Many studies have focused on the impact of social support (or “cohesion” as it is referred to by social psychologists) on exercise success. A comprehensive review of 113 studies on the effects of social support systems (which varied from simple approval to an active role in helping with the behavior), foundthat interpersonal support helps people maintain their exercise programs over time.5Also, it was found that who delivered the support impacted the degree of positive effect. For example, support provided by a spouse or bypeers had more effect on exercise success than support provided byanexercise class leader.In addition, it was found that other exercisers who were pursuing similar tasks (succeeding with their new programs, making a physical change in their bodies) had considerably more impact on adherence than the participants’ families. When new exercisers felt that they werepart of a group centered around social interests, results were not as favorable as when group members came together around exercise-related goals.

A notable series of five studies by Canadian universities attempted to evaluate the impact of an exercise leader (who was trained in “team building” techniques) on cohesion and exercise dropout.6,7,10,9,11 Although the exercise leader-to-new-exerciser ratio was small (about one to 12), the leader spent a full four hours with the group each week, andpsychological testing indicates that task-related cohesion was improved, and adherence benefited. Due to the design of the studies, the results are inconclusive as to whether the leader was the important element for change, or whether other exercisers within the groups influenced the participants. These studies’ methods also had the practical disadvantage of requiring large amounts of exercise professionals’ time for a relatively small amount of exercisers. Similar time demands would be difficult to accommodate within existing fitness center staffing structures.

To find outif such a large amount of exercise leader time is required to promote feelings of cohesion, camaraderieand ongoing exercise success, another study was conducted.1For this study,the exercise leader played a more passive role. Groups of about 12 new exercisers (who were assessed as being at-risk for early drop out)tookpart in an exercise program thatprovided proper warm-up and cool-down, before and after the exercise program. Matching control groups (no warm-up orcool-down) also participated in the 15-week investigation. Anexercise professional led a five-minute warm-up (e.g., running inplace, stretching) within a racquetball- court-size room, then told the group to complete their own planned workouts and return at the end of the hour for a three- to four-minute cool-down. No mention was made for the group to stay together. The leader left the building and, hence, was not available for member interaction.

Results found thatgroup cohesion measured similarly to the previously described studies that required four hours per week ofinstructor time, compared to the less than half-an-hour that was used in this study. It was clear that, within five weeks, the new members felt part of a real group (see Table 1).

Without any direction, about 87 percentof the group members’ contact time within the facility was spent with people who shared their warm-up orcool-down time. Exercise adherence was 21 percent better than the control group. These members now felt connected.

Conclusions drawn from this study include the following: 1) the leader is not as important as the group members;2) simply getting novice, at-risk exercisers together is enough to raise cohesion and adherence.No special team-building initiatives seem to be necessary; and 3) similar methods can readily be adapted to benefit many fitness and wellness settings.