Exercising in Herds : Treatment Size and Status Specific Peer Effects in a Randomized Exercise Intervention

In a field experiment using university students, we find that subjects who have been incentivized to exercise increase their recreation center usage more if they have more friends who have been incentivized, and less if they have more friends in the control group. Controls, however, are not influenced by their peers. Findings highlight subtle effects of randomization, indicating that the fraction treated in an experiment of this kind has a large influence on outcomes, and that spillovers may vary greatly by treatment status. The methodology is applicable to other settings and quantifies spillovers that previous approaches do not detect. We thank Kelly Bedarad, Eric Bettinger, Olivier Deschenes, Peter Kuhn, Heather Royer, Bruce Sacerdote, Jon Sonstelie, and Cathy Weinberger for helpful comments. We are grateful for funding by the Hellman Family Foundation, and excellent research assistance by Jennifer Carnan, Jennifer Schulte, Allison Nuovo, Christy Helvestine, Bonnie Queen, Jessica Evans, Natalie Brechtel, and Randi Golde. We are also grateful for assistance from Chris Clontz at the Recreation Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

[1]  Leila C. Kahwati,et al.  The effectiveness of worksite nutrition and physical activity interventions for controlling employee overweight and obesity: a systematic review. , 2009, American journal of preventive medicine.

[2]  Ulrike Malmendier,et al.  Paying Not to Go to the Gym , 2006 .

[3]  Esther Duflo,et al.  Field Experiments in Development Economics 1 , 2006 .

[4]  E. Deci Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. , 1971 .

[5]  Edward Miguel,et al.  Worms: Identifying Impacts on Education and Health in the Presence of Treatment Externalities, Guide to Replication of Miguel and Kremer (2004) , 2014 .

[6]  T. Philipson External Treatment Effects and Program Implementation Bias , 2000 .

[7]  Matthew Rabin,et al.  Choice and Procrastination , 2000 .

[8]  Adam R Hafdahl,et al.  Meta-analysis of workplace physical activity interventions. , 2009, American journal of preventive medicine.

[9]  G. Charness,et al.  Incentives to Exercise , 2008 .

[10]  M. Angelucci,et al.  Indirect Effects of an Aid Program: How Do Cash Transfers Affect Ineligibles' Consumption? , 2009 .

[11]  E. Oster,et al.  Determinants of Technology Adoption: Private Value and Peer Effects in Menstrual Cup Take-Up , 2009 .

[12]  E. Duflo,et al.  The Role of Information and Social Interactions in Retirement Plan Decisions: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment , 2002 .

[13]  Rafael Lalive,et al.  Social Interactions and Schooling Decisions , 2006, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

[14]  Charles F. Manski,et al.  Identification of Treatment Response with Social Interactions , 2013 .

[15]  A. Rustichini,et al.  Pay Enough or Don't Pay at All , 2000 .

[16]  Teck-Hua Ho,et al.  Habit Formation and Naivet e in Gym Attendance: Evidence from a Field Experiment , 2010 .

[17]  Ted O’Donoghue,et al.  Doing It Now or Later , 1999 .

[18]  J. Tirole,et al.  Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation , 2003 .

[19]  R. Moffitt Policy Interventions, Low-Level Equilibria, and So-cial Interactions , 1999 .

[20]  Edward Miguel,et al.  Networks, social learning, and technology adoption: The case of deworming drugs in kenya , 2003 .

[21]  Frederico Finan,et al.  Neighborhood Peer Effects in Secondary School Enrollment Decisions , 2009, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

[22]  Gary S. Becker,et al.  Habits, Addictions, and Traditions , 1992 .

[23]  D. Rubin Statistics and Causal Inference: Comment: Which Ifs Have Causal Answers , 1986 .