Spousal attempts to support activity through pressure and persuasion associated with declines in physical activity in a walking intervention with older adult couples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We pilot tested a walking intervention designed to leverage available social support among older adult couples to promote increased physical activity. Based on self-determination theory, the purpose of this study was to examine whether greater autonomy support and less persuasion and pressure from one's spouse promoted greater increases in physical activity in an 8-week collaborative versus individual goal-setting intervention. 32 couples age 50 and older were randomized together into a concurrent individual (each person set and evaluated their own goals) or a collaborative (couples set and evaluated cumulative goals together) goal-setting condition. Physical activity was measured using accelerometers. Autonomy support, persuasion, and pressure from one's partner were assessed via questionnaire. While this pilot study was not powered to detect interactions, the condition by persuasion interaction (p = .11) and the condition by pressure interaction (p = .08) displayed meaningful trends. Persuasion and pressure were not associated with change in MVPA in the individual condition, but more use of persuasion and pressure by one's spouse was associated with declines in MVPA in the collaborative condition. There was no meaningful interaction between autonomy support and condition (p = .75). Larger studies are needed to determine whether these effects are significant and robust. But results suggest that future research examining physical activity interventions that involve social support among couples should consider the quality of supportive interactions, and address minimizing pressure and persuasive tactics.Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge support from the Clifford Kinley Trust, and a Purdue University Department of Human Development and Family Studies Pilot Grant
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".