DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.5712193.v1
title: The Effects of Social Support on Strenuous Physical Exercise

description: This data set ('AHBP - Full Data Set - Davis & Cohen.csv') is used for analyses in the manuscript 'The Effects of Social Support on Strenuous Physical Exercise,' authored by Arran Davis (University of Oxford) and Emma Cohen (Wadham College, University of Oxford), and published in the journal <i>Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology</i>. <br><br>Publication DOI: 10.1007/s40750-017-0086-8<br><br><b>Abstract</b><br>In humans, socio-environmental cues play an important role in determining adaptive psychophysiological states and behaviours. In sport and exercise, cues to cohesive groups and close, supportive relationships are ubiquitous, possibly because of their effects on neurobiological mechanisms underlying physical performance. Clinical research has shown that the presence of supportive others can lead to reductions in perceptions of pain, while research from sport and exercise science has shown that pain and physical fatigue occupy ranges on a single spectrum of physical discomfort, which works to regulate outputs during strenuous physical exertion. Given the similar neurobiological processes involved in pain and fatigue, the importance of both in the self-regulation of strenuous physical outputs, and the effects of social support on perceptions of pain and neurophysiological stress responses more generally, we hypothesised that perceptions of social support affect outputs during strenuous physical exercise by altering activity in self-regulatory mechanisms involved in perceptions of pain and fatigue. We used a between-subjects experimental design to test this hypothesis, varying participants’ social support and measuring physical outputs and perceptions of physical discomfort and exertion during a series of maximum-effort cycling bouts. Analyses showed that participants in the social support condition produced greater initial outputs and steeper declines over time, compared to controls. This effect was moderated by participant neuroticism; an important predictor of how individuals react to social support. We discuss these findings in terms of proposed causal mechanisms linking supportive, cohesive environments with self-regulation and physical performance.<br><br><b>Data key</b><br>Scales and methods used in measuring and creating the variables listed below are explained in the Main Manuscript (MM) and Electronic Supplementary Material (ESM). These publications can be accessed here: 10.1007/s40750-017-0086-8<br><br>‘Participant’: number given to each participant in the study.<br><br>‘Weight’: body weight in kilograms. <br><br>‘Resistance’: resistance (in kilograms) applied to wheel of Monark 874E Ergometer (see MM)<br><br>‘B1_Revolutions’: total spins of the Monark 874E Ergometer pedal during the first 30-second cycling bout.<br><br>‘B1 _Work’: total anaerobic output, measured in joules (J), during the first 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘B1_Peak_Power’: peak power, measured in watts (W), during the first 30-second cycling bout (see MM and ESM).<br><br>‘B2_Revolutions’: total spins of the Monark 874E Ergometer pedal during the second 30-second cycling bout.<br><br>‘B2_Work’: total anaerobic output, measured in joules (J), during the second 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘B2_Peak_Power’: peak power, measured in watts (W), during the second 30-second cycling bout (see MM and ESM).<br><br>‘B3_Revolutions’: total spins of the Monark 874E Ergometer pedal during the third 30-second cycling bout.<br><br>‘B3_Work’: total anaerobic output, measured in joules (J), during the third 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘B3_Peak_Power’: peak power, measured in watts (W), during the third 30-second cycling bout (see MM and ESM).<br><br>‘B4_Revolutions’: total spins of the Monark 874E Ergometer pedal during the fourth 30-second cycling bout.<br><br>‘B4_Work’: total anaerobic output, measured in joules (J), during the fourth 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘B4_Peak_Power’: peak power, measured in watts (W), during the fourth 30-second cycling bout (see MM and ESM).<br><br>‘Exerciser_or_companion’: ‘1’ indicates the participant was an exerciser; ‘2’ indicates the participant was an companion.<br><br>‘Condition’: ‘1’ indicates that the participant took part in the solo condition; ‘2’ indicates that the participant took part in the companion condition.<br><br>‘Age’: participant age.<br><br>‘Sex’: participant sex.<br><br>‘Nationality’: participant nationality.<br><br>‘English_prof’: participant English proficiency (see MM).<br><br>‘There_for_you’: participant answer to “To what extent do you feel your companion is there for you when you need him/her (for example, emotionally, psychologically and/or materially)?” on a seven-point Likert scales (1 – Low amount; 4 – Medium amount; 7 – High amount).<br><br>‘Similarity’: participant answer to “Rate your overall similarity to your companion.” on a seven-point Likert scales (1 – Low amount; 4 – Medium amount; 7 – High amount)<br><br>‘Connected’: participant answer to “Rate how connected you feel to your companion.” on a seven-point Likert scales (1 – Low amount; 4 – Medium amount; 7 – High amount).