Grounding theory in self-referent thinking: conceptualizing motivation for older adult physical activity

Abstract

Abstract Objectives : The aim of this study was to enrich current theoretical understanding of the kinds of thoughts older people have about physical activity by answering the broad research question: How well does the lay thinking of older adults about their involvement in physical activity fit current theory? Design : In order to enrich current theory, individual beliefs and experiences with physical activity were explored. An interpretive design employed content analysis of in-depth interviews. Methods : Forty-one adults aged 55 to 92 were interviewed for 60 to 90 minutes about their involvement in physical activities and their reasons for participation (or not). The inductive approach was used to extract positive and negative meanings, and generate conceptual themes within each individual interview. Each meaning segment was then matched, if possible, to elements on a theoretical template that used key constructs from major health behavior theories. Results : The main finding was that no new conceptual themes were found but interesting patterns of responses emerged by activity level. In thinking about their physical activity, inactive respondents generally had more negative thoughts than positive ones; their explanations showed contradictions and poor logic at times, lending support for Weinstein's notion of haphazard or faulty thinking. An unexpected finding was that active people also expressed a full array of barriers, but they seemed to counter every negative thought with strong positive dialogue and every barrier with a solution. Conclusions : Active older people were clear about their motives to be active. They felt personally capable, had steadfast goals, anticipated positive outcomes, and showed an overarching commitment to active living despite life distractions. While current behavioral theory was supported, qualitative evidence of haphazard thinking suggests that human nature has observable foibles and complexity.