{"title":"Characterizing Relationships with Exercise Partners: Communication, Closeness, and Performance","authors":"C. Hill, Emery J. Max, G. M. Wittenbaum, D. Feltz","doi":"10.23937/2469-5718/1510167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social influence research in exercise has highlighted the motivation-boosting potential of working out with an exercise partner or group, but to the authors’ knowledge there has been no research to date characterizing the typical dyadic exercise relationship, which is an interpersonal relationship that includes regular co-exercise. If exercise partners are motivational, then characterizing their relationship is important. A sample of 555 undergraduates were administered a survey, 383 of whom met inclusion criteria and reported having or having had an exercise partner. Participants (77%) reported that their exercise relationships typically emerged out of previously existing relationships. Participants reported (on a 1-7 Inclusion of Other in Self Scale) that they were very close with their exercise partners (M = 5.07 + 1.56) and that (out of 10 discussion topic categories) they talked about a number of topics outside of exercise (M = 6.53 + 2.50) and during typical workouts (M = 4.21 + 2.69). Exercise dyadic relationships were characterized by mutual goal facilitation, and participants whose exercise relationships had dissolved or failed reported significantly lower interpersonal closeness, lower communication breadth, and more performance-based goals than participants who reported an ongoing exercise relationship (ps < 0.05). Participants exercised more often the more an exercise relationship was defined by exercise (p < 0.05), suggesting that exercise relationships that revolved around exercise were more immediately productive than exercise relationships that did not prioritize exercise.","PeriodicalId":91298,"journal":{"name":"International journal of sports and exercise medicine","volume":"228 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of sports and exercise medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23937/2469-5718/1510167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Social influence research in exercise has highlighted the motivation-boosting potential of working out with an exercise partner or group, but to the authors’ knowledge there has been no research to date characterizing the typical dyadic exercise relationship, which is an interpersonal relationship that includes regular co-exercise. If exercise partners are motivational, then characterizing their relationship is important. A sample of 555 undergraduates were administered a survey, 383 of whom met inclusion criteria and reported having or having had an exercise partner. Participants (77%) reported that their exercise relationships typically emerged out of previously existing relationships. Participants reported (on a 1-7 Inclusion of Other in Self Scale) that they were very close with their exercise partners (M = 5.07 + 1.56) and that (out of 10 discussion topic categories) they talked about a number of topics outside of exercise (M = 6.53 + 2.50) and during typical workouts (M = 4.21 + 2.69). Exercise dyadic relationships were characterized by mutual goal facilitation, and participants whose exercise relationships had dissolved or failed reported significantly lower interpersonal closeness, lower communication breadth, and more performance-based goals than participants who reported an ongoing exercise relationship (ps < 0.05). Participants exercised more often the more an exercise relationship was defined by exercise (p < 0.05), suggesting that exercise relationships that revolved around exercise were more immediately productive than exercise relationships that did not prioritize exercise.