Sitting as a moral practice: Older adults’ accounts from qualitative interviews on sedentary behaviours

Abstract

Amidst public health campaigns urging people to sit less as well as being more physically active, this paper investigates how older adults make sense of their sedentary behaviour. Using an accounts framework focusing on how people rationalise their sitting practices, we analysed data from 44 qualitative interviews with older adults. All interviewees had received information about sedentary behaviour and health, visual feedback on their own objectively measured sitting over a week and guidance on sitting less. Participants used accounts to position sitting as a moral practice, distinguishing between ‘good’ (active/‘busy’) and ‘bad’ (passive/‘not busy’) sitting. This allowed them to align themselves with acceptable (worthwhile) forms of sitting and distance themselves from other people whose sitting they viewed as less worthwhile. However, some participants also described needing to sit more as they got older. The findings suggest that some public health messaging may lead to stigmatisation around sitting. Future sedentary behaviour guidelines and public health campaigns should consider more relatable guidelines that consider the lived realities of ageing, and the individual and social factors that shape them. They should advocate finding a balance between sitting and moving that is appropriate for each person.

Full text

Sociol Health Illn. 2021;00:1–19.
|
1
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/shil
Received: 4 May 2020
|
Accepted: 14 September 2021
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9566.13383
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Sitting as a moral practice: Older adults’
accounts from qualitative interviews on
sedentary behaviours
Victoria J.Palmer1
|
Cindy M.Gray2
|
ClaireFitzsimons3
|
NanetteMutrie3
|
SallyWyke2
|
GeoffDer1
|
SebastienF.M.Chastin4,5
|
Dawn A.Skelton4
|
theSeniorsUSPTeam
1MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
2Institute of Health and Wellbeing, College of Social Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
3Physical Activity for Health Research Centre, Institute Sport, Physical Education and Health Sciences, University of
Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
4School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK
5Department of Sport and Movement Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2021 The Authors. Sociology of Health & Illness published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Foundation for SHIL (SHIL)
Correspondence
Cindy M. Gray, Institute of Health and
Wellbeing, College of Social Sciences,
University of Glasgow, Bute Gardens,
Glasgow, G12 8RS, UK.
Email: cindy.gray@glasgow.ac.uk
Funding information
This work was supported by the UK
Medical Research Council (MRC)
as part of the Lifelong Health and
Wellbeing Initiative (LLHW; MR/
K025023/1). Lothian Birth Cohort 1936
data collection was supported by Age
UK (Disconnected Mind Grant) and
MRC (MR/M01311/1) and undertaken
within the University of Edinburgh
Centre for Cognitive Ageing and
Cognitive Epidemiology supported by the
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council and MRC as part of
the LLHW (MR/K026992/1). West of
Abstract
Amidst public health campaigns urging people to sit
less as well as being more physically active, this paper
investigates how older adults make sense of their sed-
entary behaviour. Using an accounts framework focus-
ing on how people rationalise their sitting practices,
we analysed data from 44 qualitative interviews with
older adults. All interviewees had received information
about sedentary behaviour and health, visual feedback
on their own objectively measured sitting over a week
and guidance on sitting less. Participants used accounts
to position sitting as a moral practice, distinguishing
between ‘good’ (active/‘busy’) and ‘bad’ (passive/‘not
busy’) sitting. This allowed them to align themselves
with acceptable (worthwhile) forms of sitting and

2
|
PALMER et al.
INTRODUCTION
Sedentary behaviour (sitting, lying or reclining during waking hours) has become a prominent
public health issue in the last twenty years. Until the mid- 1990s, most research and public health
messaging had focussed on increasing physical activity for health benefit. However, from that
point, evidence began to accumulate that being sedentary produces a specific physiological re-
sponse that can adversely impact disease risk (Dietz, 1996; Hamilton et al., 2004; Hu et al., 2001).
A body of research has subsequently demonstrated that sedentary behaviour is a risk factor for
poor health independent of physical activity (Owen et al., 2010). As a result, sedentary behaviour
has emerged as a focus for research and public health messaging its own right.
Older people have been the focus of much of the recent research around sedentary behaviour,
largely because they are one of the most sedentary age groups in society. Studies have shown that
older people sit for around 60%– 80% of their waking day (Harvey et al., 2013, 2015). Higher levels of
sedentary behaviour in older adults are clearly associated with increased risk of all- cause mortality,
poor cardio- metabolic health, musculoskeletal disorders, poor mental health, reduced health- related
quality of life, impaired physical function and frailty (Copeland et al., 2017; Mañas et al., 2017).
In the context of this increased risk, previous research examining older adults’ sedentary be-
haviour has sought to identify factors that influence their sitting practices in order to inform
public health campaigns to encourage them to sit less. Studies have shown that older adults’
sedentary behaviour is motivated by a wide range of individual factors (such as physical health,
energy levels, TV viewing, doing hobbies and eating/drinking), social factors (such as lack of
companionship and expectations that older people should rest) and environmental factors (such
as lack of facilities to help them pace their activity [e.g. benches to sit on], perceptions of safety
[e.g. crime] and weather) (Chastin et al., 2014; Dontje et al., 2018; McEwan et al., 2017; Palmer
et al., 2018a; Shaw et al., 2017a, 2017b; Tam- Seto et al., 2016).
Some authors have also explored how older adults make sense of their sitting as part of their
everyday life. Chastin et al. (2014) reported that older women felt sitting too much was undesirable
Scotland Twenty- 07 data collection was
supported by the MRC and undertaken
by the MRC Social and Public Health
Sciences Unit (MC_A540_53462)
distance themselves from other people whose sitting
they viewed as less worthwhile. However, some par-
ticipants also described needing to sit more as they got
older. The findings suggest that some public health mes-
saging may lead to stigmatisation around sitting. Future
sedentary behaviour guidelines and public health cam-
paigns should consider more relatable guidelines that
consider the lived realities of ageing, and the individual
and social factors that shape them. They should advo-
cate finding a balance between sitting and moving that
is appropriate for each person.
KEYWORDS
accounts framework, moral practice, older adults, sedentary
behaviour, sitting

