Background: Despite interest in financial incentive programs, evidence regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of deposit contracts (ie, use of participants’ own money as a financial reward) for increasing physical activity (PA) is limited. Furthermore, evidence regarding the use of feedback within incentive programs is limited. Purpose: To evaluate: (1) the feasibility and acceptability of deposit contracts for increasing objectively measured PA and (2) the effects of deposit contracts with or without ongoing feedback on PA. Methods: Participants (n = 24) were exposed to 3 conditions (1) self-monitoring, (2) incentive, and (3) incentive with feedback in an ABACABAC design, with the order of incentive conditions counterbalanced across participants. Results: Effect sizes suggest that individuals had a modest increase in PA during the incentive conditions compared with self-monitoring. Presentation order moderated results, such that individuals exposed to incentives with feedback first performed more poorly across both incentive conditions. In addition, individuals often cited the deposit contract as a reason for not enrolling, and those who did participate reported inadequate acceptability of the incentives and feedback. Conclusions: Results suggest that while deposit contracts may engender modest increases in PA, this type of incentive may not be feasible or acceptable for promoting PA.
Stephanie G. Kerrigan, Evan M. Forman, Mitesh Patel, Dave Williams, Fengqing Zhang, Ross D. Crosby and Meghan L. Butryn
Brian Cook, Trisha M. Karr, Christie Zunker, James E. Mitchell, Ron Thompson, Roberta Sherman, Ross D. Crosby, Li Cao, Ann Erickson and Stephen A. Wonderlich
The purpose of our study was to examine exercise dependence (EXD) in a large community-based sample of runners. The secondary purpose of this study was to examine differences in EXD symptoms between primary and secondary EXD. Our sample included 2660 runners recruited from a local road race (M age = 38.78 years, SD = 10.80; 66.39% women; 91.62% Caucasian) who completed all study measures online within 3 weeks of the race. In this study, EXD prevalence was lower than most previously reported rates (gamma = .248, p < .001) and individuals in the at-risk for EXD category participated in longer distance races, F(8,1) = 14.13, p = .01, partial eta squared = .05. Group differences were found for gender, F(1,1921) 8.08, p = .01, partial eta squared = .004, and primary or secondary group status, F(1,1921) 159.53, p = .01, partial eta squared = .077. Implications of primary and secondary EXD differences and future research are discussed.