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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".