The Köhler Effect: A
Motivational Strategy for
Strength and Conditioning
Christopher R. Hill, PhD
Department of Kinesiology, California State University, San Bernardino, San Bernardino, California.
Downloaded from https://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywCX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3qIsdRDyoedEm+51pGb5lhF86t7nLt00qURAb1P0SqHB2e5pL0vfZBw== on 11/18/2019
ABSTRACT
STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING
(SC) SETTINGS ARE INCREAS-
INGLY USING THE BENEFITS OF
GROUP TRAINING. HOWEVER,
RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOL-
OGY HAS LARGELY FOUND PEO-
PLE DO NOT WORK AS HARD
WHEN IN GROUP SETTINGS.
MORE RECENT EVIDENCE SUG-
GESTS WITH THOUGHTFUL
DESIGN OF GROUPS AND THE
TASK STRUCTURE, THE EFFORT
LOSSES PREVIOUSLY SEEN CAN
BE TURNED INTO EFFORT GAINS.
THIS ARTICLE WILL REVIEW
RESEARCH THAT EXAMINES 1
PARTICULAR MOTIVATION GAIN
SEEN IN THE LITERATURE, THE
KÖHLER EFFECT. SPECIFICALLY,
THIS ARTICLE WILL PROVIDE
PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS OF
HOW THE KÖHLER EFFECT CAN
BE HARNESSED AND USED IN SC
SETTINGS.
INTRODUCTION/RATIONALE FOR
THIS ARTICLE
trength and conditioning (SC),
S personal training, and rehabilita-
tion domains increasingly are
using the potential benefits of groups
for both behavioral and financial rea-
sons (1). However, when working
with clients or athletes in group set-
tings, it is important to consider the
Address correspondence to Dr. Christopher
R. Hill, Christopher.hill@csusb.edu.
90 VOLUME 41 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2019 Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
role social influence might have in di-
minishing or strengthening motiva-
tion. Previous reviews of the
literature have noted increases or de-
creases in motivation can occur solely
based on the ways in which tasks are
implemented and groups are designed
(10). The literature in social sport and
exercise psychology has (by quantity
of articles) many more research find-
ings that provide evidence about
effort losses in groups (20). However,
a more recent line of research has
examined how those motivation los-
ses can be turned into motivation
gains. The purpose of this article is
to examine how the Köhler motiva-
tion gain effect can be harnessed to
provide enhanced motivation for ath-
letes and clients in SC and group
training settings. The research
included in this review has been con-
ducted with college and adult popu-
lations. Therefore, the implications of
the findings presented within this arti-
cle should be interpreted with caution
for SC coaches working in other
settings.
THE KÖHLER EFFECT: A WAY TO
COMBAT SOCIAL LOAFING
In the 1920s, an industrial psycholo-
gist named Otto Köhler was noticing
something interesting about the
power of social influence while rowers
of the Berlin Rowing Club were train-
ing. Köhler had rowers participate in
a biceps curl task in different situa-
tions; working alone, working in pairs,
or working in groups of 3. When
working alone, the rowers curled
a 44-kg weight until exhaustion.
When in groups, they either used an
88-kilogram bar (for pairs) or a 132-kg
bar (in a group of 3 people), again,
until exhaustion. The purpose of the
increase in weight on the bar was so
the amount of weight being lifted by
1 individual never changed. How-
ever, when working in groups, if 1
person stops lifting the weight
because they become too fatigued,
their partner (or 2 other group mem-
bers) would be unable to continue
with the group task because they
could not lift the heavy weight on
their own. This type of task later
became known as a conjunctive task
(18). In a conjunctive task, the group
outcome is dependent on the perfor-
mance of the weakest team member.
What Köhler noticed was in these
conjunctive tasks, the weakest group
member worked harder compared
with when they worked by them-
selves (12). This motivation gain
became known later as the Köhler
effect.
