M2 Assignment 1 Discussion

ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

Life resources and personal goals in old age

Milla Saajanaho1 • Merja Rantakokko1 • Erja Portegijs1 • Timo Törmäkangas1 •

Johanna Eronen1 • Li-Tang Tsai1 • Marja Jylhä2 • Taina Rantanen1

Published online: 1 June 2016

� Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Abstract It has been theorized that life resources influence

goal engagement. The aim of the present study was to

examine whether personal characteristics, and socio-eco-

nomic, social and health resources are associated with

personal goal content in old age. The participants were 824

community-dwelling people aged 75–90 from the Life-

Space Mobility in Old Age project. Personal goals were

elicited using a revised version of the Personal Project

Analysis in a structured interview. Cross-sectional bi- and

multivariate analyses using logistic regression modelling

were conducted. The results showed that the most com-

monly reported goals were health maintenance related.

People with better health resources were more likely to

report goals related to leisure-time, social and physical

activities and less likely to report goals related to recovery

of health. Those with poor social resources were at risk for

having no personal goals in their lives. The results are in

line with theorizing on the influence of life resources on

goal setting in old age. Further longitudinal studies are

needed on whether resource loss precedes goal modifica-

tion, and how goal setting strategies influence both mental

and physical well-being in old age.

Keywords Personal goals � Ageing � Life-span development � Life resources � Health � Functioning

Introduction

Throughout the life course, people plan their lives and

anticipate their future with personalized intentions. These

intentions, which describe motivational features behind

people’s actions, have been conceptualized as, for example,

current concerns (Klinger 1975), personal strivings (Em-

mons 1986), possible selves (Markus and Nurius 1986),

personal projects (Lawton et al. 2002; Little 1983), and

personal goals (Freund and Riediger 2006; Lapierre et al.

1997; Rapkin and Fischer 1992). In the present study, we

use the concept of personal goals, which has been defined

as states that people strive to achieve or avoid in the future

(Freund and Riediger 2006). Personal goals range from

minor everyday strivings to major endeavours lasting a life

time (Little and Gee 2007). They are dynamic constructs

influenced by various personal and contextual factors, as

described in Little’s (2007, 2014) social ecological model

of human flourishing. The model proposes that human

flourishing is influenced—both directly and indirectly

through personal goal pursuit—by stable and dynamic

personal and contextual features. These features can be

seen reflective of life resources, i.e. objects, personal

characteristics, conditions and energies in people’s lives

(Hobfoll 1989). Such resources, which also function as

means for goal pursuit (Freund and Riediger 2001), form

the basis on which people construct their lives and their

personal goals.

The assumption that life resources affect goal setting is

also discussed in life-span developmental theories, which

see old age as a time of many resource losses, which, in

Responsible editor: H.-W. Wahl.

Gerontology Research Center is a joint effort between the University

of Jyvaskyla and the University of Tampere.

& Milla Saajanaho [email protected]

1 Department of Health Sciences, Gerontology Research

Center, University of Jyvaskyla, P.O. Box 35,

40014 Jyvaskyla, Finland

2 Gerontology Research Center, School of Health Sciences,

University of Tampere, 33014 Tampere, Finland

123

Eur J Ageing (2016) 13:195–208

DOI 10.1007/s10433-016-0382-3

turn, affect goal setting. The model of selective optimiza-

tion with compensation (SOC; Baltes and Baltes 1990)

states that individuals may compensate for lack of resour-

ces by applying the coping methods of loss-based selection

and compensation. In the model, elective selection refers to

specifying one’s personal goals and loss-based selection to

disengaging from unachievable goals and replacing them

with new goals (Baltes 1997; Boerner and Jopp 2007;

Freund and Baltes 1998). Optimization is used when efforts

and resources are targeted at goal attainment and com-

pensation when extra resources are needed to continue goal

pursuit (Baltes and Baltes 1990) or, for example, to achieve

earlier functional status (Ebner et al. 2006). In line with the

SOC model, the dual-process model of developmental

regulation by Brandtstädter (e.g. 2009) implies that,

because of diminishing resources, accommodative efforts

at flexible goal adjustment are emphasized in old age over

assimilative strivings for tenacious goal pursuit. For the

same reason, the motivational theory of life-span devel-

opment sees secondary control, which is aimed at adjusting

the self to the environment, as more typical in old than in

young age. Secondary control serves to support primary

control, which refers to efforts to change the environment

according to one’s goals (Heckhausen et al. 2010). The

ability to engage in goal modification has been considered

important in successfully adjusting to age-related losses,

since goal modification and the selection of more feasible

goals may compensate for lack of resources (Boerner and

Jopp 2007). Despite these theoretical considerations,

empirical evidence on the relationship between resource

loss and goal setting in old age is largely lacking. Previous

studies have focused more on the general tendency towards

goal accommodation (e.g. Bailly et al. 2014; Boerner 2004;

Dunne et al. 2011) rather than goal content. Our recent

study suggested that onset of walking difficulty may lead to

fewer goals related to exercise and cultural activities in old

age (Saajanaho et al. 2014a).

In earlier studies, the most common personal goals

reported by older people have consistently been related to

health, family and other close relationships, basic daily

activities, independent living and leisure-time activities

(Lapierre et al. 1992–1993; Lawton et al. 2002; Saajanaho

et al. 2014a; Smith and Freund 2002). Among older people,

higher age has been associated with fewer personal goals in

total (Lawton et al. 2002; Smith and Freund 2002) and less

goal striving, especially in relation to leisure-time activities

(Lawton et al. 2002), an energetic lifestyle (Rapkin and

Fischer 1992) and personal characteristics (Smith and

Freund 2002). Spiritual goals (Lapierre et al. 1992–1993;

Lawton et al. 2002), health goals (Frazier et al. 2002;

Lapierre et al. 1992–1993; Smith and Freund 2002) and

goals related to independence and public services (Rapkin

and Fischer 1992) have been reported to be more common

among the oldest old. According to socio-emotional

selectivity theory, goals reflecting the need for emotional

closeness tend to be emphasized in old age (Carstensen

et al. 2003). In line with this notion, goals related to other

people are common throughout aging (Lawton et al. 2002;

Saajanaho et al. 2014a). However, it has also been reported

that relationship goals may be less endorsed by the oldest

old (Smith and Freund 2002), possibly because emotionally

meaningful goals are valued in old age, and thus, strivings

for more shallow relationships may be abandoned (Car-

stensen et al. 2003).

Among older people, higher education has been associ-

ated with having more personal goals, and, more specifically,

with having more goals related to leisure-time activities and

relationships (Lawton et al. 2002; Rapkin and Fischer 1992).

Those with lower education have reported more goals related

to health maintenance (Lapierre et al. 1992–1993) and

independence (Rapkin and Fischer 1992). Living alone has

been associated with more relationship goals (Holahan 1988;

Lapierre et al. 1992–1993) and goals related to leisure-time

activities (Holahan 1988). Health problems promote

engagement in health goals (Smith and Freund 2002) and in

goals related to basic daily activities, independence, public

services and safety (Lawton et al. 2002; Rapkin and Fischer

1992), and decrease motivation to participate in social and

intellectual activities (Hess et al. 2012; Lawton et al. 2002).

In one study, older people with poor cognitive functioning

reported fewer personal goals in total and fewer goals related

to other people and different leisure-time activities than

those with good cognitive ability (Lawton et al. 2002).

In the present study, we examined the associations of

personal characteristics (age, sex), and socio-economic

(education, economic situation), social (living status,

meetings with relatives and friends) and health resources

(cognitive ability, self-rated health, walking ability) with

the content of personal goals in old age. We selected

resource variables that cover some of the main resources

affecting older people’s ability to perform activities in

everyday life. It has been theorized that the possibilities for

goal engagement depend on many individual and envi-

ronmental features, i.e. resources (Freund and Riediger

2001; Haase et al. 2013; Little 2014), but little empirical

evidence has been reported on how different life resources

relate to personal goals in old age. The results of previous

studies are partially conflicting and based on different

categorizations of goals. In the present study, we formu-

lated seven goal dimensions to describe the general moti-

vational strivings of our study population. The theories on

life-span development discussed above share the idea that

life resources influence the possibilities for goal selection

in old age. Based on this theoretical background and the

previous research, we hypothesized that older people with

better resources (e.g. younger age, more education, better

196 Eur J Ageing (2016) 13:195–208

123

health and cognitive ability) would have more personal

goals related to different activities. Specifically, good

health resources were expected to be related to more lei-

sure-time activity and physical activity goals. In contrast,

people with fewer resources were expected to report more

health maintenance, recovery and daily life goals.

