Back

The dark side of streaking: Examining the backfire potential of run streaking in recreational runners who broke a long-term streak.

Ingalls, E.; Larade, N.; Ozakinci, G.; Tymowski-Gionet, G.; Fleig, L.; Dombrowski, S. U.

2024-12-31 public and global health
10.1101/2024.12.26.24319676 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundRun streaking is running on consecutive days for a minimum of one mile per day. Despite its benefits for supporting habit formation and long-term behaviour change, some streak runners report potential unintended negative consequences of run streaking. The aim of the study is to examine the backfire potential of run streaking in recreational runners who ended a long-term streak. MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews with 17 recreational adult runners (10 male, 6 female, 1 other gender). All runners ended a run streak of [≥]100 consecutive days. Transcripts were analyzed using a hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis. ResultsPrior to streak cessation, some runners felt streak-related inconveniences and ran with injury to prolong the streak. Immediate consequences following the end of a streak included feelings of sadness, anger, disappointment and relief. Several run streakers described a grieving process in the weeks and months following streak cessation. Unintended negative consequences were amplified in runners with higher levels of streak attachment. All physically capable runners continued to run regularly with most starting a new streak and all voiced positive views towards run streaking despite their streak ending. ConclusionRun streaking as a behaviour change technique has small backfire potential in some runners. Ending a long-term run streak can lead to short-term negative affect which can develop into experiences of grief, particularly in those with high levels of streak attachment. No long-term negative consequences were reported. All participants perceived run streaking as positive overall and remained physically active following the end of their long-term streak.

Published in PLOS ONE (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.