Köhler noted this performance im-
provement in group settings was
a fairly consistent phenomenon and
generalized to many of the rowers
who were engaged in this conjunctive
task. To further understand this phe-
nomenon, he modified the discrep-
ancy for the weaker and the stronger
KEY WORDS:
motivation; psychology; teams
 team members. After some refining,
Köhler noted this increase in perfor-
mance was optimized whenever the
discrepancy between the weaker and
stronger members was moderate (20–
40% difference in capabilities; (12)).
Because of issues with research dis-
semination and language differences,
Köhler’s work went largely unnoticed
for decades.
The resurgence of Köhler effect
research is important because for
many decades, there was a narrative
about groups potentially hindering
performance. This narrative was
driven by researchers who uncovered
that as the size of a group increased,
the group productivity actually
decreased (20). This negative group
effect was known by 2 names, the
Ringelmann effect or social loafing.
Through a variety of group-based ex-
periments, Ringelmann uncovered
when group size increases, the group
has productivity losses that are mainly
due to a lack of an ability to accurately
obtain an individual performance
score and coordination losses within
the group (20). The Köhler effect
seems to alleviate both of these issues
in group settings because the individ-
ual has their own performance (i.e.,
they cannot hide their own score
within the score of others) and there
is no identifiable way to lose coordi-
nation when performing by oneself
toward a team goal where each indi-
vidual also gets his/her own score.
Therefore, Witte (20) noted the Köh-
ler effect is the “anti-Ringelmann”
effect and should be used as a way
to actually boost motivation in group
settings instead of trying to cut your
losses in group tasks.
Recently, there has been an increase
in research examining the Köhler
effect specific to the sport and exercise
field. The next section will examine
the theoretical explanations for why
this effect is seen in group settings.
The subsequent section will examine
the research already conducted in
exercise settings examining motiva-
tion gains in group settings. Finally,
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
this article will conclude with practical
implications for harnessing the Köhler
effect in SC and personal training
settings.
MECHANISMS OF THE KÖHLER
EFFECT
Researchers in a variety of psycholog-
ical domains have examined the Köh-
ler effect and have uncovered 2
potential mechanisms that might be
driving the motivation gain seen in
group settings. The first mechanism
is called upward social comparison
(11). In upward social comparison,
the weaker team member would need
to be paired with a stronger team
member if you are trying to boost
the motivation of the weaker team
member. For example, if you are
designing a paired strength training
program for a team, it would be wise
to pair an athlete who might need
a motivational boost with someone
who is moderately stronger than the
athlete needing the extra motivation.
There is some evidence the upward
social comparison mechanism, by it-
self, would bolster the motivation of
weaker group members (11).
The second mechanism of the Köhler
effect relies on each group member’s
scores being indispensable to the team
score (11). This group indispensability
principle can be seen in a variety of
tasks, including the original research
conducted by Köhler. In the original
Köhler studies (12), when the weakest
member of the team quit the biceps
curl task, the weight was too heavy
for anyone to lift it on their own.
Another way to think about indis-
pensability is within the context of
relay races. The overall team score
of a relay race is largely dependent
on each member of the team partici-
pating at a high level. If 1 group mem-
ber performs at a suboptimal level,
there will be consequences for the
entire group’s performance. Indis-
pensability is key when thinking about
who is the “weak link” in a group.
Designing training programs with this
indispensability mechanism in mind
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
would likely lead to increases in effort,
especially for the weak link in group
settings. The indispensability phe-
nomenon has been seen in Köhler
effect findings in and out of sport
and exercise settings (2,11).
The examples provided in the past 2
paragraphs provide some evidence of
2 key underlying mechanisms that
might lead to group motivation gains.
However, for it to be a true Köhler
effect finding, it needs to consider
both components together. Each
component by itself might provide
some benefit to the motivation of ath-
letes or clients with whom you are
currently working with, but both
mechanisms together are indicative
of current thinking about the Köhler
effect.
TYPES OF TASKS
When thinking about ways to imple-
ment the Köhler effect in strength
training, coaches should consider
how the task structure might influence
motivation. Tasks can differ based on
the demands placed on the group and
how the group is evaluated (18). A
conjunctive task is a task when the
group score is dependent on the weak-
est group member (6,18). If a dyad is
under conjunctive task domains, and 1
member completes 25 reps of a biceps
curl task and the other member of the
group completes 32 reps of a biceps
curl, the team score would be 25 reps.