|
3
OLDER ADULTS - SITTING AS A MORAL PRACTICE
and were concerned about being viewed as lazy or not useful if they sat a lot. Similarly, McEwan
et al. (2017) found that older people associated sedentary behaviour with negative terms such as
‘vegetating’ or ‘going stagnant’. However, using a social practice perspective (i.e. exploring how
sitting practices emerge in relation to materials [such as perceived access to facilities], compe-
tence [how people make understand their experiences of sitting] and symbolic meanings [includ-
ing embodied and symbolic understandings of sitting and past experiences]) (Shove et al., 2012),
our own work has suggested that older people do not distinguish between being sedentary or not,
but rather conceptualise their daily sedentary and non- sedentary activities as being busy or not
busy (Palmer et al., 2018a). This distinction provides an insight into the processes older adults
use to place value on their sitting practices. It indicates that older people may be moralising sed-
entary behaviours by distinguishing between desirable and undesirable forms of sitting and do
not view all sitting negatively.
In the current paper, we aim to further explore this moralising tendency, and how older adults
use it to make sense of their own sedentary behaviour, in order to inform future public health
messaging. Using an accounts framework (Scott & Lyman, 1968) that examines the cultural
scripts people draw on to rationalise or make sense of their behaviour, we present an in- depth
exploration to unpack the distinction between desirable (‘busy’) and undesirable (‘not busy’ or
passive) forms of sitting. We do not argue against the physiological evidence demonstrating that
sedentary behaviour is associated with poor health. We note, however, that the nature of this evi-
dence and how it is used places it within a wider public health discourse in which, as Nye (2003)
pointed out, individuals are expected to assume responsibility for their own health, and everyday
behaviours (like sitting) become medicalised. We use data from semi- structured interviews with
a diverse sample of older adults from two large study cohorts, the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936
(Deary et al., 2012) and Twenty- 07 Study (Benzeval et al., 2009). Before describing the methods
used to address the paper's aim, we first consider the medicalisation of sitting and the use of
‘accounts’ in health research.
Medicalisation of sitting
Sitting, once only thought of as a normal part of daily routine, is now about health and has be-
come situated within the ‘risk society’ first identified in the early 1990s (Beck, 1992; Giddens,
1991) where individuals must assess, insure against and prevent socially constructed risks that
appear prevalent in everyday life. Thus, in the risk society, individuals are required to become
aware of the health risks associated with sedentary (and other) behaviours in order to manage
and reduce them. The medicalisation of sitting is produced and reinforced through public health
guidance and messaging. In 2011, the UK Chief Medical Officers included the reduction of sed-
entary behaviour in their national physical activity guidelines for the first time (Department of
Health, 2011) and have retained it in their recent updated guidance (Department of Health and
Social Care, 2019). Mass media campaigns have also been widely used to raise awareness of pub-
lic health messaging to sit less (Knox et al., 2015). However, as some commentators have pointed
out, advice on sedentary behaviour may be problematic if it creates a ‘moral panic’ around sit-
ting (Pike, 2011; Vallance et al., 2018) and messages are understood as demonising sitting (Knox
et al., 2015).
In addition, sedentary behaviour is often conceptualised as being at one end of a continuum
of physical (in)activity (van der Ploeg & Hillsdon, 2017). Scholars have therefore criticised ac-
tive living policies for ‘creating a problem of sedentarianism’ (Bercovitz, 2000, p. 24). That is, by

4
|
PALMER et al.
placing physical activity and sedentary behaviours in opposition, they become moralised, with
physical activity viewed as positive and sedentary behaviour as negative (Dallaire et al., 2012).
The positioning of sedentary behaviour as a public health concern with detrimental effects on
health, which some authors have compared to the detrimental effects of smoking, further pathol-
ogises sitting (Tulle, 2015). Thus, the active citizen is constructed as a moral citizen and sedentary
behaviours become problematic (Bercovitz, 2000; Dallaire et al., 2012; Tulle, 2015).
For older adults, the risk discourse is further reinforced by their identification as a high- risk
group due to their high levels of sedentary behaviour (Copeland et al., 2017; Mañas et al., 2017).
Considering this perception alongside an increasing focus on ‘active’ or ‘successful’ ageing in
which physical activity plays an important role (Pike, 2011) may further moralise sitting for
older adults. However, quite apart from the public health discourse, which is largely based on
individual- level research (Chastin et al., 2015), wider societal expectations of ageing shape peo-
ple's expectations of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in later life. Associations between
negative ageing stereotypes and physical inactivity are well- documented and have been demon-
strated to influence older adults to behave in what they believe are ‘age- appropriate’ ways (Massie
& Meisner, 2019). For example, a survey of US older adults reported those with negative expecta-
tions of ageing were significantly more likely to report low levels of physical activity than those
with more positive ageing beliefs (Sarkisian et al., 2005). In qualitative work, older adults report
feeling unsupported and marginalised in relation to being physically active, believing that soci-
ety has essentially ‘written them off’ (Jancey et al., 2009). Others complain about well- meaning,
(over- )concerned family members placing limitations and restrictions on their activities and en-
couraging them instead to ‘take it easy’ (Schmidt et al., 2016). How these discourses shape older
people's understandings of sedentary behaviour and the ways in which they make sense of sitting
in their everyday lives is therefore of great interest.
Accounts
One way to extend our understandings of how older adults make sense of their sedentary behav-
iour is to focus on what older people say about their sitting using an accounts approach (Scott &
Lyman, 1968). Accounts can be thought of as socially approved explanations that reflect subjec-
tive meanings of human behaviour (Monaghan, 2006; Orbuch, 1997). The concept of accounts
was first developed by Scott and Lyman (1968) to understand how people attempt to rationalise
the so- called deviant behaviour. However, more recent conceptualisations suggest that accounts
can be extended to make sense of any behaviour or practice in people's daily lives (Orbuch, 1997).
The focus on people's accounts of their health behaviour has been criticised for failing to
provide an accurate representation of what people actually do, by overlooking the importance
of people's subjective lived experiences of their bodies in action (Williams, 2003). However, as
Archer (2000) notes, human self- consciousness is lodged within our embodied practice, and our
behaviours are intrinsically related to our understandings of selfhood and how we view ourselves
in the world. Thus, there is no reason to place more value on either accounts or embodied prac-
tice. Both should be explored, as not all accounts will be voiced and experiences of embodied
practice will not be the same for everyone (Monaghan, 2006).
Health behaviours, such as risky sexual behaviour, smoking and diet, and associated health
conditions, such as obesity, have been examined using an accounts approach (Heikkinen et al.,
2010; Monaghan, 2006; Ven & Beck, 2009). Some authors have described ways in which people
use culturally drawn scripts to neutralise or normalise risky behaviours (e.g. appealing to alcohol

