and the aim of this dissertation was to examine whether
or not it motivates physical activity behavior. Findings of this dissertation suggested that selfpresentational concerns can be helpful to promote physical activity. Participants willingly cycled
longer in conditions self-presentational rewards were involved; however, caution is necessary
when praising the benefits of self-presentational concerns in physical activity settings. Despite
its beneficial effect on this cycling task, self-presentational concern has been shown in some
research studies to create anxiety in people at the expense of not exercising at all (e.g., social
physique anxiety)(Ginis & Leary, 2004; Martin et al., 2001). In this sense, social media could be
a beneficial milieu to use in such research to avoid creating such anxiety. Naturally, future
studies are warranted to investigate this assumption.
Results from this dissertation also revealed that the scores for change in SE beliefs were
significant in conditions in which self-presentational rewards were involved (e.g., FB for pro
health, charity and FB). One possible explanation might be, again, the use of social media.
Giving people the freedom to post or not to post about their exercise results upon completing the
task (not the process of doing the task) might be relaxing and, therefore might increase the selfefficacy beliefs of cycling in the future.
In both of the studies, time spent cycling was the longest when charitable donations were
fortified with a self-presentational reward such as FB posts. Additionally, the time spent cycling
in Charity alone and Facebook alone conditions were also longer compared to the control
condition in which there was no immediate reward (e.g., participants had to wait for the potential
delayed health rewards of exercising). This finding was consistent across both studies. Taken
together, the two studies in this dissertation provide preliminary support for the concept of self-

57

presentation theory to could be helpful to increase and motivate people to be physically active.
Analyses revealed that female participants had significantly higher altruistic personality
scores compared to male participants, this was an expected finding as it is aligned with previous
research (Carlo et al., 1991; Einolf, 2011).Therefore, we assumed that female participants would
be more motivated to exercise in charitable conditions and would cycle longer periods than their
male counterparts. However, results of 2x2 ANOVA (gender and altruistic conditions) shown no
statistical significance for the interaction of condition and gender. One possible explanation to
this finding can be the experiment compromised only one bout of cycling session. Regardless of
the gender, maybe all participants were excited about an immediate reward followed by a cycling
session (either private charitable reward or Public self-presentational reward). This could be a
possible reason why gender differences did not manifest in regarding cycling duration across
conditions. I should reiterate that females in this sample did score significantly higher in
altruistic personality than males, maybe providing the participants a chance to cycle several
times and then comparing the cycling duration might produce noticeable differences between
males and females in terms of altruism.
Strengths
There were multiple strengths to this dissertation. First, this dissertation’s research
methodology were based on self-presentation theory and previous research on motivation. For
many years, studies in the Sport and Exercise Psychology (SEP) field investigated motivation
and sources of motivation to promote physical activity levels for the general public. Recently,
events that associate exercise with charitable causes (e.g., breast cancer marathons, run for
charitymiles applications on smart phones) are getting more popular, but the effects of charitable
cause on exercise motivation is not thoroughly examined in the field of SEP. Some recent studies

58

have focused on using the charitable cause on an exercise task to examine human behavior
within the field of behavioral economics (Ariely et al., 2008). This dissertation was inspired from
those experiments but built through a kinesiology lens. Furthermore, social media websites such
as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter are becoming milieus in which people post and talk about
their exercise goals and routines. So, more research could be conducted to examine the effect of
social media on physical activity behavior with the intention to increase physical activity levels.
Aforementioned at the very beginning of this dissertation, there is a widespread decay of
physical activity levels in the general public, and therefore many different ways/methods need to
be explored in order to increase physical activity levels. Lessening this problem will require
being more up-to-date with new trends (e.g., social media) to create attractive solutions for
people to adopt a physically active lifestyle. This dissertation was an effort to draw attention to
these avenues and its results suggest that incorporating immediate rewards such as charitable
cause and/or social media posts can lead to statistically significant additions to exercise minutes.
More research of this nature should be conducted to develop innovative methods to address the
multidimensional issue of physical inactivity.
Another strength of this dissertation that it can be easily applied in real life settings.
Corporate and/or government organizations that are sponsors to charitable events can use
exercising as a prerequisite (e.g., each donor needs to exercise to be eligible to donate).
Campaigns using charitable causes could be launched while incorporating social media into this
arena. Advertisement campaigns could be made emphasizing that one can receive the health
benefits of exercise while earning money to be donated to various charities for the betterment of
the society (e.g., run for a purpose, improve your health while helping to improve health of
others).