An additive task is when the perfor-
mance of the group is a sum of all the
group members’ contributions to the
task (18). Common relay races (i.e.,
track and field, and swimming) fit
the scope of additive tasks. In the
weightlifting example presented
above, the additive team score would
be 57 reps. A disjunctive task is when
the best member of a group deter-
mines the overall group performance
(18). Using the aforementioned
weightlifting example, the team score
in a disjunctive task would be 32 reps.
Finally, a group can also be in a coac-
tive task. In a coactive task, the indi-
viduals present are not in a defined
91
 Köhler Effect
group that will have a singular group
score, but the 2 individuals will be
working toward an individual score
in the presence of another person. In
the previous weightlifting example,
the individuals would just receive their
own scores and would not receive
a team score. Based on the current
state of the literature, if an SC program
is using groups to attempt to boost
motivation, it is not advisable to use
a disjunctive or coactive group set-
ting (2,11).
REVIEW OF THE CURRENT STATE
OF THE LITERATURE
Although Köhler’s original work was
using a physical task with athletes,
more contemporary work in the field
moved away from the intense physical
nature of a very heavy biceps curl. Many
experiments used tasks such as holding
a small weight at a 908 angle from the
torso like a static shoulder lateral raise. If
the weight fell below 908, the experi-
ment would stop (6). Although the pre-
viously mentioned task is physical in
nature, it will likely not bring about
changes in strength that fitness profes-
sionals aim to target in their condition-
ing and training sessions.
The studies that are going to subse-
quently be discussed all have a similar
task structure. Participants perform the
first set of exercises by themselves to
gather baseline data, then participants
complete the set of exercises again but
in the condition he/she was random-
ized into (2,8,9). This fact is worth not-
ing because the participants would be
fatigued heading into the second set of
exercises, potentially limiting their per-
formance. If incorporated into their
coaching sessions, SC coaches can
expect to see increases in performance
especially when athletes or clients are
already fatigued.
In the first laboratory experiment, Feltz
et al. (2) examined whether the Köhler
effect could effectively increase the
duration of a 5-plank exercise bout
when working with a prerecorded
partner under different task demands.
The prerecorded partner was a confed-
erate, so the participant in the study
92 VOLUME 41 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2019
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
would never plank longer than the pre-
recorded video partner (but the partic-
ipant did not know this information).
Participants either worked in a coactive,
additive, conjunctive, or individual task
structure. Overall, participants worked
harder when paired with a partner,
than if they worked by themselves.
Interestingly, the conjunctive condition
did not perform significantly better
than the additive or coactive condi-
tions (2). Practically, in this experiment,
participants in the partnered condi-
tions had a 24.1% increase in the plank-
ing duration in the second set of
exercises. Even after a fatiguing exer-
cise bout, participants worked harder
in the second set of exercises when
working with a video recorded partner.
It is also worth noting previous
research findings denote when the
partner is physically present, the Köh-
ler motivation gain is enhanced (7,13).
SC coaches can not only view this find-
ing as a way to boost motivation, but
also a cautionary tale. It might not be
helpful for athletes who need a motiva-
tional boost to train on their own
because the social influence of another
person being present, either physical or
virtual, seems to boost exercise effort
and persistence in an exercise task
under conjunctive task demands.
Shortly after the first contemporary
experiment, researchers aimed to
understand whether the Köhler effect
could be harnessed in promoting aer-
obic exercise (8). Participants were
asked to cycle at an intensity to gener-
ate 65% of maximal heart rate for as
long as they wanted. The participants
were randomized into either an indi-
vidual control condition (with no part-
ner), a conjunctive condition, or
a coactive condition. On average, the
conjunctive condition participants
cycled for 12 minutes longer than the
individual control condition and 18 mi-
nutes longer than the coactive condi-
tion. These findings again lend support
that the Köhler effect can be harnessed
to bring about increased performance
in exercise and fitness settings (8).
Since these original 2 findings, there
has been a continued interest in under-
standing the Köhler effect in exercise
settings. One interesting question sur-
rounded the amount of discrepancy
that can lead to increased motivation.
