Bridging Disciplinary Boundaries (January 11 - 14, 2007)

PURPOSE:  An engaged lifestyle is seen as an important component of successful aging.  Older adults with higher participation in social and leisure activities often report greater well-being, a fact that fueled the original Activity Theory and has continued to influence contemporary researchers and practitioners.  The aging literature is now replete with studies that have conceptualized and measured social and leisure activity participation and examined associations with aspects of well-being.  This study's purpose was to review the conceptualization and measurement of activity among older adults and the associations found between specific dimensions of activity and well-being. 

METHODS:  We searched PsycInfo, AgeLine and Medline for original research articles with a focus on social or leisure activity in non-institutionalized older adults, published from 1995-present.  Some of the studies described the development of an activity measure.  Well-being measures included life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, survival, or freedom from depression.  We omitted studies that focused solely on physical health outcomes, or solely on volunteer or paid employment activities.  Because they form a distinct literature, studies examining cognitive functioning (or conversely, dementia) were also omitted from this review.  We gathered a final sample of 35 studies, ten descriptive or measurement studies, and 25 examining the relationship between activity and well-being.  The studies were coded for key methodological characteristics, and the domains and outcomes were extracted. 

FINDINGS:  Fourteen of the 35 studies used longitudinal designs; nine employed factor analytic techniques to determine activity domains, while theory or qualitative research determined the remainder.  Studies reported from zero to 14 activity domains, the majority reporting two or three, such as the classic categories: informal, formal and solitary.  Other activity dimensions represented included discretionary vs. obligatory; productive vs. leisure; cognitive vs. physical; active vs. sedentary; solitary vs. social, and consumptive, regenerative or productive.  Measures were typically conceptualized around an activity's purpose, context, or level of demand, but lack of clear distinctions led to potential confounds.  A number of activity domains were associated with well-being, including discretionary, productive, physically demanding, intellectual, church/charity and solitary activities. The greatest number of studies (9) reported that social activity influenced well-being, yet there were differences in the definitions of social activities.  Rather than activity type, several studies concluded that factors such as control and subjective quality of social interactions played important roles in the relationship between social activity and well-being. 

IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK:  Optimally, activity measures should be standardized, taking into account purpose, context and demand.  Although differences in definitions and measurement make it difficult to draw inferences about this body of evidence, methodologically rigorous studies continue to find associations between activity and well-being, with the caveat that intervening variables such as choice, meaning or perceived quality of the activity play an important role.  Activity theory alone is inadequate to explain these relationships.  Newer theories of aging that emphasize individual perceptions and preferences, such as continuity theory or socio-emotional selectivity, may be more helpful in conceptualizing future studies in this area and in planning social work service delivery for older adults.