Methods

Participants

The present data form part of the Life-Space Mobility in Old

Age (LISPE) study among community-dwelling older peo-

ple aged 75–90. Details of the LISPE recruitment procedure

are given elsewhere (Rantanen et al. 2012). A random

sample of 2 550 people was drawn from a national register

and asked whether they would be interested in taking part in

the study. Those who were willing to take part, lived inde-

pendently in their own homes and had no severe memory or

communication problems were included. Finally, 848 people

(62 % female) participated in a structured home interview

conducted between January and June 2012. The analyses

reported here comprised 824 older adults who had answered

the question on personal goals. The descriptive characteris-

tics of all the participants and according to reporting versus

not reporting at least one personal goal in each of the goal

dimensions are presented in Table 1. The mean age of the

participants was 80.1 (SD = 4.2) and mean length of edu-

cation 9.6 years (SD = 4.2). Almost half of the participants

were living with someone and most rated their health as

moderate and had no difficulties in walking two kilometres.

Those who did not answer the goal question, and were left out

from this study, more often rated their health as moderate or

bad/very bad (96 vs. 63 %, p = .001) and had more diffi-

culties in walking two kilometres (63 vs. 41 %, p = .039)

than those who answered. No differences in the other study

variables were observed between the groups. This study was

approved by the Ethical Committee of the University of

Jyväskylä, Finland, and the participants gave their written

informed consent.

Procedure

Personal goals

As part of the LISPE baseline home interview, the content

of personal goals was elicited with a revised version of the

Personal Project Analysis (PPA; Little 1983). In the PPA,

people are asked to list as many personal projects/goals as

they can think of, and rate a subset of them on a set of

dimensions (e.g. goal importance, control). The PPA was

developed as a tool to assess human personality in a social-

ecological context, and as such may be used to address, for

example, the personal and contextual features affecting

goal setting (Little 2007; Little and Gee 2007). In the

LISPE study, the PPA was revised for the purpose of

studying older people and only the content of current

personal goals was asked. The goal question was intro-

duced as follows: ‘‘We all have different personal goals

that we strive to realize in our daily lives or attain in the

future. The goals may be related to any life domain, such as

hobbies, daily life, health, family or friends. Think about

the goals you have at the moment. The goals can be big or

small; the main thing is that they are important to you’’.

The participants reported from zero to seven personal

goals. A coding scheme with 25 goal categories was

designed for the purpose of classifying the goals by their

content. The categories were based on a coding

scheme developed by Salmela-Aro et al. (2009), which was

further developed to better distinguish the goals of older

people. For example, health-related goals were divided into

six different categories, and hobbies were differentiated

according to whether they were performed at home or

outside the home. The goals reported by the respondents

were classified into the categories independently by two

trained raters. Each goal was assigned to one goal category.

The kappa-value for inter-rater reliability was 0.89

(p \ .001). Discrepancies between the raters were dis- cussed until total agreement was achieved. Each of the 25

personal goal categories was coded on a dichotomous scale

with 1 indicating at least one goal in the category and 0 no

goals in the category. A person could have goals in several

different categories and/or several goals in one category.

We added a separate category of ‘‘no goals’’, in which 1

indicated no personal goals and 0 at least one goal in any of

the 25 goal categories. The personal goal categories,

combined into thematic goal dimensions, along with

examples of their content are presented in Table 2.

Personal characteristics and socio-economic resources

Data on the participants’ sex and date of birth were derived

from national registers. The participants reported how

many years of education they had received and rated their

economic situation as either 1 = very good or 2 = good or

3 = moderate or 4 = poor or 5 = very poor. As very few

people reported having a poor or very poor economic sit-

uation (1.8 %), the answers were dichotomized as good or

very good versus moderate, poor or very poor.

Social resources

Living situation was asked with the question ‘‘Who do you

live with’’? The answer options were 1 = alone, 2 = with

a spouse/partner, 3 = with own children or grandchildren,

Eur J Ageing (2016) 13:195–208 197

123

T a

b le

1 D e sc ri p ti v e c h a ra c te ri st ic s o f a ll p a rt ic ip a n ts

a n d b y re p o rt in g v e rs u s n o t re p o rt in g g o a ls in

th e th e m a ti c g o a l d im

e n si o n s (n

= 8 2 4 )

A ll

R e p o rt in g a t le a st

o n e

p e rs o n a l g o a l

p a

H e a lt h m a in te n a n c e

p a

R e c o v e ry

S o c ia l g o a ls

p a

(n =

8 2 4 )

Y e s

(n =

7 7 3 )

N o

(n =

5 1 )

Y e s

(n =

4 2 7 )

N o

(n =

3 9 7 )

Y e s

(n =

6 9 )

N o

(n =

7 5 5 )

Y e s

(n =

2 7 2 )

N o

(n =

5 5 2 )

M S D

M S D

M S D

M S D

M S D

M S D

M S D

p a

M S D

M S D

A g e in

y e a rs

8 0 .1

4 .2

7 9 .9

4 .2

8 1 .9

4 .2

.0 0 1

7 9 .6

4 .2

8 0 .6

4 .2

\ .0 0 1

7 9 .0

3 .9

8 0 .2

4 .2

.0 3 2

8 0 .0

4 .3

8 0 .1

4 .2

.7 6 7

Y e a rs

o f e d u c a ti o n

9 .6

4 .2

9 .7

4 .2

8 .6

4 .1

.0 6 6

9 .9

4 .4

9 .3

3 .8

.0 3 8

1 0 .8

4 .4

9 .5

4 .1

.0 2 0

1 0 .2

4 .4

9 .3

4 .0

.0 0 5

M M S E sc o re

2 6 .2

2 .8

2 6 .3

2 .7

2 5 .1

3 .7

.0 3 0

2 6 .4

2 .6

2 6 .0

3 .0

.0 5 9

2 6 .4

2 .7

2 6 .2

2 .8

.4 6 7

2 6 .4

2 .8

2 6 .1

2 .8

.2 1 8

% n

% n

% n

% n

% n

% n

% n

% n

% n

W o m e n

6 2

5 1 3

6 3

4 8 4

5 7

2 9

.4 1 2

6 2

2 6 4

6 3

2 4 9

.7 9 1

7 1

4 9

6 2

4 6 4

.1 1 7

7 0

1 8 9

5 9

3 2 4

.0 0 3

E c o n o m ic

si tu a ti o n (g o o d o r v e ry

g o o d )

5 1

4 1 7

5 1

3 9 1

5 1

2 6

.9 7 1

4 7

2 0 1

5 5

2 1 6

.0 2 9

6 1

4 2

5 0

3 7 5

.0 7 8

5 2

1 4 1

5 0

2 7 6

.6 5 5

L iv in g w it h so m e o n e

4 7

3 8 8

4 8

3 7 2

3 2

1 6

.0 2 7

4 9

2 1 1

4 5

1 7 7

.1 7 6

5 1

3 5

4 7

3 5 3

.5 3 4

5 0

1 3 5

4 6

2 5 3

.3 1 5

F re q u e n t m e e ti n g s w it h re la ti v e s

6 6

5 4 7

6 6

5 1 1

7 1

3 6

.5 1 2

6 7

2 8 6

6 6

2 6 1

.7 0 7

5 9

4 1

6 7

5 0 6

.2 0 1

6 2

1 6 8

6 9

3 7 9

.0 4 9

F re q u e n t m e e ti n g s w it h fr ie n d s

6 0

4 9 7

6 0

4 6 6

6 1

3 1

.9 5 2

6 1

2 5 9

6 0

2 3 8

.8 0 4

6 1

4 2

6 0

4 5 5

.9 3 2

6 2

1 6 8

6 0

3 2 9

.5 7 1

S e lf -r a te d h e a lt h

.3 5 4

.0 0 4

\ .0 0 1

.1 3 0

G o o d /v e ry

g o o d

3 7

3 0 2

3 7

2 8 8

2 7

1 4

4 2

1 7 7

3 2

1 2 5

1 4

1 0

3 9

2 9 2

3 9

1 0 6

3 5

1 9 6

M o d e ra te

5 4

4 4 3

5 3

4 1 1

6 3

3 2

5 1

2 1 9

5 7

2 2 4

7 0

4 8

5 2

3 9 5

5 4

1 4 7

5 4

2 9 6

P o o r/ v e ry

p o o r

9 7 8

1 0

7 3

1 0

5 7

3 1

1 2

4 7

1 6

1 1

9 6 7

7 1 8

1 1

6 0

D if fi c u lt ie s in

w a lk in g 2 k m

.0 6 5

\ .0 0 1

\ .0 0 1

.0 0 1

N o d if fi c u lt ie s

5 9

4 8 3

5 9

4 6 1

4 3

2 2

6 4

2 7 2

5 3

2 1

3 9

2 7

6 1

4 5 6

6 8

1 8 4

5 4

2 9 9

M in o r d if fi c u lt ie s

2 0

1 6 8

2 0

1 5 3

2 9

1 5

2 0

8 8

2 0

8 0

2 2

1 5

2 0

1 5 3

1 6

4 4

2 3

1 2 4

M a jo r d if fi c u lt ie s/ u n a b le

2 1

1 7 3

2 1

1 5 9

2 8

1 4

1 6

6 7

2 7

1 0 6

3 9

2 7

1 9

1 4 6

1 6

4 4

2 3

1 2 9

L e is u re -t im

e a c ti v it ie s

p a

P h y si c a l a c ti v it y

p a

D a il y li fe

p a

Id e o lo g ic a l g o a ls

p a

Y e s

(n =

2 5 9 )

