DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.1383120.v1
title: Social Bonds and Exercise: Evidence for a Reciprocal Relationship (Study 1)

description: Included here are data from Study 1 of a research article submitted to PLOS One for publication. The title of the article is: "Social Bonds and Exercise: Evidence for a Reciprocal Relationship" and the authors are Arran Davis, Jacob Taylor, and Emma Cohen. <strong>Abstract:</strong> In two experimental studies, we investigated mechanisms hypothesized to underpin two pervasive and interrelated phenomena: that certain forms of group movement and exercise lead to social bonding and that social bonding can lead to enhanced exercise performance. In Study 1 we manipulated synchrony and exercise intensity among rowers and found that, compared with low-intensity exercise, moderate-intensity exercise led to significantly higher levels of cooperation in an economic game; no effect of synchrony vs. non-synchrony was found. In Study 2, an elite, highly bonded team of rugby players participated in solo, synchronized and non-synchronized warm-up sessions; participants' anaerobic performance significantly improved after the brief synchronous warm-up relative to a non-synchronous warm-up. The findings substantiate claims concerning the reciprocal links between group exercise and social bonding, and may help to explain the ubiquity of collective physical activity across cultural domains as varied as play, ritual, sport, and dance. Please see research article for a description of the methods used in Study 1. <strong>Data Labels – Study 1:</strong> <strong>*Participant #</strong>: The number assigned to each participant for consent forms, bookkeeping, analysis, etc. (*n.b., participants 51-53 should be excluded from data analysis as they did not follow the experimental procedure). <strong>Group:</strong> This is the experimental trial or group with which each participant did the study. Some groups have 2 participants and some have 3, depending on whether there was a cancelation and a confederate was used to fill in. <strong>Intensity:</strong> 0 represents low intensity rowing and 1 represents high intensity rowing. <strong>Synchrony:</strong> 0 represents asynchronous rowing and 1 represents synchronous rowing. <strong>Condition:</strong> This is the participant’s experimental condition. 1 represents asynchronous, low intensity rowing. 2 represents synchronous, low intensity rowing. 3 represents asynchronous, high intensity rowing. 4 represents synchronous, high intensity rowing. <strong>Group Fund Contribution:</strong> this is how much in GBP that the participant donated to the group fund in the public goods game (from £0-£5). <strong>IOS:</strong> this is the participant’s score on the modified Inclusion of the Other in the Self Scale (from 1-7, with 7 representing the highest interdependent self-construal). <strong>PWB:</strong> this is the participant’s score on the “psychological well-being” component of the Subjective Exercise Experience Scale. <strong>PD:</strong> this is the participant’s score on the “psychological distress” component of the Subjective Exercise Experience Scale. <strong>FAT:</strong> this is the participant’s score on the “fatigue” component of the Subjective Exercise Experience Scale. <strong>Cooperation:</strong> this is the participant’s answer to the question “How much did you and the other participants cooperate during the experiment?” on a 7-point Likert Scale (with 1 being “not at all”, 4 being “moderately”, and 7 being “very much so”). <strong>Similarity:</strong> this is the participant’s answer to the question “How similar are you to the other participants?” on a 7-point Likert Scale (with 1 being “not at all”, 4 being “moderately”, and 7 being “very much so”). <strong>Trust:</strong> this is the participant’s answer to the question “How much do you trust the other participants?” on a 7-point Likert Scale (with 1 being “not at all”, 4 being “moderately”, and 7 being “very much so” – see attached post-experiment questionnaire). <strong>Like:</strong> this is the participant’s answer to the question “How much do you like the other participants?” on a 7-point Likert Scale (with 1 being “not at all”, 4 being “moderately”, and 7 being “very much so” – see attached post-experiment questionnaire). <strong>Same Team:</strong> this is the participant’s answer to the question “How much do you feel that you and the other participants were on the same team?” on a 7-point Likert Scale (with 1 being “not at all”, 4 being “moderately”, and 7 being “very much so”). <strong>Difficulty:</strong> this is the participant’s answer to the question “How difficult was the rowing trial?” on a 7-point Likert Scale (with 1 being “not at all”, 4 being “moderately”, and 7 being “very much so”). <strong>Know:</strong> this is the participant’s answer to the question “How much do you know the other participants? (Please make a circle for each of the other two participants – you can circle the same number twice).” on a 7-point Likert Scale (with 1 being “not at all”, 4 being “moderately”, and 7 being “very much so”). <strong>Pain - Pre:</strong> this is participant’s pre-experiment pain threshold measured in mmGH (see research article). <strong>Pain - Post:</strong> this is participant’s post-experiment pain threshold measured in mmGH (see research article). <strong>Location:</strong> this is the location in the gym at which the experiment took place where participants’ pain thresholds were measured, where they played the public goods game, filled out the Subjective Exercise Experience Scale, and answered the questions described above. <strong>Heart BPM:</strong> this is the participant’s average heart rate in beats per minute (BPM) during the rowing portion of the experiment. <strong>Experimenter:</strong> this is the experimenter that measured the participant’s pain thresholds and gave them the public goods game, Subjective Exercise Experience Scale, and post-experiment questionnaire. <strong>Date:</strong><strong></strong> this is the date on which the experiment took place. <strong>Amount paid:</strong> this is how much the participant earned in GBP for participating in the experiment. This amount is dependent on the results of the public goods game. <strong>Confederate:</strong> this is whether or not a confederate was used. This was done when a participant did not show up for the experiment and an extra rower was needed. 0 represents trials in which the confederate was not used, 1 represents trials in which the confederate was used. <strong>Pain - Change:</strong> this is the difference in participant’s pre-experiment and post-experiment pain threshold measured in mmHG (see research article). <strong>Sex:</strong> this is the participant’s sex - 0 represents female and 1 represents male. <strong>Mixed Group:</strong> this is whether the group in which the participants rowed with was same sex or mixed sex – 0 represents same sex groups (all male or all female) and 1 represents mixed sex groups. <strong>Bondedness Factor Score:</strong> a principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted on the IOS scale and the questions from the post-experiment questionnaire on similarity, trust, cooperation, team work and how much participants liked each other (see research article) due to the potential that they could represent a single underlying construct related to bondedness. Indeed, the PCA revealed that one factor should be extracted from these questions. It was theorized that this factor represents a single underlying construct related to bondedness. The number in this column is the participant’s score on this factor, with larger numbers representing higher perceived bondedness with the other group members in the participant’s trial. <strong>Cooperation level:</strong> as is explained in the research article, participant group fund contributions in the public goods games were binned into ‘low cooperation’ (£0 - £1.67), ‘medium cooperation’ (£1.68 - £3.33), and ‘high cooperation’ (£3.34 - £5) categories. 1 represents low cooperation, 2 represents medium cooperation, and 3 represent high cooperation.