Köhler’s original work indicated a mod-
erate discrepancy, but further refine-
ment of the discrepancy level could
lead to increases in the motivational
mechanisms (12,19). Presumably, if an
athlete is too far inferior or superior to
a teammate, the same motivation gains
would not be seen. Feltz et al. (3) exam-
ined this issue by creating 3 different
partners to test against an individual
control. All the partners in this exper-
imental manipulation were conjunctive
in nature, but the discrepancy between
the participant and the partner varied.
There were low-discrepancy (1% bet-
ter performance from the virtually pre-
sented partner), moderate-discrepancy
(40% better performance than the vir-
tually presented partner), and high-
discrepancy (100% better performance
than the virtually presented partner)
partners. All partnered conditions out-
performed the individual control con-
ditions, consistent with previous
findings in the Köhler literature (2),
but the moderate-discrepancy condi-
tion outperformed the low- and high-
discrepancy conditions. This finding is
consistent with the original Köhler
work (12) noting a moderate discrep-
ancy is best at garnering the highest
increase in work in exercise settings.
When pairing teammates to work
together, SC coaches should consider
pairing the weaker team member with
someone who is about 20–40% stron-
ger than them to see the largest moti-
vation gains. Perhaps, a driving force in
this discrepancy is the predictions out-
lined by self-efficacy theory. If team
members are too dissimilar, they likely
will not make the comparisons with
the partner. The weaker member will
believe they have little in common
with stronger partner, and the ties
between the 2 (both socially and per-
formance wise) will not be as strong. It
is important for coaches to remember
this discrepancy does not have to be
perfect to see changes in motivation for
the weak link in these groups, as noted
in the previously mentioned study (3).
Athletes are going to differ from lift to
 lift, but keeping the tasks structured as
either conjunctive or additive will likely
lead to motivation and performance
gains for each member of the group
compared with using individual tasks.
The key is to make sure each individ-
ual’s performance is uniquely identifi-
able while keeping an overall team
score component.
Researchers have continued to try to
uncover mechanisms and variables
that will moderate and potentially bol-
ster the Köhler effect in fitness settings.
There have been investigations con-
ducted attempting to uncover the role
encouragement has in the Köhler
effect. In other words, will the superior
partner giving a participant encourage-
ment enhance the motivation gains
already established in laboratory set-
tings? Participants in a plank study
were either given no feedback or verbal
feedback from their partner (i.e., “you
can do it,” “stay strong here,” and “you
got this”). Initial evidence suggests
encouragement from a virtually pre-
sented partner will actually hurt the
Köhler effect by reducing the effort
substantially (9). However, later
research examined whether changing
the pronoun used in the verbal com-
munication (from “you” to “we”) could
reverse the negative effects of encour-
agement seen in the study by Irwin
et al. (9). The researchers tested this
change because partner-inclusive feed-
back will likely bolster feelings of team
perception and group cohesion (14).
Similar to the Irwin findings, Max
et al. (14) found the no feedback con-
dition performed better than the other
groups, but the inclusive (“we”)
encouragement performed better than
the exclusive (“you”) encouragement.
SC coaches should encourage athletes
to use inclusive language within their
workout teams to boost perceptions of
“we-ness” rather than “I-ness”.
The Köhler effect has also been tested
using a variety of other moderators to
the relationship, mostly examining
how we can change the partner char-
acteristics to boost motivation in exer-
cise settings. Samendinger et al. (16)
tested partner similarity in a sample
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
of obese adults (i.e., lighter weight or
same weight partners) and did not find
weight status of the partner influenced
the Köhler effect. Other researchers
have examined the role of software-
generated partners in exergame-like
settings and found the Köhler effect
can still be harnessed when working
with a software-generated partner (4),
but the feedback given from the
software-generated partner should be
accurate and must be perceived as real
by the participants (17). The Köhler
effect can also be modified by creating
competition with outgroups. If an SC
coach has 2 athletes working toward
a team score in a conjunctive task while
strength training (team 1), the coach
could say team 1 is also competing
against another team, team 2. In this
case, the coach has created a situation
where there might be a Köhler effect
seen due to the conjunctive nature of
the task, but there might a potential
boost in motivation because there are
additional mechanisms outside of the
group now motivating the individuals
in each group to not let their partner
down. Recent evidence outlines out-
group competition (having multiple
teams attempting to score higher than
their competitors) in physical tasks will
also provide enhanced motivation
compared to just working with a part-
ner or working without a partner (15).