59

Limitations and Future Research Directions
Limitations. As with any research study, this dissertation has limitations too. One
limitation is the generalizability of the findings. This study was performed with young, healthy
students, who are internet/social media savvy. Young adults are much more experienced with
posting information on social media and following posts than other age groups (Chen & Marcus,
2012; Lee-Won et al., 2014; Wong, 2012). Most likely these students are already members of
social media sites and are active users who are posting/interacting every day. Thus, the results
from this dissertation may not generalize to people who are not as familiar or comfortable with
interacting via social media. Using social media might be intimidating for middle-aged and
older adults. On the other hand, another argument could be made for charitable donations. With
maturity, middle-aged and older adults might be more motivated to exercise for charitable
donations, they might be more inclined to help others or give back to society, and young adults
may be more skeptical and/or might not give importance to charitable donations yet. So, more
research is needed to reveal how other populations respond to these motivating rewards.
Another limitation is that the only actual delayed reward was the control group with the
potential health benefits that participants might experience in the future, if they exercise on a
regular basis. For the control group, there is no definitive amount of time before this health
reward happens and there was only one session provided to the participants. Considering all
these points it is apparent that the control group is the major weakness of this study in trying to
claim it as a delayed reward. The studies in this dissertation involved only one bout of exercise.
If people are to receive the health benefits of exercise, they must exercise on a regular basis
However, this experiment is only one of the first attempts to investigate the relation between
immediate rewards and physical activity motivation. Considering it is only a first scratch of a

60

whole line of research, it could pave the way for future studies with actual delayed rewards. For
example, investigating delayed Facebook posts and/or charitable donations (e.g., posting exercise
results after a week or donating to charity in 2 weeks) could generate interesting results.
Researchers could see whether delayed rewards generate similar effects such as immediate
rewards or not. Also another avenue of research it so examine whether or not the effects of
immediate, image-based rewards would attenuate over time needs to be explored in future
research.
Additionally, there was no public-charity only condition with which to compare the
public versus private nature of the reward. The Facebook post for charity also included one’s
cycling performance.
The use of 12 min segments to receive motivating rewards could be a problem, especially
for people who are sedentary. If they believe they cannot make it all the way through the next
12-min segment, they may quit prematurely. Instead, using 6 min segments to receive $0.50
might seem more motivating especially for a novel exerciser. However, the fact that the control
group, in which there was no immediate rewards, cycled 18 minutes on average suggests that 12
min segments was not problematic for this sample. Also for future studies the control condition
could be told to that the more 12-min segments of exercise you reach the closer to come to your
recommended daily requirements of PA for health.
Because the experimenter was female, there was no control for gender-match of the
research collector. The researcher was also the experimenter who collected most of the data and
tried to control experimenter bias by limiting conversations with all participants. Researcher
gave the same exact explanations to each of the participants and answered all related questions
but after, the researcher was dull throughout the session in order to limit small talk attempts

61

initiated by some of the participants. A computer generated randomization program was used to
create random conditions. The condition was determined before even seeing and meeting with
the participant. For future studies Having male and female data collectors might be another
avenue to explore and to control for experimenter bias.
A sub-sample of 15 participants in Study 2 were asked the perceptual value of donating a
dollar to charity. There were some striking comments while they were completing the survey. A
female participant stated; "UNICEF kept me going or I would have stopped. I'm overweight so
it's hard but I kept going.” Another student mentioned she would have stopped earlier if not for
her name being posted to FB for charity donations. A male participant reported that he was
happy money was being donated, even it is only one dollar, he said that it gives you a feeling that
you want to work harder. Another male explained that it was excited to reach 12 and 24 min
goals.
Future directions. Given the lack of current research exploring the effect of immediate
and self-presentational rewards on exercise promotion and the promising results demonstrated
here which suggest that these types of rewards in nature result in increased exercise, future
research is warranted. Having a treatment condition with FB posting with private charity, thus
completing the cells of a 2 (charitable donation) by 2 (Facebook postings) ANOVA, would allow
for a stronger experimental design.
Future research should design an intervention in which participants come to the
laboratory several times and conduct follow-ups to examine the effects of the motivating rewards
long-term. People get the chance to earn and donate money more than once by being physically
active. Given the opportunity to do several bouts of exercise might change the dynamics of
motivation. People might realize that they actually enjoy being physically active.