|
5
OLDER ADULTS - SITTING AS A MORAL PRACTICE
use as an excuse for questionable sexual behaviour (Ven & Beck, 2009)) or to present themselves
as risk- aware individuals who moderate the potential harms of their behaviour (e.g. smokers pre-
senting themselves as leading otherwise healthy lifestyles; Heikkinen et al., 2010). Others have
shown how people use accounts to align personal or cultural expectations with their own em-
bodied experiences (e.g. social norms around eating leading to weight gain (Monaghan, 2006)).
People's accounts of their sedentary behaviour may therefore be a result of them both mak-
ing sense of daily life and attempting to rationalise a behaviour that has been subjected to what
Scott and Lyman (1968) describe as ‘valuative inquiry’ (p. 46) where it is in some way questioned
or perceived as deviant. They suggest that two types of account, justifications and excuses, may
emerge when an individual's behaviour is called into question. Justifications are accounts in
which the individual accepts responsibility for the behaviour but denies (at least partially) that
it is in some way deviant or immoral. Justifications are used to explain the behaviour using so-
cially approved scripts that highlight the way(s) in which the behaviour is acceptable. Types of
justification include ‘techniques of neutralisation’ (Scott & Lyman, 1968: 51), which serve to nor-
malise the behaviour in question or demonstrate that there are others whose behaviour is worse.
Excuses are accounts in which the individual admits the behaviour in question is ‘wrong’ but
uses socially approved scripts to lessen or dismiss their responsibility by suggesting the behaviour
was accidental, caused by something they could not control (e.g. biological or environmental
factors), or by shifting blame to others.
METHODS
This qualitative interview study was conducted as part of a larger interdisciplinary project using a
range of objective and self- report methods to examine sedentary patterns in older adults (Seniors
USP [Understanding Sedentary Patterns], http://www.gcu.ac.uk/senio rsusp). Participants in
the Seniors USP project (n=773) were recruited from two Scottish cohort studies: the Lothian
Birth Cohort 1936 (N=304, aged 79 years) and the West of Scotland Twenty- 07 Study. The
Twenty- 07 Study comprises three age cohorts: two (1930s [N=129 aged around 83years] and
1950s [N=340, aged around 64years]) were included in the Seniors USP project.
Throughout Seniors USP, all participants received information about sedentary behaviour
reflecting the public discourse surrounding sedentary behaviour at that time (Department of
Health, 2011). At the start of the project, participants received study information sheets intro-
ducing the idea that long periods of sitting were associated with poor health. Participants then
answered a battery of eighteen self- report measures of sedentary time, based on the TAxonomy
of Self- report SB Tools (TASST) framework (Dall et al., 2017) and wore an activPAL™ acceler-
ometer to provide an objective measurement of their sedentary behaviour. Finally, all were sent
visual feedback on their personal objectively measured daily sedentary behaviour over a one-
week period (Figure 1). This was accompanied by a letter reinforcing the message that sedentary
behaviour is associated with poor health and stating that on average older people sit for 9– 10h/
day. They also received a ‘Top Tips’ information sheet with suggestions on ways to sit less and
become more active (https://www.gcu.ac.uk/senio rsusp/ resou rces/).
We report the findings from face- to- face semi- structured interviews with a purposive sub-
sample of 44 older men and women. Sampling was designed to include equal numbers of partici-
pants from three age groups (mid- 60s— Twenty- 07 1950s, N=16; late- 70s— Lothian Birth Cohort
1936, N=16; mid- 80s— Twenty- 07 1930s, N=12), with both men (N=23) and women (N=21)
who sat more (N=N=22) or less (N=20)1 than the average for their age group (as derived from

6
|
PALMER et al.
the objective sedentary behaviour measurements from Seniors USP). See Palmer et al. (2018a) for
full details of the sampling frame.
Interviews were conducted by VJP, an experienced qualitative researcher in her late twenties,
in participants’ homes (N=39) or at a clinical research facility (N=5) (as chosen by the par-
ticipants) between May 2015 and June 2016. They lasted between 16min and 1h 55min (mean
interview length=41min). A topic guide was developed to elicit discussion of older adults’ daily
sitting and non- sitting activities, including the value they placed on these activities and what
FIGURE  1 (a) Visual 24- h activPALTM feedback participants received on their daily sitting and non- sitting
time. (b) Visual 24- h activPALTM feedback participants received on their weekly sitting and non- sitting time
(a)
(b)

|
7
OLDER ADULTS - SITTING AS A MORAL PRACTICE
was good and less good about sitting. Participants’ personal visual feedback on their objectively
measured daily sitting over a week (Figure 1) was used as a prompt to generate rich insights and
reflections around what they did while sitting or not sitting throughout the day. Interviews were
recorded digitally and transcribed verbatim.
Anonymised transcripts were analysed using a thematic framework approach (Ritchie et al.,
2003) in NVivo10software. Data analysis was led by VJP with input from CMG, CF, NM and SW
at each stage of the analysis process (for full details of the analysis undertaken, see Palmer et al.
(2018a)). The data presented here emerged from one of the broad themes: Perceptions of Sitting
and Non- Sitting, which included what participants said about things they did while sitting and
not- sitting. Within this theme, a sub- theme, Sitting as a Moral Practice, was identified where
participants appeared to make moral judgements about sitting. This sub- theme was analysed
using an accounts approach (Scott & Lyman, 1968) to identify excuses and justifications in par-
ticipants’ reflections on their own and other people's sitting. Systematic comparison identified
differences and similarities between participants who sat more (Higher Sedentary Behaviour)
and less (Lower Sedentary Behaviour) than average, and between men and women.
Extracts chosen to illustrate the analyses are labelled to indicate participant ID (P1- P44),
gender (man, woman), age group (mid- 60s, late- 70s, mid- 80s) and level of sedentary behaviour
(higherSB, lowerSB, otherSB2).
FINDINGS
Sitting as a moral practice: contextualising accounts
Since accounts are culturally embedded, people will rationalise their experiences in ways that
are coherent with their current social context (Orbuch, 1997). Accounts emerged as interviewees
reflected on their own sitting practices. For most, it was through this reflection that sitting began
to be moralised as they attempted to make sense of their own sitting practices.
Participants’ reactions to their visual feedback highlight the importance of identity, partic-
ularly in relation to whether they viewed themselves as an active person, in their construction
of accounts of sitting. The most common reaction amongst both Higher and Lower Sedentary
Behaviour participants was surprise or shock at the amount of time they spent sitting throughout
the day. This reaction was often related to their perception of themselves as someone who did
not sit a lot:
“Absolutely shocked, because I’m a walker…”
[P3, woman, late- 70s, lowerSB]
“I was surprised that I didn’t stand more, because in my head I’m standing more.
And my friends all think of me as somebody that’s always on the go doing stuff, so I
was quite surprised that I didn’t have more standing in there, you know.”
[P21, woman, mid- 60s, higherSB]
However, some Lower Sedentary Behaviour participants agreed their feedback reflected their
normal practice and confirmed their perception of themselves as an active person who did not sit
too much: ‘it was about what I thought I did […] you know, followed it fairly accurately, yeah, and
I don't really sit an awful lot.’ [P4, woman, late- 70s, lowerSB].

8
|
PALMER et al.
A few Higher Sedentary Behaviour participants also felt their feedback was accurate in
reflecting the high levels of sitting in their daily lives. However, unlike Lower Sedentary
Behaviour participants, they did not necessarily accept that this defined who they were.
Some reacted defensively saying they ‘can't do much about it’ [P39, woman, mid- 80s,
higher SB]. Therefore, whether their feedback conformed to, or conflicted with, their self-
identification as an (in)active person shaped how participants formed accounts about their
sitting practices.
It is also important to recognise that because the information they received during the
Seniors USP project reflected the dominant discourse around sedentary behaviour at that time
(Department of Health, 2011), participants in this study likely had a heightened awareness of
sedentary behaviour and its possible health consequences. They may therefore have felt an even
stronger need to use accounts to rationalise their own sitting practices than other people of the
same age.
Rationalising sitting in relation to health
As participants rationalised their own sitting practices, they presented accounts of their own
and other people's sitting in the form of both justifications and excuses, and drew on particular
cultural scripts to do so. These related to ‘acceptable sitting’, ‘distancing from the sedentary other’,
‘ageing’ and ‘people like me’. However, a few interviews also appeared to show some ‘resistance’
towards the dominant ‘sitting is bad for you’ narrative. The following sections deal with each of
these accounts in turn.
Acceptable sitting
The most prevalent account was one in which participants justified their sitting by drawing
on narratives of what types of, or how much, sitting was acceptable. Participants were keen
to highlight that they ‘don't sit for the joy [of it]’ [P4, woman, late- 70s, lowerSB] and do not
sit around when there is something else they should be doing: ‘If I’ve got nothing to do, I’ll sit
down and watch the television. If I’ve got something to do, I’ll do it, you know.’ [P8, man, late-
70s, higherSB].
The justification of doing something worthwhile was also expressed by other interviewees
who stressed the value of the activities they did while sitting:
“When I got the [model village] that I made to a certain stage, I found I was more
interested in adding bits and pieces to it that made me sit down, and I’ll show you
why…just to show you how…though I was sitting, I wasn’t twiddling my thumbs.”
[P42, man, mid- 80s, lowerSB]
Filling time with worthwhile activities reflects our previous finding that older adults do not
distinguish between sitting or not sitting, instead they describe being busy or not busy, regardless
of whether they sit more or less than average (Palmer et al., 2018a). Being busy appeared to relate
to what participants perceived as good use of their time. They spoke of filling their days with a
wide range of ‘busy’ activities (many of which were done sitting down):