Although not yet tested, practitioners
would likely see this improvement in
motivation for athletes and exercisers
who have a more competitive nature.
A major concern of being the inferior
partner in a dyad might lead to de-
creases of motivation over time. How-
ever, researchers have extended the
Köhler motivation gain to lengths over
a 6-month period (5). It appears in lon-
ger studies the Köhler motivation gain
still holds over long periods. One
hypothesis is the weaker team member
starts to take ownership of their role as
the determining factor for the group.
Therefore, the weaker member will
consistently work a higher level in con-
junctive groups and by themselves.
There are many future research ques-
tions that need to be addressed in the
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Köhler motivation gain. One main con-
cern is what happens to the motivation
of the stronger members of the groups
in conjunctive task settings. As of right
now, there is no evidence in exercise
settings of what happens to the stron-
ger individual in these group settings.
However, it would be an interesting
future line of inquiry, and coaches
should be thoughtful about how they
work with the athlete who is consis-
tently the stronger member in a group.
Coaches could apply the lessons from
other leading motivational theories
(e.g., self-efficacy theory, self-
determination theory, and achieve-
ment goal theory) to help maintain
high levels of motivation in their stron-
ger athletes. Specifically, self-efficacy
theory and self-determination theory
(competence, autonomy, and related-
ness) focus on how the most confident
performers can continue to have an
upward spiral of performance and
motivation as they continue to
strengthen their strengths. Also,
coaches could discuss with the stron-
gest athletes that their role is to be
a team leader in the weight room,
and as part of their role, they need to
continue to work at high levels, so
other athletes maintain their levels of
effort. This leadership role is one way
for athletes to take ownership of their
own training in a positive direction and
could lead to more feelings of related-
ness within a self-determination frame-
work. An additional avenue for future
research would be understanding if
there are developmental differences in
Köhler effect findings. No work to date
has examined the Köhler effect with
youth or high school populations, but
it would be helpful to understand those
relationships for SC coaches working
with younger athletes.
PRACTICAL STRATEGIES
The previous section and other re-
views of the literature (19) demonstrate
the Köhler effect could provide SC
coaches, personal trainers, and practi-
tioners in the health sciences with
a potential mechanism to boost moti-
vation in their respective professional
spheres. The first key point in
93
 Köhler Effect
maintaining high levels of motivation
in group settings is practitioners should
make sure individual contributions in
groups are quantifiable and easily mea-
surable. In each of the tasks mentioned
in the review, each member of the
group was given feedback about their
own performance, the performance of
the teammate, and the overall group
performance. When feedback is just
given at the group level (i.e., just a group
score for a collection of people), it al-
lows for others to socially loaf and not
put forth as much effort as possible
(10). Training in group settings is com-
mon in the SC field; therefore,
thoughtful group design can lead to
performance improvements of the
weaker members of the group rather
than social loafing. SC coaches should
also consider the amount of discrep-
ancy between group members. As
noted in the discrepancy study, having
the weaker team members being mod-
erately discrepant (20–40%) from the
stronger group members seems to pro-
vide a motivation gain that is substan-
tially better than a lower or higher
discrepancy partner (3). If a coach is
setting up groups and is looking to
boost the effort of the weakest member
of the group, it is important to consider
the Köhler motivation gain is most
effective when the weaker member of
the group is about 20–40% discrepant
from the stronger member of
the group.