62

Another possible idea might be to have a group that is physically active for a chosen
charity and investigate the group motivation and dynamics in the process.
Conclusion
The results from this dissertation suggest that people’s motivation can increase when
motivating rewards such charity donations and social media are used in exercise contexts. Doing
so, can add minutes to exercise session. Importantly, these immediate motivating rewards is
increasing self-efficacy beliefs to cycle longer the next time. This might be a sign for the
intention to exercise in the future. Therefore, it is an encouraging finding to pursue an
intervention type study and a possible longitudinal study in the future. Additionally, this
dissertation suggests that associative and dissociative imagery may be effective methods to
improve performance on exercise duration tasks, too, and could provide a relatively easy way to
boost motivation and performance while exercising. Overall, group dynamics principles and
imagery are two strategies that can be used separately or together to extend exercise duration.

63

APPENDICES

64

APPENDIX A:
IRB APPROVAL LETTER FOR STUDY 1 PILOT

Initial IRB
Application
Approval

April 16, 2015
To:

Deborah L. Feltz
130 IM Sports Circle
Dept. of Kinesiology
MSU

Re:

IRB# 15-367 Category: EXPEDITED 4, 6, 7
Approval Date: April 15, 2015
Expiration Date: April 14, 2016

Title:

The effects of charitable cause on exercise motivation

The Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to advise
you that your project has been approved .
The committee has found that your research project is appropriate in design, protects the rights and
welfare of human subjects, and meets the requirements of MSU's Federal Wide Assurance and the
Federal Guidelines (45 CFR 46 and 21 CFR Part 50). The protection of human subjects in research is
a partnership between the IRB and the investigators. We look forward to working with you as we
both fulfill our responsibilities.
Renewals: IRB approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. If you are continuing your
project, 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. Please
submit an Application for Revision to have your changes reviewed. If changes are made at the time
of renewal, please include an Application for Revision with the renewal application.

Office of Regulatory Affairs

Human Research
Protection Programs
Biomedical & Health
Institutional Review Board
(BIRB)

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 office
promptly. 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 any
correspondence with the IRB office.

Community Research
Institutional Review Board
(CRIRB)
Social Science
Behavioral/Education
Institutional Review Board
(SIRB)
Olds Hall
408 West Circle Drive, #207
East Lansing, MI 48824
(517) 355-2180
Fax: (517) 432-4503
Email: irb@msu.edu
www.humanresearch.msu.edu

MSU is an affirmative-action,
equal-opportunity employer.

65

APPENDIX B:
IRB APPROVAL LETTER FOR STUDY 2

Revision
Application
Approval

December 16, 2015
To:

Re:

Title:

Deborah L. Feltz
130 IM Sports Circle
Dept. of Kinesiology
MSU
IRB# 15-367 Category: EXPEDITED 4, 6, 7
Revision Approval Date: December 16, 2015
Project Expiration Date: April 14, 2016
The effects of charitable cause on exercise motivation

The Institutional Review Board has completed their review of your project. I am pleased to advise
you that the revision has been approved.
This letter notes approval to include Turkish students (ages 18-35) in the target population, as
well as revisions to the consent form.
The review by the committee has found that your revision is consistent with the continued protection
of the rights and welfare of human subjects, and meets the requirements of MSU's Federal Wide
Assurance and the Federal Guidelines (45 CFR 46 and 21 CFR Part 50). The protection of human
subjects in research is a partnership between the IRB and the investigators. We look forward to
working with you as we both fulfill our responsibilities.
Renewals: IRB approval is valid until the expiration date listed above. If you are continuing your
project, 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. Please
submit an Application for Revision to have your changes reviewed. If changes are made at the time
of 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 office
promptly. 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 any
correspondence with the IRB office.
Office of Regulatory Affairs

Human Research
Protection Programs

Good luck in your research. 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.

