4. Results

Linear models were run stepwise to determine whether the factors added to each step improved the model.

Everyday orientation experiences

For going out, Step 0 accounted for 4% of the variance, with both gender and years of education emerging as a significant predictor. Age (Step 1) emerged as a significant predictor and accounted for another 4% of the variance. JPT (VSWM, Step 2) emerged as a significant predictor, meaning that higher JPT scores are associated with a higher frequency of going out, accounting for 2% of the variance. Step 3 accounted for 3% of the variance, with spatial anxiety emerging as a significant predictor, meaning that a higher level of anxiety is associated with a lower frequency of going out.

For the experiences of reaching an unfamiliar place (total R² = 0.12), Step 0 accounted for 2% of the variance, with years of education emerging as a significant predictor. Age (Step 1) emerged as a significant predictor and accounted for 2% of the variance. JPT (VSWM, step 2) emerged as a significant predictor, meaning that higher JPT scores is associated with a higher frequency of successfully reaching unfamiliar places, accounting for 4% of the variance. Step 3 accounted for another 4% of the variance, with spatial anxiety emerging as a significant predictor, meaning that a higher level of anxiety reduces the frequency of reaching an unfamiliar place.

For the experiences of losing one’s way in an unfamiliar place (total R² = 0.22), Step 0 represented 4% of the variance, with years of education emerging as a significant predictor. Age (Step 1) emerged as a significant predictor and accounted for 8% of the variance. JPT (VSWM, Step 2) did not add any variance. Step 3 accounted for another 10% of the variance, with SDSR and spatial anxiety emerging as significant predictors, meaning that a low level of anxiety and a high sense of direction reduces the frequency of getting lost in an unfamiliar place.

Everyday navigation aids use.

For the use of the map (total R² = 0.17), Step 0 accounted for 10% of the variance, and years of education emerged as a significant predictor. Age (Step 1) did not emerge as a significant predictor and accounted for 1% of the variance. JPT (VSWM, Step 2) emerged as significant predictor, meaning that higher JPT scores are associated with the increased use of maps, accounting for 3% of the variance. Step 3 accounted for another 3% of the variance, with AtOT and spatial anxiety emerging as significant predictors, meaning that greater attitudes toward orientation and higher spatial anxiety are associated with higher map use.

For GPS use (total R² = 0.35), Step 0 accounted for 13% of the variance, with both gender and years of education emerging as significant predictors. Age (Step 1) emerged as a significant predictor and accounted for 19% of the variance. JPT (VSWM, Step 2) emerged as a significant predictor, meaning that higher JPT scores were associated with the increased use of GPS, accounting for 3% of the variance. Step 3 did not account for any variance.

For the use of verbal instructions (total R² = 0.09), Step 0 accounted for 3% of the variance, with gender emerging as a significant predictor. Age (Step 1) emerged as a significant predictor and accounted for 3% of the variance. JPT (VSWM, step 2) emerged as a significant predictor, meaning that high JPT scores were associated with a lower use of verbal instructions, accounting for another 3% of the variance. Step 3 did not account for any additional variance.

4. Discussion and conclusion

The present study shed light on people’s self-assessed spatial behaviors in relation to individual differences, adopting an adult lifespan perspective. Considering the role of increasing age, associated with unsuccessful spatial behaviors, the role of spatial abilities (VSWM) and positive wayfinding inclinations played a role in promoting spatial behaviors. On the other hand, the role of spatial anxiety is detrimental for spatial behaviors, especially for losing in an unfamiliar place. For promoting active and healthy aging with regard to maintaining people’s mobility and active use of navigation aids, it seems to be important to consider people spatial competences and wayfinding inclinations from youth to older age.

Taking into account the limitations and the results of the present study, future directions could be focused on efforts to promote healthy and active aging. Several individual factors relating to their spatial behaviors should be considered and thoroughly investigated in future studies to support older people’s mobility and interest in exploring the environment. For example, their use of GPS for navigation should be analyzed in depth, given our increased reliance on GPS, even in aging ^[11], and the mixed findings on its influence on young and older adults’ navigation accuracy ^[5]. Regarding the various individual differences relating to successful spatial behaviors, future studies could examine how to improve older adults’ everyday spatial behaviors, by giving them training on the efficient use of orientation strategies (such as maps and GPS), basic cognitive abilities (such as VSWM), and on metacognitive reflection of their own wayfinding inclinations, for instance.

This entry is adapted from doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031225