How do new runners maintain their running, and what leads to others stopping? A qualitative, longitudinal study.

Many people who start running do not maintain their behaviour change. We used qualitative, longitudinal methods to explore and interpret the experiences of new runners and answer the question, "What experiences explain how new runners maintain their running or explain why they stop?" We interviewed 20 new runners (all White British, 14 women, 6 men) about their experiences; we interviewed 10 until they stopped running and 10 until they maintained running for 6-12 months (65 interviews in total). We also conducted nine participant observations at a running club, invited external reflections at a running club, and analysed six sets of participant diaries. Four themes were constructed using a reflexive thematic analysis: (1) Identifying a meaningful "why"; (2) "Life gets in the way" of running; (3) Learning that I can run; and (4) Opportunities are unequal and experiences contrast. The runners' reasons for running helped us to interpret changes in their experiences through time. Meaningful reasons helped runners to learn that they can run, prioritise running, and prevent life getting in the way. These reasons tended to be reasons to run, as opposed to reasons to be physically active, and they related to their identity, values, special memories, relationships, enjoyment of running, or a personal goal. Nevertheless, social inequalities like gendered experiences, wealth, and health differences meant that opportunities and experiences of running differed, creating more barriers for some runners. When runners faced substantial barriers, having a meaningful reason was helpful but it was sometimes insufficient for maintenance. The analysis illustrates how people's reasons for exercise influence their experiences through time, the dynamic nature of people's exercise barriers and facilitators, and the unequal nature of opportunities and experiences.

Matching biological motion at extreme distances.

The goal of the current paper was to determine the maximum distance at which an actor could be placed so that an observer would still be able to interpret their behavior. Although we know a great deal about the limits of action perception, particularly through studies of biological motion processing, this question of distance has not been previously documented. We began by reviewing the sizes of point-light figures used in 100 previous studies of biological motion. We found that with an average figure height of 6.6° [corrected] visual angle, actors were effectively 15 m from the observer, assuming average physical height of 1.75 m. No previous studies had explicitly examined extreme distances. Here, we introduce a new matching task in which we systematically varied the apparent distance of point-light figures relative to a fixed viewing position by manipulating size. Our results suggest that a variety of human actions could potentially be interpreted up to 1000 m away, a distance at which a human figure would subtend only 0.1° visual angle in height. Dynamic figures could be interpreted at further distances than static figures (Experiment 1), and upright figures were similarly processed more efficiently than inverted figures (Experiment 2). We discuss these findings in the context of the processing mechanisms thought to underlie action perception and suggest that the ability to match actions at extreme distance is another example of the robust nature of biological motion processing.