Biomedical & Health
Institutional Review Board
(BIRB)

Sincerely,

Community Research
Institutional Review Board
(CRIRB)
Social Science
Behavioral/Education
Institutional Review Board
(SIRB)
Olds Hall
408 West Circle Drive, #207
East Lansing, MI 48824
(517) 355-2180
Fax: (517) 432-4503
Email: irb@msu.edu
www.hrpp.msu.edu

Ashir Kumar, M.D.

Chair, Biomedical and Health Institution Review Board (BIRB)
Human Research Protection Program
c: Duygu Gurleyik

MSU is an affirmative-action,
equal-opportunity employer.

66

APPENDIX C:
DEMOGRAPHICS
Subject #:________
Age: _____

Date of Birth: _____________

Ethnic Background: African American/Black
Caucasian/White
Native American

Education :

College: 1 freshman

Gender: Male

Female

Asian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic
Other: _____________________

2 sophomore 3 junior 4 senior 5 other

Degree program:
Graduate School: Yes/No
If Yes, then degree: ___________

67

APPENDIX D:
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY READINESS QUESTIONNAIRE (PAR-Q)
Please read the questions carefully and answer each one honestly. Circle “Yes” or “No”.
Yes/No

1. Has your doctor ever said that you have a heart condition and that you should
only do physical activity recommended by a doctor?

Yes/No

2. Do you feel pain in your chest when doing physical activity?

Yes/No

3. In the past month, have you had chest pain when you were not doing physical
activity?

Yes/No

4. Do you lose your balance because of dizziness or do you ever lose
consciousness?

Yes/No

5. Do you have a bone or joint problem that could be made worse by a change in
your physical activity?

Yes/No

6. Is your doctor currently prescribing medications for your blood pressure or
heart condition?

Yes/No

7. Do you know of any other reason why you should not do physical activity?

If you answered “YES” to any of the above, please explain briefly in the space below.

68

APPENDIX E:
GODIN LEISURE TIME SCALE

Considering a 7-Day period (a week), how many times on the average do you do the following
kinds of exercise for more than 15 minutes during your free time (write on each line the
appropriate number.)
Times Per Week

a) STRENUOUS EXERCISE
_______________
(HEART BEATS RAPIDLY)
(e.g., running, soccer, basketball, judo, racquetball
skating, vigorous swimming, vigorous long distance biking)

Times Per Week

b) MODERATE EXERCISE
______________
(NOT EXHAUSTING)
(e.g., fast walking, tennis, easy biking,
volleyball, badminton, easy swimming, dancing)
______________________________________________________________________________
_____
Times Per Week

c) MILD EXERCISE
________________
(MINIMAL EFFORT)
(e.g., yoga, archery, fishing, bowling,
golf, easy walk

69

APPENDIX F:
ALTRUISTIC PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE
Instructions: How often would you exhibit the following behaviors?
Please circle the most appropriate choice
1. I would give directions to someone I did not know.
1
2
3
4
Never
Once
More than once Often

5
Very often

2. I would make changes for someone I did not know.
1
2
3
4
Never
Once
More than once Often

5
Very often

3. I would give money to a charity.
1
2
3
Never
Once
More than once

4

5
Very often

4

5
Very often

4. I would donate clothes or goods to a charity.
1
2
3
Never
Once
More than once

Often

Often

5. I would help carry belongings of someone I did not know.
1
2
3
4
Never
Once
More than once Often

5
Very often

6. I would delay an elevator and hold the door for someone I did not know.
1
2
3
4
5
Never
Once
More than once Often
Very often
7. I would allow someone I did not know to go in front of me in line.
1
2
3
4
Never
Once
More than once Often

5
Very often

8. I would point out a clerk's error in undercharging me for an item.
1
2
3
4
Never
Once
More than once Often

5
Very often

9. I would let a neighbor I did not know well borrow an item of value to me.
1
2
3
4
5
Never
Once
More than once Often
Very often