Based on the current literature, SC
coaches should look for unique ways
to create conjunctive task structures
with their teams. Potentially, just by
grouping members together and telling
them the group will be given a team
score that is based on the weakest
member of the group can improve per-
formance by itself (2). Incorporating an
outgroup can further boost the Köhler
motivation gain seen in the exercise
psychology literature (15). If an SC
coach has 20 soccer players and spe-
cifically wants to target boosting the
motivation of the weakest members
of the group in a circuit training style
workout, the strength coach could first
divide the groups based on the Köhler
principles already mentioned above
(i.e., creating the proper discrepancy)
94 VOLUME 41 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2019
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
with about 3–4 players per group, then
inform the athletes the team score is
the score of the lowest scoring team
member in each group and inform
each group they are competing against
each other. This example would be
a way in which SC coaches could use
both the Köhler effect and outgroup
principles to boost motivation in weak-
er athletes. SC coaches could also tell
the athletes their team scores will be
posted and tracked week by week.
Over time, this boost in motivation
could help develop the weaker mem-
bers of the teams to become stronger
athletes. It is critical to note this boost
in motivation seems to hold over time
and continually being the weaker
member does not seem to hurt partic-
ipants’ motivation (14).
SC coaches can also use each of the
mechanisms of the Köhler effect in sol-
itude and likely see an enhanced per-
formance in SC, fitness, and exercise
settings. Providing unique ways to have
weaker athletes or clients upwardly
socially compare while maintaining
a conjunctive task structure will lead
to the strongest motivation gains.
The Köhler effect has robust research
evidence providing explanations for
how weaker members of groups func-
tion within conjunctive task structures.
The motivation gains seen in the labo-
ratory can be nicely translated to pro-
fessional settings to boost
improvements of the weakest mem-
bers, especially in SC settings.
STRATEGIES COACHES CAN
IMPLEMENT TODAY
 Have athletes train in groups using
conjunctive task structures (i.e., the
group score is the weaker team
member’s score but both members’
scores are identifiable).
 Inform the stronger athletes of their
role in motivating the weaker ath-
letes. This strategy will likely lead
to greater role acceptance and a con-
tinued high level of effort in group
tasks for both the stronger and weak-
er athletes.
 Communicate athlete roles using an
autonomy-supportive approach by
providing a rational for their role
on the team/purpose of the training,
provide feedback that is constructive
and solution focused, inquire about
athlete perceptions of the task/role,
and encourage athletes to accept
responsibility of their training.
 Coaches can also focus on develop-
ing relatedness-supportive environ-
ment during training. Relatedness-
supportive environments are charac-
terized by interpersonal communica-
tion that has components of
openness, respect from the coach,
support, and warmth.
 When working with athletes,
encourage them to use inclusive lan-
guage (we-ness) rather than exclu-
sive language (I-ness).
 Create a culture of outgroup compe-
tition and have different teams com-
pete under conjunctive demands
against each other to boost the Köh-
ler motivation gain.
 Try to have the weaker athlete stay
at the 20–40% discrepancy, but do
not worry if it is not perfect. Working
in conjunctive tasks with other team-
mates will lead to great effort in tasks
compared with working individually.
 Incorporate the findings from other
theories of motivation (i.e., self-
determination theory and self-
efficacy theory) to continue to boost
the motivation of the stronger athlete.
 Make sure the individual perfor-
mance of each athlete is identifiable.
Without this individual component,
social loafing is likely to occur and
motivation decrements will follow.
 Always reinforce the importance of
the SC training in respect to the
overall goal of the team. If the task
is perceived as meaningless, social
loafing is likely to occur.
 When athletes are not in season and
away from teammates, coaches can
encourage athletes to communicate
with each other about how their off-
season training is progressing.
Coaches can set up a social media
message board where athletes can
post their daily workouts (with rele-
vant performance measures) and
teammates comment on their team-
mate’s workouts. Providing space for
 athletes to engage with their team-
mates could lead to better adherence
to off-season training programs and
increase cohesiveness of the team.
Conflicts of interest and source of funding:
The author reports no conflicts of interest
and no source of funding.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks the Institute for
Child Development and Family Rela-
tions and the Faculty Center for Excel-
lence for supporting the publication of
this article with funded writing time.
Christopher R.
Hill is an assistant
professor in the
Department of
Kinesiology at
California State
University, San
Bernardino.