N o

(n =

5 6 5 )

Y e s

(n =

1 9 6 )

N o

(n =

6 2 8 )

Y e s

(n =

2 4 6 )

N o

(n =

5 7 8 )

Y e s

(n =

5 5 )

N o

(n =

7 6 9 )

M S D

M S D

M S D

M S D

M S D

M S D

M S D

M S D

A g e in

y e a rs

7 9 .5

4 .1

8 0 .3

4 .2

.0 0 8

7 9 .6

4 .1

8 0 .2

4 .2

.0 5 5

8 0 .3

4 .3

8 0 .0

4 .2

.3 9 1

8 1 .2

4 .3

8 0 .5

4 .2

.0 4 7

Y e a rs

o f e d u c a ti o n

1 0 .3

4 .5

9 .3

4 .0

.0 0 1

1 0 .4

4 .6

9 .4

4 .0

.0 0 7

9 .9

4 .1

9 .5

4 .2

.2 6 7

1 0 .6

4 .5

9 .5

4 .1

.0 7 9

M M S E sc o re

2 6 .6

2 .6

2 6 .0

2 .8

.0 0 1

2 6 .5

2 .6

2 6 .1

2 .8

.0 4 9

2 6 .5

2 .6

2 6 .1

2 .9

.0 3 0

2 6 .7

2 .6

2 6 .1

2 .8

.1 6 7

% n

% n

% n

% n

% n

% n

% n

% n

W o m e n

6 2

1 6 1

6 2

3 5 2

.9 7 0

5 8

1 1 3

6 4

4 0 0

.1 2 8

6 5

1 6 0

6 1

3 5 3

.2 8 2

7 5

4 1

6 1

4 7 2

.0 5 2

E c o n o m ic

si tu a ti o n (g o o d o r v e ry

g o o d )

5 3

1 3 6

5 0

2 8 1

.4 4 2

5 2

1 0 2

5 0

3 1 5

.6 7 4

5 1

1 2 4

5 1

2 9 3

.9 6 5

5 5

3 0

5 1

3 8 7

.5 5 8

L iv in g w it h so m e o n e

5 1

1 3 3

4 5

2 5 5

.1 0 1

5 2

1 0 1

4 6

2 8 7

.1 5 9

4 6

1 1 2

4 8

2 7 6

.5 4 4

3 6

2 0

4 8

3 6 8

.0 9 7

F re q u e n t m e e ti n g s w it h re la ti v e s

6 1

1 5 7

6 9

3 9 0

.0 1 8

6 5

1 2 8

6 7

4 1 9

.7 1 5

6 3

1 5 6

6 8

3 9 1

.2 3 9

6 6

3 6

6 6

5 1 1

.8 8 0

F re q u e n t m e e ti n g s w it h fr ie n d s

6 1

1 5 9

6 0

3 3 8

.6 9 1

6 2

1 2 1

6 0

3 7 6

.6 5 9

5 9

1 4 4

6 1

3 5 3

.5 3 8

7 5

4 1

5 9

4 5 6

.0 2 6

198 Eur J Ageing (2016) 13:195–208

123

and 4 = with relatives, siblings or other people. For further

analysis, the answers were dichotomized as living with

someone versus living alone. Meetings with relatives were

asked with the question ‘‘How often do you meet your

children or other relatives’’? The answer options were

1 = daily, 2 = weekly, 3 = monthly, 4 = a few times a

year, 5 = seldom or not at all, and 6 = do not have any

children/relatives. Meetings occurring at least weekly were

defined as frequent, whereas meetings less often than

weekly/do not have any children or relatives represented

the reference group. Meetings with friends were asked with

a similar question and answer options, and the answers

were dichotomized correspondingly.

Health resources

Cognitive ability was assessed with the Mini-Mental State

Examination (MMSE; Folstein et al. 1975). The MMSE

score ranges from 0 to 30 with higher scores indicating

better cognitive ability. The participants rated their health

as either 1 = very good or 2 = good or 3 = moderate or

4 = poor or 5 = very poor. Since very few people reported

having very good (34) or very poor (4) health, the answers

were categorized as good/very good, moderate and poor/

very poor. In the analyses, ‘poor/very poor’ was used as a

contrast for both ‘good/very good’ and ‘moderate’. Walk-

ing ability was assessed with self-reported difficulties in

walking two kilometres, asked with the question ‘‘Are you

able to walk two kilometres’’? The response options were

1 = yes, without difficulties; 2 = yes, with minor diffi-

culties; 3 = yes, with major difficulties; 4 = unable

without assistance from another person and 5 = unable

even with assistance. Owing to the low number (20) of

people reporting they could not walk 2 km without assis-

tance from another person, the answers were categorized as

having no difficulties, having minor difficulties and having

major difficulties/needs help/unable. In the analyses,

‘having major difficulties/needs help/unable’ was used as a

contrast for both ‘yes, without difficulties’ and ‘yes, with

minor difficulties’.

Data analysis

The goal categories were combined thematically by a

panel of four researchers based on earlier categorizations

of goal content. Because the correlations between the goal

categories were low (range from -.131 to .194), statistical

methods for combining the categories (factor analysis,

multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis), which are

based on the similarity/dissimilarity of item responses, did

not produce meaningful results. Thematic categorization

resulted in seven goal dimensions, which are presented in

Table 2, followed by the original goal categories fromT a

b le

1 c o n ti n u e d

L e is u re -t im

e a c ti v it ie s

p a

P h y si c a l a c ti v it y

p a

D a il y li fe

p a

Id e o lo g ic a l g o a ls

p a

Y e s

(n =

2 5 9 )

N o

(n =

5 6 5 )

Y e s

(n =

1 9 6 )

N o

(n =

6 2 8 )

Y e s

(n =

2 4 6 )

N o

(n =

5 7 8 )

Y e s

(n =

5 5 )

N o

(n =

7 6 9 )

M S D

M S D

M S D

M S D

M S D

M S D

M S D

M S D

S e lf -r a te d h e a lt h

.0 0 9

.0 0 1

.0 8 6

.1 8 1

G o o d /v e ry

g o o d

4 1

1 0 5

3 5

1 9 7

3 9

7 6

3 6

2 2 6

3 8

9 3

3 6

2 0 9

3 7

2 0

3 7

2 8 2

M o d e ra te

5 4

1 4 0

5 4

3 0 3

5 8

1 1 4

5 2

3 2 9

4 9

1 2 2

5 6

3 2 1

4 7

2 6

5 4

4 1 7

P o o r/ v e ry

p o o r

5 1 3

1 1

1 2

3 3

1 2

7 3

1 3

3 1

8 4 7

1 6

9 9

6 9

D if fi c u lt ie s in

w a lk in g 2 k m

.0 0 1

\ .0 0 1

.1 8 3

.1 7 4

N o d if fi c u lt ie s

6 8

1 7 6

5 4

2 0 7

7 0

1 3 7

5 5

3 4 6

5 8

1 4 3

5 9

3 4 0

5 1

2 8

5 9

4 5 5

M in o r d if fi c u lt ie s

1 8

4 6

2 2

1 2 2

1 9

3 7

2 1

1 3 1

1 8

4 3

2 1

1 2 5

1 8

1 0

2 1

1 5 8

M a jo r d if fi c u lt ie s/ u n a b le

1 4

3 7

2 4

1 3 6

1 1

2 2

2 4

1 5 1

2 4

6 0

2 0

1 1 3

3 1

1 7

2 0

1 5 6

Y e a rs

o f e d u c a ti o n n =

8 1 7 ; E c o n o m ic

si tu a ti o n n =

8 2 2 ; F re q u e n t m e e ti n g s w it h fr ie n d s n =

8 2 3

M =

m e a n , S D

= st a n d a rd

d e v ia ti o n

a p v a lu e ; in d e p e n d e n t sa m p le s t te st fo r th e c o n ti n u o u s v a ri a b le s a n d C h i- sq u a re

te st fo r th e c a te g o ri z e d v a ri a b le s

Eur J Ageing (2016) 13:195–208 199

123

which they were derived. Health maintenance goals

included strivings towards maintaining current, mental

and physical, health and functional status. The most typ-

ically mentioned health maintenance goals were rather

unspecified statements of wanting to stay healthy or

maintain functioning. Recovery goals included goals

related to improving current functional status and to

recovering from illnesses or managing life with them.

Goals in this dimension ranged from strivings to reach an

earlier state of functional ability to rehabilitation after

surgery, and living as healthy as possible despite illnesses.