70

10.I would help a classmate who I did not know well with a homework assignment when my
knowledge was greater than his or hers.
1
2
3
4
5
Never
Once
More than once Often
Very often
11.I would voluntarily look after a neighbor’s pet or children without being paid.
1
2
3
4
5
Never
Once
More than once Often
Very often
12.I would offer to help a handicapped or elderly person across the street.
1
2
3
4
5
Never
Once
More than once Often
Very often
13.I would offer my seat on a train or bus to someone who was standing.
1
2
3
4
5
Never
Once
More than once Often
Very often
14.I would help an acquaintance move houses.
1
2
3
Never
Once
More than once

71

4
Often

5
Very often

APPENDIX G:
SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS PRE
Pre-Exercise
Directions: Rate your confidence right now that you can cycle at 65% of your maximum ability
for…
5 minutes
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all Confident

10 minutes
0

1

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

8

9

10

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all Confident

25 minutes
0

10

Absolutely Confident

Not at all Confident

20 minutes
0

9

Absolutely Confident

Not at all Confident

15 minutes
0

8

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all Confident

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

30 minutes
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Not at all Confident

7

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

72

35 minutes
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all Confident

40 minutes
0

1

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

8

9

10

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all Confident

55 minutes
0

10

Absolutely Confident

Not at all Confident

50 minutes
0

9

Absolutely Confident

Not at all Confident

45 minutes
0

8

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all Confident

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

60 minutes
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Not at all Confident

7

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

73

APPENDIX H:
SELF- PRESENTATION IN EXERCISE QUESTIONNAIRE
Instructions: How often would you exhibit the following behaviors?
Please circle the most appropriate choice
1) I value the attention and praise of others when they regard me as being in good shape.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
Moderately
disagree
6
5
4
3
2
1
2) I want others to see me with friends who are exercising
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
6
5
4
3

Disagree
Moderately
2

Strongly
disagree
1

3) I enjoy the praise I often receive for exercising
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
6
5
4
3

Disagree
Moderately
2

Strongly
disagree
1

4) I prefer to exercise in groups so more people will view me as an exerciser
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
Moderately
6
5
4
3
2

Strongly
disagree
1

5) I try to appear toned or fit to others
Strongly
Agree
Agree
agree
Moderately
Slightly
6
5
4

Disagree
Moderately
2

Strongly
disagree
1

Disagree
Moderately
2

Strongly
disagree
1

7) Receiving praise while exercising makes me want to exercise more
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
Moderately
6
5
4
3
2

Strongly
disagree
1

Disagree
Slightly
3

6) Appearing fit or healthy to others is not important to me
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
6
5
4
3

8) I often wear exercise clothing even when I am not exercising to ensure that others know I am
an exerciser.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly

74

agree
6

Moderately
5

Slightly
4

Slightly
3

Moderately
2

disagree
1

9) I want to be thought of as a person who exercises.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
6
5
4
3

Disagree
Moderately
2

Strongly
disagree
1

10) I wear exercise/athletic clothing so other people will see me as an exerciser
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
Moderately
disagree
6
5
4
3
2
1
11) I emphasize my athletic ability around those who do not yet know that I am an “exercise
nut.”
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
Moderately
disagree
6
5
4
3
2
1
12) I value the attention and praise offered by others in regard to appearing physically fit.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
Moderately
disagree
6
5
4
3
2
1
13) When I exercise, it is important to appear that I am not trying too hard.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
Moderately
6
5
4
3
2

Strongly
disagree
1

14) I exercise so that regular exercisers will like me
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
6
5
4
3

Strongly
disagree
1

75

Disagree
Moderately
2

APPENDIX I:
SELF-PRESENTATION IN ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR QUESTIONNAIRE
1) I value to be seen altruistic by others
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Slightly
Moderately
agree
4
5
6

Disagree
Moderately
2

Strongly
disagree
1

2) I enjoy the praise I often receive for being an altruistic person
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
Moderately
6
5
4
3
2

Strongly
disagree
1

Disagree
Slightly
3

3) I value the attention and praise offered by others in regard to appearing altruistic
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
Moderately
disagree
6
5
4
3
2
1
4) Appearing altruistic to others is not important to me
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
6
5
4
3