<br><br>‘Close’: participant answer to “Rate how close your relationship is with your companion.” on a seven-point Likert scales (1 – Low amount; 4 – Medium amount; 7 – High amount).<br><br>‘Months_known’: how long participants had known the person they came to the experiment with (see MM).<br><br>‘Contact_freq’: how frequently participants were in contact with the person they came to the experiment with (see MM).<br><br>‘Extraversion’: participant extraversion score on abbreviated ‘Big Five’ personality inventory (see MM).<br><br>‘Agreeableness’: participant agreeableness score on abbreviated ‘Big Five’ personality inventory (see MM).<br><br>‘Conscientiousness’: participant conscientiousness score on abbreviated ‘Big Five’ personality inventory (see MM).<br><br>‘Neuroticism’: participant neuroticism score on abbreviated ‘Big Five’ personality inventory (see MM).<br><br>‘Openness’: participant openness score on abbreviated ‘Big Five’ personality inventory (see MM).<br><br>‘Estimated_anaerobic_fitness’: participant estimated anaerobic fitness (see MM and ESM).<br><br>‘Exertion_1’: participant rate of perceived exertion during the first 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘Pain_1’: participant rating of physical discomfort during the first 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘Exertion_2’: participant rate of perceived exertion during the second 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘Pain_2’: participant rating of physical discomfort during the second 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘Exertion_3’: participant rate of perceived exertion during the third 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘Pain_3’: participant rating of physical discomfort during the third 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘Exertion_4’: participant rate of perceived exertion during the fourth 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘Pain_4’: participant rating of physical discomfort during the fourth 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘Study_enjoyment’: exerciser answer to “How much did you enjoy the study?” on seven-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = a lot).<br><br>‘Study_selfconsciousness’: exerciser answer to “Did you feel self-conscious during the exercise portion of the study?” on seven-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much so).<br><br>‘Study_support’: exerciser answer to “How comfortable and supported did you feel during the exercise portion of the study?” on seven-point Likert scale<br><br>‘Study_anxiety’: exerciser answer to “How anxious did you feel during the exercise portion of the study?” on seven-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = a lot).<br><br>‘Tried_harder’: exerciser answer to “Do you think you could have tried harder during the cycling bouts?” on seven-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very much so).<br><br>‘Liked_experimenters’: exerciser answer to “How much did you like the experimenters?” on seven-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = a lot).<br><br>‘Guessed_hypothesis’: ‘0’ indicates that exerciser did not guess the experimental hypothesis; ‘1’ indicates that the exerciser had an idea of the experimental hypothesis, but did not know the condition they participated in; ‘2’ indicates that the exerciser knew the experimental hypothesis and the condition he or she participated in (exercisers scoring ‘2’ were excluded from analyses; see MM).<br><br>‘SAS’: exerciser score on the Social Assurance Scale (see MM).<br><br>‘MSPSS’: exerciser score on the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (see MM).<br><br>‘Bout1_HR’: exerciser average heart rate during the first 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘Bout2_HR’: exerciser average heart rate during the second 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘Bout3_HR’: exerciser average heart rate during the third 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘Bout4_HR’: exerciser average heart rate during the fourth 30-second cycling bout (see MM).<br><br>‘Companion component’: exerciser score on the exerciser-companion relationship component (see MM and ESM).<br><br>‘SAS_tertile’: exerciser tertile (1 = low, 2 = middle, 3 = high) for score on the Social Assurance Scale (see MM).<br><br>‘MSPSS_tertile’: exerciser tertile (1 = low, 2 = middle, 3 = high) for score on the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (see MM).<br><br>‘Neuroticism_tertile’: exerciser tertile (1 = low, 2 = middle, 3 = high) for neuroticism score (see MM).<br><br>‘Companion_component_tertile’: exerciser tertile (1 = low, 2 = middle, 3 = high) for exerciser-companion relationship component score (see MM and ESM).<br><br><b>Excluded participants</b><br>Reasons for excluding participants are given in the MM. Participant numbers 1 (pilot trial), 31, 47, 89, 157 were excluded from all analyses; participant numbers 93 and 141 were excluded from all mixed ANOVAs (see MM).