Social goals comprised goals related to other people—

either to family members or to other relations. Goals

indicating concerns over other people’s well-being or

concretely helping others were also included in this

dimension. Goals in the leisure-time activities dimension

were typically related to recreation, either at home (e.g.

reading, handicrafts) or outside the home (e.g. going to

the theatre, attending lectures). Goals related to partici-

pation in social events or group meetings, as well as to

Table 2 The personal goal categories combined in thematic goal dimensions, examples of their content and number of participants reporting at least one goal in a category (n = 824)

Personal goal dimension Example Reporting

% n

Personal goal category

Health maintenance 52 427

Maintaining health ‘‘to stay healthy’’ 32 263

Maintaining functioning ‘‘to maintain functional ability’’ 20 165

Healthy lifestyle ‘‘to live a healthy life’’ 8 68

Mental health ‘‘to stay mentally alert’’ 5 38

Recovery 8 69

Recovery/Managing illnesses ‘‘that the cancer treatment would work’’ 5 38

Improving functioning ‘‘to be able to move normally, as before’’ 4 34

Social goals 33 272

Family ‘‘to visit children’’ 14 119

Meeting other people ‘‘to spend time with friends’’ 13 107

Helping others ‘‘to support the children in their lives’’ 6 48

Other’s health and well-being ‘‘a good future for our grandchildren’’ 6 45

Leisure-time activities 31 259

Travel/summer cottage ‘‘to travel to some place warm’’ 15 124

Hobbies at home ‘‘to do handicrafts’’/‘‘to read the newspaper every day’’ 14 111

Participation in social events ‘‘to participate in war veterans’ events’’ 6 48

Hobbies outside home ‘‘to continue going to concerts’’ 4 33

Physical activity 24 196

Activeness in daily life ‘‘gardening’’ 16 133

Exercise ‘‘to exercise more’’ 10 85

Daily life 30 246

Independent living ‘‘to be able to take care of myself and my home’’ 15 124

Life as it is ‘‘that life would stay as it is’’ 9 76

Living arrangements ‘‘to move to the city centre’’ 4 32

Economic issues ‘‘to save money’’ 4 32

Ideological goals 7 55

Character ‘‘to be as good a person as possible’’ 2 20

Common good ‘‘to participate in the development of society’’ 2 14

End-of-life issues ‘‘I have lost all interest in life, I’m waiting for death’’ 2 13

Philosophy of life/religion ‘‘to live according to God’s will’’ 2 12

Other ‘‘to have a dog’’ 1 11

No goals ‘‘I have no goals anymore’’/‘‘All my goals have been attained’’ 6 51

200 Eur J Ageing (2016) 13:195–208

123

travelling or spending time at the summer cottage, were

also included in this dimension. Physical activity goals

were either exercise goals, or other goals that included a

clear physical activity component, such as busying oneself

around the home doing, for example, heavier household

chores or gardening. The element linking the goals in the

daily life dimension was that they were related to the wish

that everyday life continue as it is at present and living

independently in one’s own home. Goals related to living

arrangements and economic issues were also included in

this dimension. Ideological goals included goals related to

one’s character, the common good, end-of-life issues, and

philosophy of life or religion. The element shared by

these goals was that they reflected inner thoughts and

pondering instead of strivings linked to some kind of

activity. The thematic goal dimensions were dichotomized

into at least one reported goal in a dimension versus no

goals in a dimension.

Independent samples t tests and Chi-square tests were

used to analyse the differences in baseline characteristics

between those who reported at least one personal goal in

each of the goal dimensions and those who did not report

any personal goals in a given dimension. We used logistic

regression modelling to examine the associations between

the different life resources and personal goal content.

First, we conducted bivariate models for each of the goal

dimensions with each of the life resource variables as

separate predictors. Second, we conducted a separate

multivariate logistic regression model for each goal

dimension with all the life resource predictor variables

included in the models simultaneously. The analyses were

conducted using SPSS 22.0 for Windows (IBM SPSS

Inc.).

Results

Descriptive results

The average number of goals reported was 2.4 (SD = 1.5).

24 % of the participants reported having one personal goal,

28 % two, 21 % three and 21 % four or more goals. Six

percent of the participants did not have any goals or said

that their goals had already been attained. Those who

reported at least one personal goal in any of the goal cat-

egories were younger, had a higher MMSE score and more

often lived with another person than those who did not

report any personal goals. About half of the study popu-

lation reported at least one goal in the health maintenance

dimension, 33 % reported social goals, 31 % goals related

to leisure-time activities, 30 % daily life goals, 24 %

physical activity goals, 8 % recovery goals and 7 %

reported at least one ideological goal (Table 2).

Associations between life resources and personal

goals

Reporting any personal goals

Participants who were living with someone were twice

more likely to report at least one personal goal in any of the

goal dimensions than those living alone. This association

was evident in both the bi- and multivariate models. Higher

age decreased, and a higher MMSE score increased, the

likelihood for reporting at least one personal goal only in

the bivariate model. In the multivariate model, women

were twice as likely to report at least one personal goal

when compared to men (Table 3).

Health maintenance goals

In both the bi- and multivariate models, better economic

situation decreased the odds for reporting health mainte-

nance goals. More years of education, better self-rated

health and having less difficulty in walking two kilometres

increased the odds for reporting health maintenance goals,

but only the association between less walking difficulty and

health maintenance goals remained significant in the mul-

tivariate model (Table 3).

Recovery goals

Good health resources were strongly associated with not

reporting recovery goals. Those who rated their health as

good/very good were less likely to report recovery goals

when compared to those who reported their health as poor/

very poor. Moreover, having less walking difficulty

decreased the odds for reporting recovery goals. These

associations remained strong in the multivariate model. In

both models, higher age decreased, and more years of

education increased the odds for reporting recovery goals.

Female sex and good economic situation increased the

odds for recovery goals only in the multivariate model

(Table 3).

Social goals

Participants who did not report any walking difficulties

were almost twice more likely to report social goals than

those with major walking difficulties in both the bi- and

multivariate models. In the bivariate model, female sex and

more years of education increased, while frequent meetings

with relatives decreased the odds for reporting social goals,

and the associations remained significant in the multivari-

ate model. In the bivariate model, those with good or very

good self-rated health were more likely to report social

goals than those with poor or very poor self-rated health,

Eur J Ageing (2016) 13:195–208 201

123

T a

b le

3 T h e a ss o c ia ti o n s o f p e rs o n a l c h a ra c te ri st ic s, a n d so c io -e c o n o m ic , so c ia l a n d h e a lt h re so u rc e s w it h p e rs o n a l g o a l c o n te n t

L if e re so u rc e s

A t le a st

o n e g o a l

O R

(9 5 %

C I)

H e a lt h m a in te n a n c e

O R

(9 5 %

C I)

R e c o v e ry

O R

(9 5 %

C I)

S o c ia l g o a ls

O R

(9 5 %

C I)

B iv a ri a te

M u lt iv a ri a te

B iv a ri a te

M u lt iv a ri a te

B iv a ri a te

M u lt iv a ri a te

B iv a ri a te

M u lt iv a ri a te

P e rs o n a l c h a ra c te ri st ic s

S e x (f e m a le )

1 .2 7

(0 .7 2 – 2 .2 5 )

2 .1

9

(1 .1

2 – 4 .3

0 )

0 .9 6

(0 .7 3 – 1 .2 8 )

1 .0 9

(0 .7 8 – 1 .5 1 )

1 .5 4

(0 .9 0 – 2 .6 4 )

2 .1

1

(1 .1

1 –

3 .9

9 )

1 .6

0

(1 .1

8 –

2 .1

8 )

2 .3

6

(1 .6

5 –

3 .3

9 )

A g e (p e r y e a r)

0 .9

0

(0 .8

4 –

0 .9

6 )

0 .9 4

(0 .8 7 – 1 .0 2 )

0 .9

4

(0 .9

1 – 0 .9

8 )

0 .9 7

(0 .9 3 – 1 .0 0 )

0 .9

4

(0 .8

8 – 1 .0

0 )

0 .8

9

(0 .8

2 –

0 .9

6 )

1 .0 0

(0 .9 6 – 1 .0 3 )

1 .0 4

(1 .0 0 – 1 .0 8 )

S o c io -e c o n o m ic

re so u rc e s

E d u c a ti o n (p e r y e a r)

1 .0 8

(1 .0 0 – 1 .1 7 )

1 .0 4

(0 .9 5 – 1 .1 3 )

1 .0

4

(1 .0

0 – 1 .0

7 )

1 .0 3

(0 .9 9 – 1 .0 7 )

1 .0

7

(1 .0

1 – 1 .1

2 )

1 .0

9

(1 .0

2 –

1 .1

6 )

1 .0

5

(1 .0

2 –

1 .0

9 )

1 .0

6

(1 .0

2 –

1 .1

1 )

E c o n o m ic

si tu a ti o n (g o o d o r v e ry

g o o d v s. p o o r)

