A Protection Motivation Theory Approach to Understanding How Fear of Falling Affects Physical Activity Determinants in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study applied an extended Protection Motivation Theory to investigate the relative importance of fear of falling (FoF) among motivational and intentional determinants of physical activity (PA) behavior. METHODS: Older U.S. adults (N = 667, 65+) were surveyed using online research panels and completed measures of self-efficacy and response efficacy (coping appraisal), perceived vulnerability and perceived severity (threat appraisal), FoF, autonomous motivation, intention, physical health, and past PA level. RESULTS: Our structural equation model showed that past PA level and health predicted intention via cognitive constructs. PA and health predicted FoF and motivation via threat and coping appraisal. FoF did not directly predict intention. DISCUSSION: Results from this sample provide support for the predictive effects of threat appraisal on fear. However, findings suggest that FoF may not be of great importance for the formation of PA intention compared with an established habit of being physically active and a subsequently fostered coping appraisal and motivation.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".