|
9
OLDER ADULTS - SITTING AS A MORAL PRACTICE
“I try to keep busy since retiring, joined art classes, pottery and what have you still
going on. I just like to keep busy – don't stagnate.”
[P15, woman, late- 70s, lower SB]
“I keep myself busy, I go to meetings at the church, although they're not on during
the summer months. I have six pupils I teach piano to, which takes up quite a bit of
time sorting out music and stuff, apart from the lessons.”
[P40, woman, mid- 80s, higher SB]
The emphasis on being busy creates a moral distinction, with participants highlighting that
being busy is better than having nothing to do. This suggests that the moralisation of sitting
emerged within the distinction between being busy or not busy, rather than (as has previously
been suggested) between being active or not active (Bercovitz, 2000; Dallaire et al., 2012). As the
following extract illustrates, the censure of passive (‘not busy’) sitting was reflected in the lan-
guage that participants used to describe sitting. They often used negative terms (e.g. lazy and idle)
to describe ‘sitting doing nothing’, associating passive sitting with not trying or laziness, and were
keen to stress that this did not apply to them: ‘No, I’m no lazy. I’ll not…I’m saying I am sitting but
I’m not lazy.’ [P41, woman, mid- 80s, lowerSB].
Another example of negative language was the ‘couch potato’ idiom, which reflects the
demonisation of sitting present in mass media accounts of sedentary behaviour (Knox et al.,
2015). Participants often used ‘couch potato’ to distinguish their own from more passive types
of sitting:
“I’m not a couch potato in the sense that I don’t sit on the sofa all day and watch the
television.”
[P1, man, late- 70s, lowerSB]
To further differentiate (their) ‘good’ from ‘bad’ types of sitting, many participants used pos-
itive language (e.g. enjoyment and pleasure) when describing the things they did during ‘busy’
sitting:
“Well, I just feel that reading, sometimes I get autobiographies from the library and
then maybe other times it’s a – it’s fiction right enough – but good stories, you know,
and I really get into it and enjoy it. And my sewing, I love sewing and if I start some-
thing, I have to get on with it. So that’s about it.”
[P36, woman, Mid- 80s, LowerSB]
Participants’ emphasis on enjoyment points to a type of justification that Scott and Lyman
(1968) describe as ‘self- fulfilment’. In this case, participants use the importance of the activities
they do as justification for sitting.
As well as focussing on the personal importance of some of their sedentary activities, some
participants were keen to reinforce that they rarely sat for long spells. Men, in particular, claimed
the amount of sitting in their visual feedback was unusual. Some argued that the activPALTM
monitor (from which the feedback was derived) was inaccurate:
“Well I says, oh, there’s something wrong there [with the feedback] because I do
move about; there should be more green [upright time], so these gaps […] Now

10
|
PALMER et al.
that reason may be… I don’t know if that recorder was operating in a way that
doesn’t count for me to go across there and go through and get a glass of water
and sit down again.”
[P9, man, late- 70s, higherSB]
This type of excuse is an example of what Scott and Lyman (1968) describe as an ‘appeal
to accident’ (p. 47). The men used it to shift responsibility from themselves to the technology,
which they claim did not provide a full record of the non- sitting activities they did throughout
the day.
Distancing from the sedentary other
Another way that participants (both Higher and Lower Sedentary Behaviour) rationalised (or
neutralised) their own sitting was by distancing themselves from the sedentary other (i.e. people
they perceived to sit more and/or to do things that were less worthwhile than their own sitting
activities). The shift in attention from themselves to the sedentary other is indicative of another
form of justification: ‘condemnation of condemners’ (Scott & Lyman, 1968: 51). Here, individu-
als accept that they engage with the ’deviant’ behaviour, but shift the focus from their own be-
haviour to that of others (Monaghan, 2006). Participants often used extreme examples of (‘bad’)
sitting to emphasise that there were other people who were ‘worse’ than they were: ‘[…] there's a
lot of folk just sit down, and that's it, they're not even going to try.’ [P3, woman, late- 70s, lowerSB].
Some participants drew on people they knew to illustrate how their sitting practices were dif-
ferent from (better than) others like them. In these cases, many again used extreme examples to
position their own sedentary behaviour in a positive light:
“I hear them down [at the social club], guys my age, ‘I lay on the settee all day’. I
don’t lie on the settee, I sit here [gestures to chair]. […] I hear them talking and they
never cross the door, they're couch potatoes from morning to night.”
[P35, man, mid- 80s, higherSB]
Traditional narratives of ageing were also used by some participants as a mechanism of dis-
tancing themselves from the sedentary other. In particular, they described how disease and dys-
function meant that some older people had no alternative but to sit for long periods of the day:
“I think I sit less than a lot of people. Aye, well an awful lot of people I sit less [than].
Some, especially older ones, they've got something wrong with them where they
have to sit.”
[P9, man, late- 70s, higherSB]
A few participants also used young people to exemplify the sedentary other. These accounts
reflect narratives of increased technology use that are often blamed for sedentary lifestyles
(Griffiths, 2010). This type of excuse shifted the problem of sitting away from older adults to-
wards the younger generations:
“A lot of people are couch potatoes nowadays, especially the kids. They can’t get off
their behinds; they’d rather sit and play games, you never see them. […] They’re just

