Testing principle working mechanisms of the health action process approach for subjective physical age groups

Abstract

This study investigated differences in social-cognitive predictors and self-regulatory planning, as proposed by the health action process approach (HAPA), across three different subjective physical age groups for physical activity. With a cross-sectional design, 521 participants across the chronological age span from 25 to 86 years (M = 48.79; SD = 12.66) were separated into three groups: those who feel physically younger than they are in terms of chronological age, the same perceived and chronological age, and feeling physically older compared to their chronological age. Participants were assessed regarding their perceived vulnerability, outcome expectancies, general intentions, planning, self-efficacy, and stages of physical activity (non-intenders, intenders, and actors). Data were analysed via mean comparison and multigroup structural equation modelling. Mean differences for all but one construct were eminent in all groups, generally showing that those feeling physically younger also report better social-cognitive predictors of physical activity (e.g. lower perceived vulnerability) in comparison to those who feel the same age or older. The model showed that basic working mechanisms of the HAPA can be applied to all groups. With that, the results provide for the first time evidence that principle working mechanism of the HAPA can be applied to all subjective physical age groups. These may be used to tailor health promoting interventions according to participants’ needs as a more suitable proxy than chronological age.

KEYWORDS:

• age
• health behaviour
• lifespan
• modelling
• self-perception
• self-report

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special credentials go to the Stiftung Bremer Herzen (Bremen Heart Foundation) and the Wilhelm-Stiftung für Rehabilitationsforschung (Wilhelm-Foundation for Rehabilitation Science) who made this research possible.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Rainer Hambrecht is Chair of the Stiftung Bremer Herzen, all other authors report no potential conflict of interest.