Conflicted Goal Engagement: Undermining Physical Activity and Health in Late Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Pursuing health goals in very old age is a challenging task that may be undermined by conflicted goal engagement involving mismatched primary (behavior-focused) and secondary (motivation-focused) control striving. Our study explored whether one potentially detrimental combination of control strategies (low primary control/high secondary control) compromised 3-year indicators of everyday physical activity and blood oxygen saturation. METHOD: We analyzed data from a representative sample of very old adults (n = 107) using simple slope regression analyses that tested the conditional effects of control striving on everyday physical activity and blood oxygen saturation. RESULTS: We found a conflicted engagement effect wherein primary control predicted our outcomes only when secondary control was high. The lowest levels of everyday physical activity and blood oxygen saturation were found for older adults high in secondary control but low in primary control. A supplemental mediation analysis suggested everyday physical activity was the mechanism through which conflicted engagement undermined blood oxygen saturation. DISCUSSION: Employing health maintenance strategies that promote motivation-focused thinking but discourage goal-directed behaviors (conflicted engagement) may compromise physical activity and health among very old adults. Further research is needed to determine whether control-enhancing interventions promote harmonious goal engagement and better health among these high-risk individuals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".