0 .9 9

(0 .5 6 – 1 .7 4 )

0 .7 6

(0 .4 1 – 1 .4 0 )

0 .7

4

(0 .5

6 – 0 .9

7 )

0 .6

3

(0 .4

7 – 0 .8

5 )

1 .5 7

(0 .9 5 – 2 .6 0 )

1 .8

8

(1 .0

8 –

3 .2

7 )

1 .0 7

(0 .8 0 – 1 .4 3 )

0 .9 7

(0 .7 1 – 1 .3 3 )

S o c ia l re so u rc e s

L iv in g w it h so m e o n e v e rs u s li v in g a lo n e

1 .9

7

(1 .0

7 –

3 .6

3 )

2 .1

7

(1 .0

6 – 4 .4

2 )

1 .2 1

(0 .9 2 – 1 .5 9 )

1 .0 3

(0 .7 5 – 1 .4 3 )

1 .1 7

(0 .7 1 – 1 .9 2 )

1 .5 3

(0 .8 5 – 2 .7 5 )

1 .1 6

(0 .8 7 – 1 .5 5 )

1 .5

5

(1 .0

9 –

2 .1

9 )

F re q u e n t m e e ti n g s w it h re la ti v e sa

0 .8 1

(0 .4 4 – 1 .5 1 )

0 .8 3

(0 .4 3 – 1 .6 0 )

1 .0 6

(0 .7 9 – 1 .4 1 )

1 .1 1

(0 .8 2 – 1 .5 0 )

0 .7 2

(0 .4 4 – 1 .1 9 )

0 .7 4

(0 .4 3 – 1 .2 7 )

0 .7

4

(0 .5

4 –

1 .0

0 )

0 .7

0

(0 .5

1 –

0 .9

7 )

F re q u e n t m e e ti n g s w it h fr ie n d sa

0 .9 8

(0 .5 5 – 1 .7 6 )

0 .9 2

(0 .5 0 – 1 .7 1 )

1 .0 4

(0 .7 8 – 1 .3 7 )

0 .9 1

(0 .6 8 – 1 .2 3 )

1 .0 2

(0 .6 2 – 1 .6 9 )

1 .3 9

(0 .8 0 – 2 .4 1 )

1 .0 9

(0 .8 1 – 1 .4 7 )

1 .0 6

(0 .7 7 – 1 .4 5 )

H e a lt h re so u rc e s

M M S E sc o re

(p e r p o in t)

1 .1

4

(1 .0

5 –

1 .2

5 )

1 .0 9

(0 .9 9 – 1 .2 1 )

1 .0 5

(1 .0 0 – 1 .1 0 )

1 .0 3

(0 .9 7 – 1 .0 8 )

1 .0 3

(0 .9 4 – 1 .1 3 )

0 .9 6

(0 .8 7 – 1 .0 6 )

1 .0 3

(0 .9 8 – 1 .0 9 )

0 .9 9

(0 .9 3 – 1 .0 5 )

S e lf -r a te d h e a lt h

G o o d o r v e ry

g o o d b

1 .4 1

(0 .4 9 – 4 .0 4 )

0 .9 1

(0 .2 7 – 3 .0 8 )

2 .1

5

(1 .2

9 – 3 .5

7 )

1 .6 1

(0 .8 8 – 2 .9 3 )

0 .2

1

(0 .0

9 – 0 .5

1 )

0 .3

0

(0 .1

1 –

0 .8

5 )

1 .8

0

(1 .0

1 –

3 .2

1 )

1 .2 6

(0 .6 4 – 2 .4 7 )

M o d e ra te b

0 .8 8

(0 .3 3 – 2 .3 3 )

0 .8 1

(0 .2 8 – 2 .3 5 )

1 .4 8

(0 .9 1 – 2 .4 2 )

1 .2 1

(0 .7 0 – 2 .0 7 )

0 .7 4

(0 .3 7 – 1 .5 0 )

1 .1 9

(0 .5 4 – 2 .5 9 )

1 .6 6

(0 .9 4 – 2 .9 1 )

1 .4 6

(0 .7 9 – 2 .7 0 )

P o o r o r v e ry

p o o r

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

D if fi c u lt ie s in

w a lk in g 2 k m

N o d if fi c u lt ie sc

1 .8 5

(0 .9 2 – 3 .6 9 )

1 .4 7

(0 .6 3 – 3 .4 4 )

2 .0

4

(1 .4

3 – 2 .9

1 )

1 .5

8

(1 .0

2 – 2 .4

5 )

0 .3

2

(0 .1

8 – 0 .5

6 )

0 .2

5

(0 .1

2 –

0 .5

1 )

1 .8

0

(1 .2

2 –

2 .6

6 )

1 .7

9

(1 .1

1 –

2 .8

8 )

M in o r d if fi c u lt ie sc

0 .9 0

(0 .4 2 – 1 .9 2 )

0 .8 1

(0 .3 5 – 1 .8 8 )

1 .7

4

(1 .1

3 – 2 .6

8 )

1 .5 8

(1 .0 0 – 2 .5 0 )

0 .5 3

(0 .2 7 – 1 .0 4 )

0 .3

9

(0 .1

8 –

0 .8

1 )

1 .0 4

(0 .6 4 – 1 .6 9 )

0 .9 9

(0 .5 9 – 1 .6 5 )

M a jo r d if fi c u lt ie s/ u n a b le

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

202 Eur J Ageing (2016) 13:195–208

123

T a

b le

3 c o n ti n u e d

L if e re so u rc e s

L e is u re -t im

e a c ti v it ie s

O R (9 5 %

C I)

P h y si c a l a c ti v it y

O R

(9 5 %

C I)

D a il y li fe

O R

(9 5 %

C I)

Id e o lo g ic a l g o a ls

O R (9 5 %

C I)

B iv a ri a te

M u lt iv a ri a te

B iv a ri a te

M u lt iv a ri a te

B iv a ri a te

M u lt iv a ri a te

B iv a ri a te

M u lt iv a ri a te

P e rs o n a l c h a ra c te ri st ic s

S e x (f e m a le )

0 .9 9

(0 .7 3 – 1 .3 5 )

1 .2 6

(0 .8 8 – 1 .7 8 )

0 .7 8

(0 .5 6 – 1 .0 8 )

0 .8 7

(0 .6 0 – 1 .2 6 )

1 .1 9

(0 .8 7 – 1 .6 2 )

1 .2 2

(0 .8 5 – 1 .7 4 )

1 .8 4

(0 .9 9 – 3 .4 4 )

1 .8 1

(0 .8 9 – 3 .6 8 )

A g e (p e r y e a r)

0 .9

5

(0 .9

2 – 0 .9

9 )

0 .9 9

(0 .9 6 – 1 .0 4 )

0 .9 6

(0 .9 3 – 1 .0 0 )

1 .0 0

(0 .9 6 – 1 .0 5 )

1 .0 2

(0 .9 8 – 1 .0 5 )

1 .0 2

(0 .9 8 – 1 .0 6 )

1 .0

7

(1 .0

0 – 1 .1

4 )

1 .0

9

(1 .0

1 –

1 .1

7 )

S o c io -e c o n o m ic

re so u rc e s

E d u c a ti o n (p e r y e a r)

1 .0

6

(1 .0

2 – 1 .1

0 )

1 .0

4

(1 .0

0 –

1 .0

8 )

1 .0

6

(1 .0

2 – 1 .1

0 )

1 .0

5

(1 .0

0 – 1 .0

9 )

1 .0 2

(0 .9 9 – 1 .0 6 )

1 .0 1

(0 .9 7 – 1 .0 6 )

1 .0 6

(0 .9 9 – 1 .1 2 )

1 .0 7

(1 .0 0 – 1 .1 4 )

E c o n o m ic

si tu a ti o n (g o o d o r v e ry

g o o d v s. p o o r)

1 .1 2

(0 .8 4 – 1 .5 1 )

0 .9 7

(0 .7 1 – 1 .3 3 )

1 .0 7

(0 .7 8 – 1 .4 8 )

0 .9 5

(0 .6 7 – 1 .3 4 )

0 .9 9

(0 .7 4 – 1 .3 4 )

0 .9 4

(0 .6 8 – 1 .2 9 )

1 .1 8

(0 .6 8 – 2 .0 4 )

1 .0 9

(0 .6 0 – 1 .9 6 )

S o c ia l re so u rc e s

L iv in g w it h so m e o n e v e rs u s li v in g a lo n e

1 .2 8

(0 .9 5 – 1 .7 2 )

1 .2 1

(0 .8 6 – 1 .7 2 )

1 .2 6

(0 .9 1 – 1 .7 4 )

1 .0 5

(0 .7 2 – 1 .5 3 )

0 .9 1

(0 .6 8 – 1 .2 3 )

0 .9 8

(0 .6 9 – 1 .3 9 )