|
11
OLDER ADULTS - SITTING AS A MORAL PRACTICE
in their house doing this. They’ll pay for it [in terms of their future health]; I’ll tell
you they’ll pay for it.”
[P9, man, late- 70s, higherSB]
As these examples show, many participants used negative terms (including ‘couch potato’)
to describe the sedentary other, which further differentiates their own sitting practices as ‘good’.
Distancing from the sedentary other therefore further highlights the moralisation of sitting,
with those who sit a lot or doing nothing worthwhile positioned as ‘bad’ examples of sedentary
behaviour.
People like me
A few participants, all from the Higher Sedentary Behaviour group, rationalised their own sitting
by emphasising that other people of their age sit just as much as them.
“I don't do as much as I used to do. But, I mean, there again, I'm maybe just the
same as everybody else, you know, because a lot of women think they aren't doing
so much themselves. I don't know what it is. I never seem to see many people doing
anything, you know.”
[P6, woman, Late- 70s, HigherSB]
This justification could be described as ‘contrition’ (Monaghan, 2006: 150), where individ-
uals accept responsibility for their behaviour. Here, they accept that they sit for long periods
of time but rationalise it by drawing on narratives that others like them act in the same way.
This rationalisation allows them to lessen any sense of guilt they may feel through (self- )
reassurance that their sitting is normal and thus acceptable, both to themselves and to other
people.
Ageing
References to age and ageing were common as participants tried to make sense of the sitting in
their visual feedback. The way participants described sitting activities in their daily lives reflected
their own (changing) perceptions of what is acceptable for someone of their age:
“I’m surprised that I spend so much time sitting, because I tend to think I’m more
actively upright than the average person my age”
[P1, man, late- 70s, lowerSB]
Many participants (both Higher and Lower Sedentary Behaviour) had noticed an age- related
decline in their physical activity and cited a number of reasons for this, including retirement,
health issues or limitations in their physical functioning. However, they distanced themselves
from traditional narratives of ageing (as illustrated above) and some participants also used these
narratives to justify their own sedentary behaviour, noting that at their age they were more likely
to sit: ‘I think at this time you do tend to relax more than when you were younger, you know.’ [P15,
woman, late- 70s, lowerSB].

12
|
PALMER et al.
A few participants went further, reporting that they needed to sit more as they got older and
that there was nothing they could do about it:
“I think, oh, I’ll have to sit down, or I’ll have to shut my eyes, because it's your second
childhood. […] It's just old age, really. […] You just have to accept it, do what you can,
and that's it.”
[P3, woman, late- 70s, lowerSB]
By using ageing as an excuse that appeals to biological drives in this way, participants were
drawing on the idea that there are particular ‘fatalistic’ forces, in this case biological ageing, that
to some degree control our actions (Scott & Lyman, 1968).
Resistance
While all participants provided justifications or excuses for their sitting, a few (mostly men) also
contested the dominant discourse around sedentary behaviour and health. Some felt they were
entitled to sit at certain times because they had been busy or active previously:
“maybe a Sunday, maybe, no I'm always…I feel that I could sit, because I've done…I've
burst my ass for maybe two and a half to three hours, I think you've got to sit a wee
bit and read Sunday papers and things like that, I think I deserve that.”
[P24, man, mid- 60s, lowerSB]
Accounts like this reflect what Monaghan (2006) describes as ‘repudiation’ (p. 155), where a
‘deviant’ behaviour is questioned or challenged. Participants presented ‘good reasons’ for sitting,
and whilst not entirely rejecting responsibility for their actions, used the perceived benefits of
sitting (i.e. rest and relaxation) to counterbalance some of the negative views. However, it could
be argued that such accounts reinforce the moral distinction between being active and sitting,
with sitting being seen as a reward for being active.
Other repudiation accounts were also evident. For example, one man felt the information he
had received about sedentary behaviour and health during Seniors USP simply ‘wasn't for me’
[P8, man, late- 70s, higherSB]. Two others actively challenged the idea that sitting is inherently
bad for you, with one, in particular, questioning the scientific evidence underpinning current
public health messaging:
“Well I have to say, I don't really believe your studies. […] Because the studies
are reductionist science, they look at one variable at a time, and not the context.
And yeah, so I feel like kind of, you know, the sitting thing, it's not likely to be
particularly, in the end of the day, particularly an absolutely overriding thing to
worry about.”
[P2, man, late- 70s, higherSB]
These repudiation accounts contrast the other accounts that seek to rationalise, normalise or
excuse sitting in daily life and offer a counter- narrative to the moral position of sitting within a
public health context.

|
13
OLDER ADULTS - SITTING AS A MORAL PRACTICE
DISCUSSION
Sedentary behaviour has become a clear focus of public health messaging and, like other public
health information, is framed within a discourse that encourages individuals to take responsibility
for their own health. Using an accounts approach, we unpacked the ways in which older adults
made sense of their own sedentary behaviour within the context of sitting as a moral practice. We
found that many older adults used accounts as a way of aligning their own sitting practices with
‘good’ (active/‘busy’/worthwhile) sitting, thus demonstrating their position as moral citizens.
Similar to accounts of other health behaviours, such as smoking, risky sexual behaviour
and diet (Harris, 2017; Heikkinen et al., 2010; Ven & Beck, 2009), participants in the current
study sought to rationalise their sedentary behaviour by distinguishing between different (ac-
tive/‘busy’/worthwhile vs. passive/‘not busy’) types of sitting. Accounting for sitting in this way
suggests that they viewed some types of sitting as deviant or risky, reflecting the medicalised view
of sedentary behaviour. The creation of the ‘sedentary other’ was another way that highlighted
the moralisation of sitting, with participants distancing themselves from extreme examples of
(‘bad’) sitting (i.e. sitting for long periods of time and/or doing sitting activities that were not
worthwhile). This kind of distancing from an ‘unhealthy’ other has also been observed in ac-
counts of diet (Harris, 2017) and obesity (Gray et al., 2011), and in response to diet and physical
activity health promotion campaigns (Thompson & Kumar, 2011).
As Thompson and Kumar (2011) also suggest, by distancing themselves from others whose
behaviour they viewed as deviant, the older adults in our study were seeking to highlight their
own competence in making decisions about their health and to show that they were largely in
control of their own sitting. Asserting control in this way is reflective of the wider public health
discourse whereby individuals are expected to manage their own health risk (Petersen & Lupton,
1996). It has been demonstrated that such public health messaging can create stigma around
health behaviours and practices (Thompson & Kumar, 2011; Williams & Annandale, 2018) and
does not encourage positive change (Adler & Stewart, 2009). Moreover, as others have previously
noted, focussing on individual responsibility for health, masks wider social, cultural and policy
factors that shape behaviour (Cairney et al., 2018; Tulle, 2015).
Accounts of sitting emerged as participants reflected on their own sitting practices and how
these related to their perception of self and health. They also highlight how wider social and cul-
tural expectations (particularly around age) shape how older people make sense of their sitting,
as their accounts were embedded in experiences and perceptions of ageing. In general, people
viewed traditional ageing (decline, disease and dysfunction) negatively; however, although they
were keen to distance themselves from ageing in this way, they did associate sitting more with
ageing. Older adults therefore may find themselves in a bind between appearing to be moral cit-
izens (i.e. being active) and their own bodily capabilities.
Negative views of ageing also echo previous qualitative research, which reported that older
adults felt that there was stigma associated with sitting in later life (Chastin et al., 2014; McEwan
et al., 2017). To offset these negative views, participants in the current study sought to legitimise
their sitting practices by emphasising worthwhile sitting, and their presentation of ‘good’ and
‘bad’ ways of sitting reflects the active ageing narrative that there are ‘good’ and ‘bad’ ways of
ageing (Pike, 2011). Their accounts therefore highlight how the framing of sitting within an ac-
tive ageing narrative can reproduce cultural understandings of ageing and perpetuate stereotypes
around ageing. There is therefore a need to frame sitting more positively by acknowledging that it
is part of everyday life and to avoid stigmatising those who choose to do sitting activities, or who
cannot be physically active.