Disagree
Moderately
2

Strongly
disagree
1

5) I want to be thought of as a person who is altruistic.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
agree
Moderately
Slightly
Slightly
6
5
4
3

Disagree
Moderately
2

Strongly
disagree
1

76

APPENDIX J:
SELF-EFFICACY BELIEFS POST
Directions: Rate your confidence right now that you can cycle at 65% of your maximum ability
the next time you cycle for…
5 minutes
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all Confident

10 minutes
0

1

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

8

9

10

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all Confident

25 minutes
0

10

Absolutely Confident

Not at all Confident

20 minutes
0

9

Absolutely Confident

Not at all Confident

15 minutes
0

8

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all Confident

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

30 minutes
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all Confident

35 minutes
0

1

2

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

3

4

5

6

77

7

8

9

10

Not at all Confident

40 minutes
0

1

2

Absolutely Confident

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all Confident

45 minutes
0

1

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1

2

10

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all Confident

55 minutes
0

9

Absolutely Confident

Not at all Confident

50 minutes
0

8

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

3

4

5

6

7

Not at all Confident

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

60 minutes
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Not at all Confident

7

8

9

10

Absolutely Confident

78

APPENDIX K:
HEALTH BULLETIN

Regular physical activity is one of the most important things you can do for your health. It can
help:
• Control your weight
• Reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease
• Reduce your risk for type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome
• Reduce your risk of some cancers
• Strengthen your bones and muscles
• Improve your mental health and mood
• Improve your ability to do daily activities and prevent falls, if you're an older adult
• Increase your chances of living longer
Everyone can gain the health benefits of physical activity - age, ethnicity, shape or size do not
matter.
If you're not sure about becoming active or boosting your level of physical activity because
you're afraid of getting hurt, the good news is that moderate-intensity aerobic activity, like
brisk walking, is generally safe for most people.
The health benefits of physical activity far outweigh the risks of getting hurt.
Start slowly. Cardiac events, such as a heart attack, are rare during physical activity. But the risk
does go up when you suddenly become much more active than usual. For example, you can put
yourself at risk if you don't usually get much physical activity and then all of a sudden do
vigorous-intensity aerobic activity, like shoveling snow. That's why it's important to start slowly
and gradually increase your level of activity.

79

REFERENCES

80

REFERENCES

Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow
giving. Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477. http://doi.org/10.2307/2234133
Ariely, D., Bracha, A., & Meier, S. (2009). Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and
monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. American Economic Review, 99(1), 544–555.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy. The exercise of control. New York: Freeman and Company.
Bénabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2006). Incentives and prosocial behavior. American Economic Review,
96(5), 1652–1678. http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.5.1652
Brownson, R. C., Boehmer, T. K., & Luke, D. a. (2005). Declining rates of physical activity in
the United States: What are the contributors? Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 421–43.
Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15760296
Carlo, G., Eisenberg, N., Troyer, D., Switzer, G., & Speer, a L. (1991). The altruistic
personality: In what contexts is it apparent? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
61(March), 450–458. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.450
Chen, B., & Marcus, J. (2012). Students’ self-presentation on Facebook: An examination of
personality and self-construal factors. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(6), 2091–2099.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.013
Conroy, D. E., Motl, R. W., & Hall, E. G. (2000). Progress toward construct validation of the
Self-Presentation in Exercise Questionnaire (SPEQ). Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology.
De Cocker, K. A., De Bourdeaudhuij, I. M., Brown, W. J., & Cardon, G. M. (2007). Effects of
“10,000 steps Ghent”: A whole-community intervention. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 33(6), 455–63. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.07.037
Dishman, R. (2004). Self-efficacy partially mediates the effect of a school-based physicalactivity intervention among adolescent girls. Preventive Medicine, 38(5), 628–636.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.12.007
Edwardson, C. L., & Gorely, T. (2010). Parental influences on different types and intensities of
physical activity in youth: A systematic review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11(6),
522–535. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2010.05.001
Einolf, C. J. (2011). Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(6), 1092–1112.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010385949