0 .6 2

(0 .3 5 – 1 .1 0 )

0 .9 8

(0 .5 0 – 1 .9 1 )

F re q u e n t m e e ti n g s w it h re la ti v e sa

0 .6

9

(0 .5

1 – 0 .9

4 )

0 .7 3

(0 .5 3 – 1 .0 0 )

0 .9 4

(0 .6 7 – 1 .3 2 )

1 .0 3

(0 .7 2 – 1 .4 6 )

0 .8 3

(0 .6 1 – 1 .1 3 )

0 .8 1

(0 .5 9 – 1 .1 2 )

0 .9 6

(0 .5 4 – 1 .7 0 )

0 .8 5

(0 .4 7 – 1 .5 3 )

F re q u e n t m e e ti n g s w it h fr ie n d sa

1 .0 6

(0 .7 9 – 1 .4 4 )

0 .9 8

(0 .7 1 – 1 .3 5 )

1 .0 8

(0 .7 8 – 1 .5 0 )

0 .9 3

(0 .6 6 – 1 .3 2 )

0 .9 1

(0 .6 7 – 1 .2 3 )

0 .9 1

(0 .6 6 – 1 .2 5 )

2 .0

0

(1 .0

7 – 3 .7

4 )

2 .5

4

(1 .3

1 –

4 .9

3 )

H e a lt h re so u rc e s

M M S E sc o re

(p e r p o in t)

1 .1

0

(1 .0

4 – 1 .1

6 )

1 .0 5

(0 .9 9 – 1 .1 2 )

1 .0

6

(1 .0

0 – 1 .1

3 )

1 .0 3

(0 .9 6 – 1 .1 0 )

1 .0

6

(1 .0

0 –

1 .1

2 )

1 .0 6

(1 .0 0 – 1 .1 3 )

1 .0 8

(0 .9 7 – 1 .2 0 )

1 .0 6

(0 .9 4 – 1 .1 9 )

S e lf -r a te d h e a lt h

G o o d o r v e ry

g o o d b

2 .6

7

(1 .4

0 – 5 .0

6 )

1 .7 2

(0 .8 3 – 3 .5 6 )

4 .9

1

(1 .9

1 – 1 2 .6

0 )

2 .8

4

(1 .0

3 – 7 .8

3 )

0 .6 8

(0 .4 0 – 1 .1 3 )

0 .7 3

(0 .3 9 – 1 .3 5 )

0 .5 4

(0 .2 4 – 1 .2 5 )

0 .8 3

(0 .2 9 – 2 .3 5 )

M o d e ra te b

2 .3

1

(1 .2

3 – 4 .3

3 )

1 .8 5

(0 .9 4 – 3 .6 3 )

5 .0

6

(2 .0

0 – 1 2 .8

3 )

3 .7

2

(1 .4

0 – 9 .8

4 )

0 .5

8

(0 .3

5 –

0 .9

5 )

0 .6 3

(0 .3 6 – 1 .0 9 )

0 .4 8

(0 .2 2 – 1 .0 6 )

0 .6 2

(0 .2 5 – 1 .5 2 )

P o o r o r v e ry

p o o r

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

D if fi c u lt ie s in

w a lk in g 2 k m

N o d if fi c u lt ie sc

2 .1

1

(1 .4

0 – 3 .1

7 )

1 .6

8

(1 .0

3 –

2 .7

4 )

2 .7

2

(1 .6

7 – 4 .4

3 )

2 .1

8

(1 .2

4 – 3 .8

4 )

0 .7 9

(0 .5 5 – 1 .1 5 )

0 .9 0

(0 .5 6 – 1 .4 3 )

0 .5 7

(0 .3 0 – 1 .0 6 )

0 .5 8

(0 .2 5 – 1 .3 5 )

M in o r d if fi c u lt ie sc

1 .3 9

(0 .8 4 – 2 .2 8 )

1 .1 7

(0 .6 9 – 1 .9 9 )

1 .9

4

(1 .0

9 – 3 .4

5 )

1 .6 7

(0 .9 1 – 3 .0 5 )

0 .6 5

(0 .4 1 – 1 .0 3 )

0 .7 5

(0 .4 5 – 1 .2 3 )

0 .5 8

(0 .2 6 – 1 .3 1 )

0 .6 3

(0 .2 6 – 1 .5 4 )

M a jo r d if fi c u lt ie s/ u n a b le

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

R e f.

T h e b iv a ri a te

m o d e ls w e re

u n a d ju st e d ; th e m u lt iv a ri a te

lo g is ti c re g re ss io n m o d e ls w e re

c o n d u c te d se p a ra te ly

fo r e a c h g o a l d im

e n si o n ; a ll th e p re d ic to r v a ri a b le s w e re

in c lu d e d in

th e m o d e ls

si m u lt a n e o u sl y ; st a ti st ic a ll y si g n ifi c a n t a ss o c ia ti o n s a re

in b o ld

(p \

.0 5 )

re f. re fe re n c e g ro u p

a A t le a st

o n c e a w e e k v e rs u s le ss

th a n o n c e a w e e k

b C o n tr a st e d to

‘p o o r o r v e ry

p o o r’

c C o n tr a st e d to

‘m a jo r d if fi c u lt ie s/ u n a b le ’

Eur J Ageing (2016) 13:195–208 203

123

but in the multivariate model, however, the association was

attenuated. Living with someone increased the odds for

reporting social goals only in the multivariate model

(Table 3).

Leisure-time activity goals

Those with no difficulties in walking two kilometres were

about twice more likely to report leisure-time activity goals

than those with major walking difficulties in both the bi- and

multivariate models. Similarly, more years of education

increased the odds for reporting leisure-time activity goals

in both models. In the bivariate model, higher age and fre-

quent meetings with relatives decreased, while higher

MMSE score increased, the odds for reporting goals related

to leisure-time activities, but the associations were attenu-

ated in the multivariate model. In the bivariate model, good

self-rated health more than doubled the odds for reporting

leisure-time activity goals, but this association was attenu-

ated in the multivariate model (Table 3).

Physical activity goals

Good health resources were most evidently associated with

physical activity goals. In the bivariate model, those who

rated their health as good/very good or moderate were

about five times more likely to report physical activity

goals than those who rated their health as poor/very poor,

and the associations remained strong in the multivariate

model. Having no or minor walking difficulties was asso-

ciated with reporting physical activity goals in the bivariate

model, and the association remained in the multivariate

model for those who reported no walking difficulties. In the

bivariate model, a higher MMSE score increased the odds

for reporting physical activity goals, but in the multivariate

model, however, this association was attenuated. More

years of education was associated with reporting physical

activity goals in both models (Table 3).

Daily life goals

A higher MMSE score increased the odds for reporting

daily life goals in the bivariate model, but this association

was marginally attenuated in the multivariate model. In the

bivariate model, those with moderate self-rated health were

less likely to report daily life goals than those with poor/

very poor self-rated health, but the association was atten-

uated in the multivariate model (Table 3).

Ideological goals

Higher age increased the odds for reporting ideological

goals in both the bi- and multivariate models. Those who

frequently met their friends were twice more likely to

report ideological goals than those who seldom met their

friends, and the association remained strong in the multi-

variate model (Table 3).

Discussion

As hypothesized, we found several associations between

life resources and personal goal content among older

people. These results can be interpreted in light of life-span

developmental theories, i.e. SOC by Baltes and Baltes

(1990), the dual-process model of developmental regula-

tion by Brandtstädter (e.g. 2009), and the motivational

theory of life-span development by Heckhausen et al.

(2010). For example, better health resources coincided with

more goal setting related to health maintenance, social

relations, leisure-time activity and physical activity. This

can be seen as an example of selection; those with better

health resources are able to set themselves activity-related

goals (i.e. elective selection), whereas such goals may be

hard to attain for people with diminished health and

mobility (i.e. loss-based selection) (Freund and Baltes

1998). According to the dual-process model of develop-

mental regulation, people often abandon goals that seem

too difficult to realize (Brandtstädter 2009), and it is

understandable that engaging in physical activity or lei-

sure-time activities may require too much effort from older

people with major functional limitations. Instead, those

with fewer health resources more often reported recovery

goals, a finding that can be interpreted as a compensatory

effort to regain an earlier state of functioning (Ebner et al.

2006). However, it should be noted that the associations

between resources and goal content are reciprocal, and

thus, for example, good health and functional ability may

be an outcome of the pursuit of health and activity-related

goals. Nevertheless, the present results indicate that goal

setting in old age is related to different personal and con-

textual resources, as noted in Little’s (2007, 2014) social

ecological model of human flourishing.