14
|
PALMER et al.
We also observed some differences between men and women's accounts of sitting. Men were
more resistant to accepting their own levels of sitting and to the current sedentary behaviour
public health narratives (e.g. sitting too much is bad for your health). To some extent resistance
may reflect the relationship between traditional masculinities and health, which means that men
may be more resistant to health messages than women (Crossley, 2002). However, Robertson and
Williams (2010) also note that statements of resistance may form part of a wider narrative around
health, where men prioritise particular health behaviours over others (e.g. smoking for stress
relief). Thus, considering the broader narratives around ageing presented in their accounts, resis-
tance may be one way in which men weigh up the costs and benefits of sitting in later life.
There is a need for sedentary behaviour researchers and policymakers to reconsider public
health messaging around older adults’ sedentary behaviour. Current messaging has been criti-
cised for adopting a one- size- fits- all approach, overlooking the ability (and willingness) of people
to ‘move more’ (Cairney et al., 2018; Phoenix & Bell, 2018; Tulle, 2015). In addition, messages
around sedentary behaviour are often vague (e.g. break up prolonged periods of being sedentary
with light physical activity or standing [Department of Health and Social Care, 2019]) and rarely
accompanied by consideration of what appropriate and sustainable levels of activity may be for
different people living in different social, cultural and physical contexts (Cairney et al., 2018).
This is of particular importance for older adults, whose sitting practices are negotiated in rela-
tion to both their perceptions and lived experiences of ageing, including any (perceived) physical
restrictions that ageing may bring.
One way to address this issue might be through the development of more ‘relatable guide-
lines’ that go beyond understanding sitting simply in relation to epidemiological evidence and
recognise the lived realities and experiential expertise of older people (Phoenix & Bell, 2018).
Guidelines should move away from placing sedentary behaviour in opposition to physical activ-
ity and acknowledge that it may be challenging to build more activity into people's lives (Palmer
et al., 2018b, 2019; Phoenix & Bell, 2018). It may be more beneficial to understand how sitting
forms part of wider patterns of movement throughout the day (Phoenix & Bell, 2018), and what
shapes these patterns (e.g. energy levels, enjoyment of sitting, social structures and cultural ex-
pectations [Palmer et al., 2018a]). Guidance would therefore emphasise the positive aspects of
sitting (e.g. restorative, pleasure and cognitive) as well as movement, and advocate finding a bal-
ance between sitting and non- sitting activities that are appropriate for each individual, and can
be integrated within people's daily lives (Rawlings et al. 2019).
This study has several strengths. Being part of the larger Seniors USP project enabled us to
access a range of views by recruiting a sample of men and women (N=44) with varying levels of
objectively measured sedentary behaviour, who we were then able to group according to whether
they sat more or less than the average for their age. Examining participants’ visual feedback
during the interview provided a mechanism to elicit rich qualitative data on their sitting practices
by evoking memories that allow for deeper reflection (Kwasnicka et al., 2015). Such an approach
is particularly useful for sedentary behaviour research as some sitting activities are deeply em-
bedded in the routines of everyday life (e.g. sitting to eat and drink) and may therefore be difficult
to recall as individual behaviours (Dontje et al., 2018).
One important limitation is that involvement in the Seniors USP project with its focus on
sedentary behaviour and health may have led to the interviewees feeling they had to justify their
own sitting practices. However, the information participants received during Seniors USP was
based on public health messaging at the time, and therefore, their accounts of sedentary be-
haviour are likely to reflect the accounts other older adults would also draw on after exposure to
the messages elsewhere.

|
15
OLDER ADULTS - SITTING AS A MORAL PRACTICE
CONCLUSION
As older adults made sense of their sitting practices within the context of public health mes-
saging around sedentary behaviour, many used accounts to morally position their own sitting
as ‘good’ sitting. Some did this by placing passive sitting in opposition to more busy (sitting
and non- sitting) activities; others by demonstrating how they themselves practiced more ac-
ceptable, and what they perceived to be more worthwhile, forms of sitting. Such moralisation
of sitting also allowed many to set themselves apart from negative societal perceptions of
ageing. However, this setting apart was often at odds with older adults’ own experiences of
ageing where many reported sitting more because they were unable to do as much as they
used to. Our findings suggest that public health messages around sedentary behaviour should
move towards more relatable guidelines for older adults that consider the lived realities and
challenges of later life and the individual experiences, values and social structures that shape
them. Such guidelines which also promote positive sedentary practices, such as relaxing, so-
cialising and mental stimulation, could then be used to support older adults to find a balance
between sitting and non- sitting activities that are appropriate for them, and can be integrated
in their daily lives.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The named authors present the study on behalf of other members of the Seniors USP Team:
Simon Cox, Elaine Coulter, Iva Čukić, Philippa Dall, Ian Deary, Manon Dontje, Catharine Gale,
Jason Gill, Malcolm Granat, Carolyn Greig, Elaine Hindle, Karen Laird, Gillian Mead, Ratko
Radakovic, Naveed Sattar, Richard Shaw, John Starr and Sally Stewart. In particular, we thank all
staff and participants involved in the Lothian Birth Cohort 1936 and West of Scotland Twenty- 07
cohort studies.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION
Victoria Jane Palmer: Data curation (lead); Formal analysis (lead); Investigation (lead);
Methodology (equal); Project administration (lead); Writing- original draft (lead); Writing-
review & editing (lead). Cindy M. Gray: Conceptualization (lead); Formal analysis (lead);
Funding acquisition (equal); Methodology (lead); Supervision (lead); Writing- original draft
(lead); Writing- review & editing (equal). Claire Fitzsimons: Conceptualization (lead);
Formal analysis (equal); Funding acquisition (equal); Methodology (lead); Supervision
(lead); Writing- original draft (supporting); Writing- review & editing (equal). Nanette
Mutrie: Conceptualization (supporting); Formal analysis (supporting); Funding acquisition
(supporting); Methodology (supporting); Supervision (equal); Writing- original draft (sup-
porting); Writing- review & editing (equal). Sally Wyke: Conceptualization (supporting);
Formal analysis (supporting); Funding acquisition (supporting); Methodology (supporting);
Supervision (equal); Writing- original draft (equal); Writing- review & editing (equal). Geoff
Der: Conceptualization (supporting); Funding acquisition (equal); Resources (lead); Writing-
review & editing (supporting). Sebastien F. M. Chastin: Conceptualization (supporting);
Data curation (equal); Funding acquisition (lead); Writing- review & editing (equal). Dawn
A. Skelton: Conceptualization (lead); Funding acquisition (lead); Supervision (supporting);
Writing- review & editing (equal).