81

Eisenberg, N., Miller, P. a, Schaller, M., Fabes, R. a, Fultz, J., Shell, R., & Shea, C. L. (1989).
The role of sympathy and altruistic personality traits in helping: A reexamination. Journal
of Personality, 57(1), 41–67. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.ep8972612
Etnier, J. L., & Chang, Y.-K. (2009). The effect of physical activity on executive function: A
brief commentary on definitions, measurement issues, and the current state of the literature.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31(4), 469–483.
Ginis, K. A. M., & Leary, M. R. (2004). Self-Presentational processes in health-damaging
behavior. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16(1), 59–74.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10413200490260053
Godin, G., & Shephard, R. J. (1985). A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the
community. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Science, 10, 141–146.
Harbaugh, W. T. (1998). What do donations buy?: A model of philanthropy based on prestige
and warm glow. Journal of Public Economics, 67(2), 269–284.
http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(97)00062-5
Hausenblas, H. a., Brewer, B. W., & Van Raalte, J. L. (2004). Self-Presentation and exercise.
Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16(1), 3–18.
Herman, S. W. (2014). Go4life: &lt;http://go4life.nia.nih.gov&gt; Journal of Consumer Health
On the Internet, 18(3), 271–278. http://doi.org/10.1080/15398285.2014.932184
Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). Be smart, exercise your heart: Exercise
effects on brain and cognition. Nature Reviews.Neuroscience, 9(1), 58–65.
Hofmann, S. G., & Nadkarni, A. (2013). Who do people use Facebook? NIH Public Access,
52(3), 243–249. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The soical psychology of organzations. New York: Wiley.
Khalil, E. L. (2004). What is altruism? Journal of Economic Psychology, 25(1), 97–123.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(03)00075-8
Kim, J., & Lee, J.-E. R. (2011). The Facebook paths to happiness: Effects of the number of
Facebook friends and self-presentation on subjective well-being. Cyberpsychology,
Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(6), 359–364. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0374
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management : A literature review and twocomponent model. Psychological Bulletin, 107(I), 34–47. http://doi.org/10.1037/00332909.107.1.34
Lee-Won, R. J., Shim, M., Joo, Y. K., & Park, S. G. (2014). Who puts the best “face” forward on
Facebook?: Positive self-presentation in online social networking and the role of selfconsciousness, actual-to-total Friends ratio, and culture. Computers in Human Behavior, 39,

82

413–423. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.08.007
Livingstone, M. B. E., Robson, P. J., Wallace, J. M. W., & McKinley, M. C. (2003). How active
are we? Levels of routine physical activity in children and adults. The Proceedings of the
Nutrition Society, 62(3), 681–701.
Maddux, J. E. (1995). Self-efficacy theory. Springer US.
Martin Ginis, K. A., & Mack, D. (2012). Understanding exercise behavior: A self-presentational
perspective. In G. C. Roberts & D. C. Treasure (Eds.), Advances in motivation in sport and
exercise (3rd ed., pp. 328–355). Champaign, IL: Human kinetics.
Martin, K. A., Leary, M. R., & O’Brien, J. (2001). Role of self-presentation in the health
practices of a sample of Irish adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 28(4), 259–262.
http://doi.org/10.1016/s1054-139x(00)00209-3
Mesch, Brown, M. (2011). Gender differences in charitable giving. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(November), 342–355.
http://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.432
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted
by preschool delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4),
687–696. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.687
Rushton, J. ., Chrisjohn, R. ., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The altruistic personality and self-report
altruism scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 293–302.
Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
http://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Schunk, D. H. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In Self-efficacy, adaptation,
and adjustment (pp. 281–303). Springer US.
This Girl Can. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.sportengland.org/our-work/national-work/thisgirl-can/
Trivers, R. (1971). The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology,
46(1), 35–57. http://doi.org/10.1086/406755
Vorvoreanu, M. (2009). Perceptions of corporations on Facebook: An analysis of Facebook
social norms. Journal of New Communications Research, 4(1), 67–86.
Wong, W. K. W. (2012). Faces on Facebook : A Study of self-presentation and social support on
Facebook. Discovery – SS Student E-Journal, 1, 184–214.

83

Zimmerman, F.J. (2009). Using behavioral economics to promote physical activity. Preventive
Medicine, 49, 289–291.

84