REFERENCES
1. Escalante G and Escalante M. Small group
training to maximize results for clients and
profitability. Person Train Quart 5: 8–10,
2018.
2. Feltz DL, Kerr NL, and Irwin BC. Buddy up:
The Köhler effect applied to health games.
J Sport Exerc Psychol 33: 506–526, 2011.
3. Feltz DL, Irwin BC, and Kerr NL. Two-
player partnered exergame for obesity
prevention: Using discrepancy in players’
abilities as a strategy to motivate physical
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
activity. J Diabetes Sci Technol 6: 820–
827, 2012.
4. Feltz DL, Forlenza ST, Winn B, and Kerr NL.
Cyber buddy is better than no buddy: A test
of the Kohler motivation gain effect in
exergames. Games Health J 3: 98–105,
2014.
5. Feltz DL, Ploutz-Snyder L, Winn B, Kerr
NL, Pivarnik JM, Ede A, Hill CR,
Samendinger S, and Jeffery W. Simulated
partners and collaborative exercise
(SPACE) to boost motivation for
astronauts: Study protocol. BMC Psychol
4: 54, 2016.
6. Hertel G, Kerr NL, and Messé LA.
Motivation gains in performance groups:
Paradigmatic and theoretical developments
on the Köhler effect. J Pers Soc Psychol
79: 580–601, 2000.
7. Hertel G, Niemeyer G, and Clauss A. Social
indispensability or social comparison: The
why and when of motivation gains of inferior
group members. J Appl Soc Psychol 38:
1329–1363, 2008.
8. Irwin BC, Scorniaenchi J, Kerr NL,
Eisenmann JC, and Feltz DL. Aerobic
exercise is promoted when individual
performance affects the group: A test of the
Kohler motivation gain effect. Ann Behav
Med 44: 151–159, 2012.
9. Irwin BC, Feltz DL, and Kerr NL. Silence is
golden: Effect of encouragement in
motivating the weak link in an online
exercise video game. J Med Internet Res
15: e104, 2013.
10. Karau SJ and Williams KD. Social loafing: A
meta-analytic review and theoretical
integration. J Pers Soc Psychol 65: 681–
706, 1993.
11. Kerr NL, Messé LA, Seok DH, Sambolec
EJ, Lount RB, and Park ES. Psychological
mechanisms underlying the Köhler
95
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
motivation gain. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 33:
828–841, 2007.
12. Köhler O. Kraftleistungen bei Einzel- und
Gruppenarbeit (physical performance in
individual and group work). Ind Psychotech
3: 274–282, 1926.
13. Lount RB, Park ES, Kerr NL, Messé LA, and
Seok D. Evaluation concerns and the
Köhler effect: The impact of physical
presence on motivation gains. Small Group
Res 39: 795–812, 2008.
14. Max EJ, Samendinger S, Winn B, Kerr NL,
Pfeiffer KA, and Feltz DL. Enhancing
aerobic exercise with a novel virtual
exercise buddy based on the Köhler
effect. Games Health J 5: 252–257,
2016.
15. Moss O, Feltz DL, Kerr NL, Smith AL, Winn
B, and Spencer BD. Intergroup
competition in exergames: Further tests of
the Köhler effect. Games Health J 7: 240–
245, 2018.
16. Samendinger S, Forlenza ST, Pfeiffer KA,
and Feltz DL. Partner weight as a moderator
of exercise motivation in an obese sample.
Med Res Arch 3: 1–13, 2015.
17. Samendinger S, Hill CR, Kerr NL, Winn B,
Ede A, Pivarnik JM, Ploutz-Snyder L, and
Feltz DL. Group dynamics motivation to
increase exercise intensity with a virtual
partner. J Sport Health Sci, 2018 [Epub
ahead of print].
18. Steiner ID. Group Process and
Productivity. New York, NY: Academic
Press, 1972. pp. 14–33.
19. Weber B and Hertel G. Motivation gains of
inferior group members: A meta-analytical
review. J Pers Soc Psychol 93: 973–993,
2007.
20. Witte EH. Köhler rediscovered: The anti-
Ringelmann effect. Eur J Soc Psych 19:
147–154, 1989.