16
|
PALMER et al.
ETHICAL APPROVAL
The study was approved by the University of Glasgow College of Social Sciences Ethics Committee
(Ref: 400130247) for Twenty- 07 participants and the NHS Scotland A Research Ethics Committee
(Ref: 07/MRE00/58) for Lothian Birth Cohort participants. All participants provided written in-
formed consent.
REPRODUCTION OF MATERIAL
Not applicable.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon
reasonable request.
ORCID
Victoria J. Palmer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1060-9990
Cindy M. Gray https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4295-6110
ENDNOTES
1 Two participants did not meet the high/low sedentary behaviour criteria (Other SB). They are included in the
analysis but not in between- group comparisons.
2 Sedentary Behaviour (SB) groups were based on sedentary time thresholds from activPALTM data. For more
details of how the thresholds were calculated, see Palmer et al. (2018a).
REFERENCES
Adler, N. E., & Stewart, J. (2009). Reducing obesity: motivating action while not blaming the victim. The Milbank
Quarterly, 87(1), 49– 70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0009.2009.00547.x
Archer, M. S. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge University Press.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Sage.
Benzeval, M., Der, G., Ellaway, A., Hunt, K., Sweeting, H., West, P., & Macintyre, S. (2009). Cohort profile: west of
Scotland twenty- 07 study: health in the community. International Journal of Epidemiology, 38(5), 1215– 1223.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyn213
Bercovitz, K. L. (2000). A critical analysis of Canada's ‘Active Living’: Science or politics? Critical Public Health,
10(1), 19– 39. https://doi.org/10.1080/71365 8222
Cairney, J., McGannon, K. R., & Atkinson, M. (2018). Exercise is medicine: critical considerations in the qual-
itative research landscape. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 10(4), 391– 399. https://doi.
org/10.1080/21596 76X.2018.1476010
Chastin, S. F., Fitzpatrick, N., Andrews, M., & DiCroce, N. (2014). Determinants of sedentary behavior, motivation,
barriers and strategies to reduce sitting time in older women: a qualitative investigation. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 11(1), 773– 791. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerp h1101 00773
Chastin, S. F. M., Palarea- Albaladejo, J., Dontje, M. L., & Skelton, D. A. (2015). Combined effects of time spent
in physical activity, sedentary behaviors and sleep on obesity and cardio- metabolic health markers: A
novel compositional data analysis approach. PLoS One, 10(10), e0139984. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ
al.pone.0139984
Copeland, J. L., Ashe, M. C., Biddle, S. J., Brown, W. J., Buman, M. P., Chastin, S., Gardiner, P. A., Inoue, S., Jefferis,
B. J., Oka, K., Owen, N., Sardinha, L. B., Skelton, D. A., Sugiyama, T., & Dogra, S. (2017). Sedentary time in
older adults: a critical review of measurement, associations with health, and interventions. British Journal of
Sports Medicine, 51, 1539. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjspo rts- 2016- 097210
Crossley, M. L. (2002). Resistance to health promotion: a preliminary comparative investigation of British and
Australian students. Health Education, 102(6), 289– 299. https://doi.org/10.1108/09654 28021 0446838

|
17
OLDER ADULTS - SITTING AS A MORAL PRACTICE
Dall, P. M., Coulter, E. H., Fitzsimons, C. F., Skelton, D. A., & Chastin, S. (2017). TAxonomy of Self- reported
Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self- report
tools: content analysis and systematic review. British Medical Journal Open, 7(4), e013844. https://doi.
org/10.1136/bmjop en- 2016- 013844
Dallaire, C., Lemyre, L., Krewski, D., & Gibbs, L. B. (2012). The gap between knowing and doing: how Canadians
understand physical activity as a health risk management strategy. Sociology of Sport Journal, 29(3), 325– 347.
https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.29.3.325
Deary, I. J., Gow, A. J., Pattie, A., & Starr, J. M. (2012). Cohort profile: the Lothian Birth Cohorts of 1921 and 1936.
International Journal of Epidemiology, 41(6), 1576– 1584. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr197
Department of Health. (2011). Start Active, Stay Active: Report on physical activity in the UK.
Department Of Health And Social Care. (2019) Physical activity guidelines: UK Chief Medical Officers’ report [Online].
https://www.gov.uk/gover nment/ publi catio ns/physi cal- activ ity- guide lines - uk- chief - medic al- offic ers- report
Dietz, W. H. (1996). The role of lifestyle in health: the epidemiology and consequences of inactivity. Proceedings of
the Nutrition Society, 55(3), 829– 840. https://doi.org/10.1079/PNS19 960082
Dontje, M. L., Leask, C. F., Harvey, J., Skelton, D. A., & Chastin, S. F. M. (2018). Why older adults spend time sed-
entary and break their sedentary behavior: A mixed- methods approach using life- logging equipment. Journal
of Aging and Physical Activity, 26(2), 259– 266. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2016- 0267
Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self- identity: Self and society in the late modern age. Stanford University Press.
Gray, C. M., Hunt, K., Lorimer, K., Anderson, A. S., Benzeval, M., & Wyke, S. (2011). Words matter: a qualitative
investigation of which weight status terms are acceptable and motivate weight loss when used by health
professionals. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 513. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471- 2458- 11- 513
Griffiths, M. (2010). Trends in technological advance: Implications for sedentary behaviour and obesity in screen-
agers. Education and Health, 28(2), 35– 38.
Hamilton, M. T., Hamilton, D. G., & Zderic, T. W. (2004). Exercise physiology versus inactivity physiology: an
essential concept for understanding lipoprotein lipase regulation. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 32(4),
161. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003 677- 20041 0000- 00007
Harris, D. A. (2017). Just the “Typical College Diet”: How college students use life stages to account for unhealthy
eating. Symbolic Interaction, 40(4), 523– 540. https://doi.org/10.1002/symb.280
Harvey, J., Chastin, S., & Skelton, D. (2013). Prevalence of sedentary behavior in older adults: a systematic re-
view. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(12), 6645– 6661. https://doi.
org/10.3390/ijerp h1012 6645
Harvey, J. A., Chastin, S. F., & Skelton, D. A. (2015). How sedentary are older people? A systematic review of the
amount of sedentary behavior. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 23(3), 471– 487. https://doi.org/10.1123/
japa.2014- 0164
Heikkinen, H., Patja, K., & Jallinoja, P. (2010). Smokers’ accounts on the health risks of smoking: Why is smoking not
dangerous for me? Social Science & Medicine, 71(5), 877– 883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socsc imed.2010.05.036
Hu, F. B., Leitzmann, M. F., Stampfer, M. J., Colditz, G. A., Willett, W. C., & Rimm, E. B. (2001). Physical activity
and television watching in relation to risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus in men. Archives of Internal Medicine,
161(12), 1542– 1548. https://doi.org/10.1001/archi nte.161.12.1542
Jancey, J. M., Clarke, A., Howat, P., Maycock, B., & Lee, A. H. (2009). Perceptions of physical activity by older adults: A
qualitative study. Health Education Journal, 68, 196– 206. https://doi.org/10.1177/00178 96909 339531
Knox, E., Biddle, S., Esliger, D. W., Piggin, J., & Sherar, L. (2015). Accounting for sitting and moving: an analysis
of sedentary behavior in mass media campaigns. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 12(9), 1198– 1204.
https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2014- 0360
Kwasnicka, D., Dombrowski, S. U., White, M., & Sniehotta, F. F. (2015). Data- prompted interviews: Using indi-
vidual ecological data to stimulate narratives and explore meanings. Health Psychology, 34(12), 1191– 1194.
https://doi.org/10.1037/hea00 00234
Mañas, A., del Pozo- Cruz, B., García- García, F. J., Guadalupe- Grau, A., & Ara, I. (2017). Role of objectively measured
sedentary behaviour in physical performance, frailty and mortality among older adults: A short systematic re-
view. European Journal of Sport Science, 17(7), 940– 953. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461 391.2017.1327983
Massie, A. S., & Meisner, B. A. (2019). Perceptions of aging and experiences of ageism as constraining factors
of moderate to vigorous leisure- time physical activity in later life. Loisir Et Société / Society and Leisure, 42,
24– 42.

