Crystal Smit

Evaluation of the Motivation Process 5 115 Interestingly, these open-ended responses also revealed that some (13%) influence agents indicated that the most enjoyable aspect of the training was that they had to secretly encourage their peers to drink more water and thus were together part of a “secret mission”: “The fact that it [motivating their peers] had to stay a secret and I am part of a kind of spy-group.” Boy, 12 years old Supporting Influence Agents in Motivating Their Peers Regarding the training process of supporting influence agents in motivating their peers to drink more water, their peers’ intrinsic motivation remained stable. More specifically, after exposure to the intervention, the mean score of their intrinsic motivation to drink water was not significantly higher compared to before the intervention, t (91) = 1.38 p = .171 (see Table 5.2). Similarly, there were no changes in the mean for descriptive norms following the intervention, t (86) = .17, p = .867 (see Table 5.2), indicating that they did not perceive that their peers drank more water. The peers reported a marginal significant increase in their injunctive norm following the intervention, t (93) = 1.95, p = .054 (see Table 5.2), which implies that there is a trend showing that they perceived that their peers thought they should drink more water. The targeted peers also reported significantly higher social support to drink water after being exposed to the intervention compared to before the intervention, t (87) = − 2.34, p = .021 (see Table 5.2), meaning that they perceived that their peers more often complimented, reminded, offered, and participated in drinking water with them. Related to this, the responses of the influence agents revealed that they used various strategies to promote water drinking among their peers. Regarding the water-promoting strategies discussed in the training, influence agents’ responses showed that they most often used face-to-face strategies to motivate their peers to drink water. Specifically, 95% (scoring ≥ 3; see Table 5.2) of the influence agents indicated that they had drunk water in front of their peers, and 76% (see Table