The present observation that better self-rated health and

intact mobility were associated with having goals related to

leisure-time and physical activities is in line with our

previous findings, which showed that mobility limitation

may result in less goal setting related to cultural activities

and exercise (Saajanaho et al. 2014a), and with another

study in which health problems decreased the motivation

for activity participation (Hess et al. 2012). Moreover,

prioritizing other life goals, such as those related to one’s

health, may decrease physical activity -related goal setting

(Saajanaho et al. 2014b). When health and functioning

decline, people’s interest in leisure-time activities typically

declines and they redirect their focus to matters that are

204 Eur J Ageing (2016) 13:195–208

123

crucial for managing daily life (Schindler and Staudinger

2008). However, since physical activity benefits health and

functioning in old age (Cress et al. 2006), it would be

important to support older people in setting appropriate

physical activity goals. We reported earlier that physical

activity goals correlate with a higher level of physical

activity in old age even after adjustment for differences in

health (Saajanaho et al. 2014b). Previously, it has been

emphasized that goal disengagement may help people

adjust to age-related changes (Freund et al. 2009) and so

benefit psychological well-being in old age (Boerner 2004;

Heyl et al. 2007). The present cross-sectional results war-

rant future study on whether maintaining goals for physical

and leisure-time activities, regardless of diminished health

resources, might lead to better outcomes in terms of

physical functioning.

The need for intimacy and close relationships lasts

throughout the life span (Sheldon and Kasser 2001), as the

high prevalence of social goals among the participants of

this study testifies. Both the socio-emotional selectivity

theory (Carstensen et al. 2003) and disengagement theory

(Cumming and Henry 1961) suggest that older people

focus more on emotionally meaningful relationships than

unnecessary social contacts. This tendency to reduce par-

ticipation in social life may be reflected in the result that

those with mobility limitation reported fewer social goals.

Those living with another person were more likely to report

social goals, and overall any personal goals, than those

living alone. This puts older people living alone at risk for

having no meaningful goals in their lives. It has been

reported that while living alone does not necessarily

increase psychological distress in old age (Stone et al.

2013), the lack of goals related to activities or relationships

could well do so (Lou and Ng 2012). The absence of

meaningful social goals might also increase the risk for

loneliness among people living alone (Zebhauser et al.

2015). Thus, the possibilities for goal setting among older

people living alone merit further consideration.

Personal goals related to health maintenance were the

most typical goals reported by the participants of this

study. This result accords with several previous findings

(e.g. Frazier et al. 2002; Lapierre et al. 1992–1993; Saa-

janaho et al. 2014a). In old age, health decline becomes a

more imminent threat, and goals related to maintaining

health and functional status as long as possible become

topical. Previously, it has been suggested that health

problems in old age may lead to the setting of health-

related goals (Frazier et al. 2002; Lapierre et al. 1997). In

this study, better health resources increased the likelihood

for reporting health maintenance goals and decreased the

likelihood for recovery goals. Strivings for recovery were

more common among those who were younger and had

better socio-economic resources. It may be that very high

age and lack of socio-economic resources put older people

in a disadvantageous position, inducing a pessimistic future

orientation. In such a situation, they may not see it as

realistic to strive for recovery when faced with health

decline, and instead, turn to loss-based selection (Freund

and Baltes 1998). This also exemplifies the notion that to

compensate for losses in, for example, functioning, older

people need additional resources (Ebner et al. 2006).

The result that higher age increased the likelihood for

reporting ideological goals is in line with the study by

Lawton et al. (2002), in which higher age was associated

with spiritual goals. These goals of inner reflections may

signify the rise of gerotranscendence, a phase in the pro-

gression of old age during which people are assumed to

focus more on inner reflections than the external world

(Tornstam 2011). Ideological goals were also more com-

mon among those who more often met their friends, pos-

sibly indicating better opportunities to discuss ideological

issues in social gatherings. However, this association is

difficult to interpret. A reduced focus on activity goals

might also be a sign of gerotranscendence among the oldest

olds (Tornstam 2011). However, the multivariate mod-

elling showed that other resources attenuated the relation-

ship between age and activity-related goals. Therefore, as

noted earlier by Ebner et al. (2006), we suggest that the

possibilities for setting activity-related goals in old age

may derive from differences in resources other than age,

mainly from differences in health and functional status. It

is also possible that the present study underestimated age

differences, as, to be included in this study, the participants

needed to be living independently in their own homes.

Similarly, the lack of associations between cognitive abil-

ity and goal setting in the multivariate models may be

explained by other health differences coinciding with

cognitive decline or by the fact that the sample did not

include highly disabled individuals. A higher MMSE score

seemed to increase the likelihood for reporting daily life

goals. It may be that when cognitive abilities decline,

strivings for independent living and daily life continuing as

it is no longer seem relevant. Other resources were not

associated with daily life goals, indicating that such goals

are endorsed irrespective of the individual’s resources.

The strength of this study is that it is one of the few

studies to explore the content of older people’s personal

goals and their associations with different life resources.

We invested considerable effort in constructing the seven

goal dimensions on the basis of the original goal catego-

rizations. The intuitively logical, larger goal dimensions

enabled meaningful multivariate modelling, in which the

associations between different life resources could be

accounted for. For example, we observed that the age

differences in older people’s goals resulted partly from

resources other than age per se. In this study, we were able

Eur J Ageing (2016) 13:195–208 205

123

to investigate the associations of several different life

resources with goal setting in the same study sample, which

increased knowledge on the personal and contextual factors

related to personal goal setting in old age. The participants

were a random sample drawn from a national register and

they represented both sexes and a wide age range of

community-dwelling older people, which adds to the gen-

eralizability of the study.

The limitations of this study include the use of a cross-

sectional design, which does not allow conclusions to be

drawn on the causal relationships between life resources

and goal setting. Also, older people with very reduced

resources were not included in the study, because they were

either living in institutions or in too poor health to partic-

ipate. We selected a set of essential life resource variables

for this study but could not include all the relevant

resources, such as services and the living environment,

which might also frame the possibilities for goal setting in

old age. Personal goals were elicited with an open question,

which gave the participants the freedom to list all the goals

they had. It is nevertheless possible that the participants did

not report all the goals they had at the time of the inter-

view. Most of the participants reported only a few goals,

possibly because the question on goals was asked towards

the end of a long interview, which constrained the amount

of time that could reasonably be spent probing for the

participants’ personal goals. However, the number of per-

sonal goals reported by older people has been relatively

low also in previous studies (e.g. Lawton et al. 2002).

Some of the goals reported might have fitted into more than

one goal category. However, total agreement in catego-

rizing the goals, and in formulating the larger goal

dimensions, was achieved with discussions between the

goal raters and the panel which combined the categories.

Because we combined the goal categories into larger the-

matic goal dimensions, we do not know which specific

goals were associated with life resources. We used

dichotomized goal dimension variables and thus could not

take the number of goals in each dimension into account.

This study is in line with previous theorizations on life

resources influencing developmental regulation, such as

goal setting (Ebner et al. 2006; Haase et al. 2013; Little

2007, 2014). Since personal goals are important in living a

meaningful life (Betzler 2013), more consideration should

be given to how older people with fewer resources might

be enabled to continue striving for valued goals in their

lives. As resources decline, goal pursuit in preferred

activities could be continued via other supportive resour-

ces, or by compensatory means (Baltes and Baltes 1990;

Heyl et al. 2007; Morrow-Howell et al. 2014). Older people

with poor health and functional problems should also be

supported in setting goals for physical activity, since this

would help prevent further functional decline (Rantanen

2013). This study strengthened the notion that health-re-

lated goals are emphasized in old age and, moreover,

indicated that health maintenance goals are typically

endorsed by older people with good health resources,

whereas those with poor health resources emphasize

recovery goals. Therefore, we can conclude that when

studying health-related goals in old age, it would be

important to distinguish between maintenance and recov-

ery goals, since they reflect different situations. Moreover,

age differences in older people’s goal setting are, at least in

part, explained by differences in life resources, most

notably in health and functioning. A well-balanced whole

of personal goals, as well as goal modification when nee-

ded, may have positive influences on mental well-being in

old age (Boerner 2004; Dunne et al. 2011; Smith and

Freund 2002). This study raises the question of what will

be the consequences for the physical functioning of older

people, if they disengage from activity goals when faced

with functional decline. Future longitudinal studies are

needed to consider the balance between life resources, goal

setting, goal modification, and both physical and mental

well-being in old age.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the University of Jyväskylä, the Academy of Finland (the Future of Living and Hous-

ing; Grant 255403 for the LISPE project; and personal Grant 285747

to MR) and the Finnish Ministry of Education and Culture.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest The authors declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or

publication of this article.

References

Bailly N, Joulain M, Hervé C, Alaphilippe D (2014) Coping with

negative life events in old age: the role of tenacious goal pursuit

and flexible goal adjustment. Aging Ment Health 16:431–437.

doi:10.1080/13607863.2011.630374

Baltes PB (1997) On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny.

Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of

developmental theory. Am Psychol 52:366–380. doi:10.1037/

0003-066X.52.4.366

Baltes PB, Baltes MM (1990) Psychological perspectives on

successful aging: the model of selective optimization with

compensation. In: Baltes PB, Baltes MM (eds) Successful aging.