18
|
PALMER et al.
McEwan, T., Tam- Seto, L., & Dogra, S. (2017). Perceptions of sedentary behavior among socially engaged older
adults. Gerontologist, 57(4), 735– 744. https://doi.org/10.1093/geron t/gnv689
Monaghan, L. F. (2006). Weighty words: Expanding and embodying the accounts framework. Social Theory &
Health, 4(2), 128– 167. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgr ave.sth.8700069
Nye, R. A. (2003). The evolution of the concept of medicalization in the late twentieth century. Journal of the
History of the Behavioral Sciences, 39(2), 115– 129. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbs.10108
Orbuch, T. L. (1997). People's accounts count: The sociology of accounts. Annual Review of Sociology, 23(1), 455–
478. https://doi.org/10.1146/annur ev.soc.23.1.455
Owen, N., Sparling, P. B., Healy, G. N., Dunstan, D. W., & Matthews, C. E. (2010). Sedentary behavior: emerg-
ing evidence for a new health risk. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 85(12), 1138– 1141. https://doi.org/10.4065/
mcp.2010.0444
Palmer, V. J., Bowness, J., & Tulle, E. (2019). (Re)conceptualising physical activity participation as career. Ageing
and Society, 41(4), 936– 954. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144 686X1 9001430
Palmer, V. J., Gray, C. M., Fitzsimons, C., Mutrie, N., Wyke, S., Deary, I. J., Der, G., Chastin, S., & Skelton, D. A.
(2018). What do older people do when sitting and why? Implications for decreasing sedentary behaviour. The
Gerontologist, 59(4), 686– 697.
Palmer, V. J., Tulle, E., & Bowness, J. (2018). Physical activity and the ageing body. In S. R. Nyman, A. Barker, T.
Haines, K. Horton, C. Musselwhite, G. Peeters, C. R. Victor, & J. K. Wolff (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of
Ageing and Physical Activity Promotion (pp. 531– 549). Springer International Publishing.
Petersen, A., & Lupton, D. (1996). The new public health: Health and self in the age of risk. Sage Publications
Inc.
Phoenix, C., & Bell, S. L. (2018). Beyond “move more”: feeling the rhythms of physical activity in mid and later-
life. Social Science & Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socsc imed.2018.05.006
Pike, E. C. (2011). The active aging agenda, old folk devils and a new moral panic. Sociology of Sport Journal, 28(2),
209– 225. https://doi.org/10.1123/ssj.28.2.209
Rawlings, G. H., Williams, R. K., Clarke, D. J., English, C., Fitzsimons, C., Holloway, I., Lawton, R., Mead, G.,
Patel, A. & Forster, A.(2019). Exploring adults’ experiences of sedentary behaviour and participation in non-
workplace interventions designed to reduce sedentary behaviour: a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.
BMC Public Health, 19(1099), https://doi.org/10.1186/s1288 9- 019- 7365- 1
Ritchie, J., Spencer, L., & O’Connor, W. (2003). Carrying out qualitative analysis. Qualitative Research Practice: A
Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, 2003, 219– 262.
Robertson, S., & Williams, R. (2010). Men, Public Health and Health Promotion: Towards a Critically Structural
and Embodied Understanding. In B. Gough, & S. Robertson (Eds.), Men, Masculinities and Health: Critical
Perspectives (pp. 48– 66). Palgrave MacMillan.
Sarkisian, C. A., Prohaska, T. R., Wong, M. D., Hirsch, S., & Mangione, C. M. (2005). The relationship between
expectations for aging and physical activity among older adults. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20,
911– 915. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525- 1497.2005.0204.x
Schmidt, L., Rempel, G., Murray, T. C., Mchugh, T.- L., & Vallance, J. K. (2016). Exploring beliefs around physical
activity among older adults in rural Canada. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-
being, 11, 32914. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v11.32914
Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46– 62. https://doi.
org/10.2307/2092239
Shaw, R., Čukić, I., Deary, I., Gale, C., Chastin, S., Dall, P., Dontje, M., Skelton, D., Macdonald, L., & Der, G. (2017).
The influence of neighbourhoods and the social environment on sedentary behaviour in older adults in three
prospective cohorts. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(6), 557. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ijerp h1406 0557
Shaw, R. J., Čukić, I., Deary, I. J., Gale, C. R., Chastin, S. F., Dall, P. M., Skelton, D. A., & Der, G. (2017).
Relationships between socioeconomic position and objectively measured sedentary behaviour in older
adults in three prospective cohorts. British Medical Journal Open, 7(6), e016436. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmjop en- 2017- 016436
Shove, E., Pantzar, M., & Watson, M. (2012). The dynamics of social practice: Everyday life and how it changes.
Sage.

|
19
OLDER ADULTS - SITTING AS A MORAL PRACTICE
Tam- Seto, L., Weir, P., & Dogra, S. (2016). Factors influencing sedentary behaviour in older adults: an ecological
approach. AIMS Public Health, 3(3), 555– 572.
Thompson, L., & Kumar, A. (2011). Responses to health promotion campaigns: resistance, denial and othering.
Critical Public Health, 21(1), 105– 117. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581 59100 3797129
Tulle, E. (2015) Physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a vital politics of old age? Physical Activity and Sport in
Later Life. Springer. pp. 9– 20.
Vallance, J. K., Gardiner, P. A., Lynch, B. M., D'Silva, A., Boyle, T., Taylor, L. M., Johnson, S. T., Buman, M. P., &
Owen, N. (2018). Evaluating the evidence on sitting, smoking, and health: Is sitting really the new smoking?
American Journal of Public Health, 108(11), 1478– 1482. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304649
Van Der Ploeg, H. P., & Hillsdon, M. (2017). Is sedentary behaviour just physical inactivity by another name?
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 14, 142. https://doi.org/10.1186/s1296
6- 017- 0601- 0
Ven, T. V., & Beck, J. (2009). Getting drunk and hooking up: an exploratory study of the relationship between al-
cohol intoxication and casual coupling in a university sample. Sociological Spectrum, 29(5), 626– 648. https://
doi.org/10.1080/02732 17090 3051417
Williams, O., & Annandale, E. (2018). Obesity, stigma and reflexive embodiment: Feeling the ‘weight’ of expecta-
tion. Health, 1363459318812007.
Williams, S. J. (2003). Beyond meaning, discourse and the empirical world: Critical realist reflections on health.
Social Theory & Health, 1(1), 42– 71. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgr ave.sth.8700004
How to cite this article: Palmer, V. J., Gray, C. M., Fitzsimons, C., Mutrie, N., Wyke, S.,
Der, G., Chastin, S. F. M., Skelton, D. A., & on behalf of the Seniors USP Team Sitting as a
moral practice: Older adults’ accounts from qualitative interviews on sedentary
behaviours. Sociology of Health & Illness. 2021;00:1– 19. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1467- 9566.13383