Perspectives from the behavioral sciences. Cambridge Univer-

sity Press, NY, pp 1–34

Betzler M (2013) The normative significance of personal projects. In:

Kühler M, Jelinek N (eds) Autonomy and the self., Philosophical

studies series 118Springer Science ? Business Media Dor-

drecht, Dordrecht, pp 101–126

Boerner K (2004) Adaptation to disability among middle-aged and

older adults: the role of assimilative and accommodative coping.

J Gerontol B Psychol 59B:35–42. doi:10.1093/geronb/59.1.P35

Boerner K, Jopp D (2007) Improvement/maintenance and reorienta-

tion as central features of coping with major life change and loss:

206 Eur J Ageing (2016) 13:195–208

123

contributions of three life-span theories. Hum Dev 50:171–195.

doi:10.1159/000103358

Brandtstädter J (2009) Goal pursuit and goal adjustment: self-

regulation and intentional self-development in changing devel-

opmental contexts. Adv Life Course Res 14:52–62. doi:10.1016/

j.alcr.2009.03.002

Carstensen LL, Fung HH, Charles ST (2003) Socioemotional

selectivity theory and the regulation of emotion in the second

half of life. Motiv Emot 27:103–123. doi:10.1023/A:

1024569803230

Cress ME, Buchner DM, Prohaska T et al (2006) Best practices for

physical activity programs and behavior counseling in older

adult populations. Eur Rev Aging Phys A 3:34–42. doi:10.1007/

s11556-006-0003-9

Cumming E, Henry WE (1961) Growing old. The process of

disengagement. Basic Books Publishing Co. Inc, NY

Dunne E, Wrosch C, Miller GE (2011) Goal disengagement,

functional disability, and depressive symptoms in old age.

Health Psychol 30:763–770. doi:10.1037/a0024019

Ebner NC, Freund AM, Baltes PB (2006) Developmental changes in

personal goal orientation from young to late adulthood: from

striving for gains to maintenance and prevention of losses.

Psychol Aging 21:664–678

Emmons RA (1986) Personal strivings: an approach to personality

and subjective well-being. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1058–1068.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.5.1058

Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) Mini-mental state. A

practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for

the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198. doi:10.1016/0022-

3956(75)90026-6

Frazier LD, Johnson PM, Gonzalez GK, Kafka CL (2002) Psychoso-

cial influences on possible selves: a comparison of three cohorts

of older adults. Int J Behav Dev 26:308–317. doi:10.1080/

01650250143000184

Freund AM, Baltes PB (1998) Selection, optimization, and compen-

sation as strategies of life management: correlations with

subjective indicators of successful aging. Psychol Aging

13:531–543

Freund AM, Riediger M (2001) What I have and what I do—the role

of resource loss and gain throughout life. Appl Psychol Int Rev

50:370–380

Freund AM, Riediger M (2006) Goals as building blocks of

personality and development in adulthood. In: Mroczek DK,

Little TD (eds) Handbook of personality development. Laurence

Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 353–372

Freund AM, Nikitin J, Ritter JO (2009) Psychological consequences

of longevity. The increasing importance of self-regulation in old

age. Hum Dev 52:1–37. doi:10.1159/000189213

Haase CM, Heckhausen J, Wrosch C (2013) Developmental regula-

tion across the life span: towards a new synthesis. Dev Psychol

49:964–972. doi:10.1037/a0029231

Heckhausen J, Wrosch C, Schulz R (2010) A motivational theory of

life-span development. Psychol Rev 117:32–60. doi:10.1037/

a0017668

Hess TM, Emery L, Neupert SD (2012) Longitudinal relationships

between resources, motivation, and functioning. J Gerontol B

Psychol 67:299–308. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbr100

Heyl V, Wahl H-W, Mollenkopf H (2007) Affective well-being in old

age. The role of tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal

adjustment. Eur Psychol 12:119–129. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.

12.2.119

Hobfoll ST (1989) Conservation of resources. A new attempt at

conceptualizing stress. Am Psychol 44:513–524. doi:10.1037/

0003-066X.44.3.513

Holahan CK (1988) Relation of life goals at age 70 to activity

participation and health and psychological well-being among

Terman’s gifted men and women. Psychol Aging 3:286–291.

doi:10.1037/0882-7974.3.3.286

Klinger E (1975) Consequences of commitment to and disengagement

from incentives. Psychol Rev 82:1–25. doi:10.1037/h0076171

Lapierre SL, Bouffard L, Bastin E (1992–1993) Motivational goal

objects in later life. Int J Aging Hum Dev 36:279–292. doi:10.

2190/N2XP-4KT1-1WCB-Y1QX

Lapierre SL, Bouffard L, Bastin E (1997) Personal goals and

subjective well-being in later life. Int J Aging Hum Dev

45:287–303

Lawton MP, Moss MS, Winter L, Hoffmann C (2002) Motivation in

later life: personal projects and well-being. Psychol Aging

17:539–547. doi:10.1037//0882-7974.17.4.539

Little BR (1983) Personal projects. A rationale and method for

investigation. Environ Behav 15:273–309. doi:10.1177/

0013916583153002

Little BR (2007) Prompt and circumstance: the generative contexts of

personal project analysis. In: Little BR, Salmela-Aro K, Philips

SD (eds) Personal project pursuit. Goals, action, and human

flourishing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 3–49

Little BR (2014) Well-doing: personal projects and the quality of

lives. Theory Res Educ 12:329–346. doi:10.1177/

1477878514545847

Little BR, Gee TL (2007) The methodology of personal project

analysis: four modules and a funnel. In: Little BR, Salmela-Aro

K, Philips SD (eds) Personal project pursuit. Goals, action, and

human flourishing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey,

pp 51–93

Lou VWQ, Ng JW (2012) Chinese older adults’ resilience to the

loneliness of living alone: a qualitative study. Aging Ment

Health 16:1039–1046. doi:10.1080/13607863.2012.692764

Markus H, Nurius P (1986) Possible selves. Am Psychol 41:954–969.

doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954

Morrow-Howell N, Putnam M, Lee YS, Greenfield JC, Inoue M,

Chen H (2014) An investigation of activity profiles of older

adults. J Gerontol B Psychol 69:809–821. doi:10.1093/geronb/

gbu002

Rantanen T (2013) Promoting mobility in older people. J Prev Med

Public Health 46:550–554. doi:10.3961/jpmph.2013.46.S.S50

Rantanen T, Portegijs E, Viljanen A et al (2012) Individual and

environmental factors underlying life space of older people—

study protocol and design of a cohort study on life-space

mobility in old age (LISPE). BMC Public Health 12:1018.

doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-1018

Rapkin BD, Fischer K (1992) Framing the construct of life

satisfaction in terms of older adults’ personal goals. Psychol

Aging 7:138–149. doi:10.1037/0882-7974.7.1.138

Saajanaho M, Viljanen A, Read S, Eronen J, Kaprio J, Jylhä M,

Rantanen T (2014a) Mobility limitation and changes in personal

goals among older women. J Gerontol B Psychol. Advance

access published in August 2014. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbu094

Saajanaho M, Viljanen A, Read S, Rantakokko M, Tsai L-T, Kaprio J,

Jylhä M, Rantanen T (2014b) Older women’s personal goals and

exercise activity: an 8-year follow-up. J Aging Phys Activ

22:386–392. doi:10.1123/JAPA.2012-0339

Salmela-Aro K, Read S, Nurmi J-E, Koskenvuo M, Kaprio J,

Rantanen T (2009) Personal goals of older female twins. Genet

Environ Eff Eur Psychol 14:160–167. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.

14.2.160

Schindler I, Staudinger UM (2008) Obligatory and optional personal

life investments in old and very old age: validation and

functional relations. Motiv Emot 32:23–36. doi:10.1007/

s11031-007-9078-5

Sheldon KM, Kasser T (2001) Getting older, getting better? Personal

strivings and psychological maturity across the life span. Dev

Psychol 37:491–501. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.37.4.491

Eur J Ageing (2016) 13:195–208 207

123

Smith J, Freund AM (2002) The dynamics of possible selves in old

age. J Gerontol B Psychol 57B:492–500. doi:10.1093/geronb/57.

6.P492

Stone J, Evandrou M, Falkingham J (2013) The transition to living

alone and psychological distress in later life. Age Ageing

42:366–372. doi:10.1093/ageing/aft006

Tornstam L (2011) Maturing into gerotranscendence. J Transpers

Psychol 43:166–180

Zebhauser A, Baumert J, Emeny RT, Ronel J, Peters A, Ladwig KH

(2015) What prevents older people living alone from feeling

lonely? Findings from the KORA-Age-study. Aging Ment

Health 19:773–780. doi:10.1080/13607863.2014.977769

208 Eur J Ageing (2016) 13:195–208

123

European Journal of Ageing is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights Reserved.