The study begins by summarising the participant demographics and examining quantitative findings, which are then enriched and supported by qualitative insights.
Participant Characteristics
A sample of 100 older adults, ranging in age from 65 to 95 (M = 72.70, SD = 6.46), was included in the study. The age distribution of the sample was as follows: the majority of participants fell within the age range of 70 to 79 years (n = 43), followed by participants aged 65 to 69 years (n = 32), and those aged 80 to 89 years (n = 16).
Of the participants, 66 were female (66%), and 34 were male (34%). Among the 66 female participants, 18 (27.3%) reported choosing non-routine, while 48 (72.7%) chose routine. On the other hand, among the 34 male participants, 11 (32.4%) reported choosing non-routine, while 23 (67.6%) chose routine (see Figure 1). A total of 71 older adults chose routine, and 29 chose non-routine.
Based on the self-reported responses regarding the influence on individuals' routines, our sample demonstrates distinct patterns. Specifically, the findings suggest that the influence of friends (54%) predominantly leads to an increased preference for adhering to a routine. Conversely, health status (24%) appears to diminish the inclination towards routine activities. Furthermore, our analysis indicates that income (72%) does not affect the preference for routine or non-routine activities (see Figure 2).
Regarding Extraversion, the median surpassed the midpoint, suggesting a tendency towards Extraversion. Similarly, Agreeableness showed a relation where the median exceeded the midpoint, indicating a tendency towards Agreeableness. The findings for Conscientiousness also exhibited a relation where the median surpassed the midpoint, suggesting a tendency towards Conscientiousness. Neuroticism's median was equal to the midpoint, indicating a neutral level. In the case of Openness, the median exceeded the midpoint, suggesting a tendency towards Openness. Self-control demonstrated a relation where the median surpassed the midpoint, indicating a tendency towards Self-control. Conversely, Impulsivity showed a relation where the median fell short of the midpoint, suggesting a tendency towards Impulsiveness. Finally, Intolerance of Uncertainty exhibited a relation where the median was slightly below the midpoint, indicating a slightly lower Intolerance of Uncertainty within the sample (see Table 1).
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach's Alpha for Scales.
Scale
|
Items
|
Alpha (𝛼)
|
Min
|
Max
|
M
|
SD
|
MD
|
Midpoint
|
PFR
|
10
|
0.776
|
12
|
46
|
28.7
|
7.92
|
29
|
30
|
PFR-S
|
5
|
0.649
|
6
|
25
|
13.9
|
4.59
|
13
|
15
|
BFI - Extraversion
|
8
|
0.801
|
12
|
40
|
28.3
|
6.16
|
28.5
|
24
|
BFI - Agreeableness
|
9
|
0.74
|
18
|
43
|
33.8
|
5.44
|
34
|
27
|
BFI - Conscientiousness
|
9
|
0.571
|
25
|
44
|
35.7
|
4.32
|
36
|
27
|
BFI - Neuroticism
|
8
|
0.723
|
11
|
36
|
23.5
|
5.71
|
24
|
24
|
BFI - Openness
|
10
|
0.808
|
15
|
48
|
35.9
|
7.25
|
36
|
30
|
BSCS
|
13
|
0.656
|
30
|
59
|
44.9
|
6.51
|
45
|
39
|
BTI
|
30
|
0.82
|
40
|
92
|
63.9
|
9.87
|
61
|
75
|
IOU
|
12
|
0.891
|
13
|
51
|
31.5
|
8.88
|
31
|
36
|
Note: PFR - Preference for a Routine, PFR-S - Preference for a Routine - Short version, BFI- Big Five Inventory, BSCS - Brief Self-Control Scale, BTI - Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, IOU - Intolerance of Uncertainty, M - Mean, MD - Median, SD- Standard Deviation.
Regarding Extraversion, the sample tends to this trait as the median score surpassed the midpoint. Similarly, Agreeableness indicates a tendency towards higher levels of Agreeableness. The findings for Conscientiousness also indicated a tendency towards this trait. On the other hand, Neuroticism demonstrated a neutral level as its median was equal to the midpoint. Openness tended towards higher levels of this trait.
Regarding Self-Control, the sample indicated a tendency towards higher levels of Self-Control. Conversely, Impulsivity showed a propensity for more control and less impulsive behaviours. Finally, the sample demonstrated a slightly lower level of Intolerance of Uncertainty (see Table 1).
Participant Insight on Routine Preference
The decision to utilise Inductive Content Analysis (ICA) for this analysis was based on several factors. Firstly, ICA is well-suited for exploratory research, as it identifies categories and patterns directly from the data without preconceived categories or theories (53). Given the nature of the data provided, which consists of individuals' subjective responses regarding their preferences towards routine or non-routine, an inductive approach allows for an unbiased examination of the data and the emergence of content categories. Additionally, ICA provides a systematic and rigorous method for organising and categorising qualitative data, ensuring the credibility and reliability of the analysis. This approach enables a comprehensive exploration of the richness and complexity of individuals' perspectives, shedding light on the diverse reasons, emotions, and experiences related to their preferences towards routine or non-routine.
The ICA of 100 responses, using a systematic coding approach, identified six principal content categories. Three represent the routine preference group ("Motivated Autonomy," "Efficiency and Structure," and "Psychological Well-being" ), and three represent the non-routine preference group ("Unrestrained Exploration," "Emotional Discomfort," and "Resistance to Control"). Within each main category, subcategories were identified to better understand the participants' responses. Thirteen subcategories were established, seven for routine and six for non-routine preference (see Figure 3).
Routine
Seventy-one per cent of participants self-reported a preference for a routine. They were asked to answer two key questions: "Why do you prefer to have a routine?" and "How would you feel if you did not have a routine?" Through an inductive content analysis, we identified distinct categories and related subcategories that captured their motivations and emotional responses towards routine.
Motivated Autonomy. The subcategories below reflect the individual's desire for purpose, accomplishment, and personal agency. Individuals’ motivated autonomy drives their preference for a routine and the benefits it brings to their lives.
Purpose and Direction.A routine gives individuals a sense of purpose, accomplishment, and safety, allowing them to pursue their goals and feel productive.
‘Gives me a purpose to get out of bed in the morning.’
‘It gives me a sense of safety.’
‘It makes me feel productive.’
‘I prefer routine because it allows me to fulfil my day.’
‘It gives me a sense of accomplishment.’
Personalised Preference and Environmental Factors. The analysis brings to light individualised factors that contribute to a preference for routine, includingfinding it more interesting, being happier when knowing what they are doing, and experiencing peace of mind. It also includes external factors such as caring for grandchildren with autism, finding occupations during retirement, and coping with illness.
‘More interesting.’
‘I'm just happier if I know what I'm doing.’
‘It gives me peace of mind.’
‘My grandchild has autism; therefore, it helps him.’
‘It keeps me occupied during my retirement.’
‘I have to due to my illness.’
Absence of Defined Goals and Clarity.Individuals who prefer a routine (when placed in a setting where there would be no routine) emphasise the need for structure and direction in their lives, as it gives them a sense of purpose, prevents feelings of being lost or aimless, and helps them avoid potential laziness.
‘Rudderless.’
‘I feel I would have no purpose.’
‘Lost and probably very lazy.’
Efficiency and Structure. The subcategories below reflect the importance of individuals who prefer a routine place on having an organised and structured approach to their daily lives. This category captures the underlying motivation of individuals prioritising routine to maintain efficiency, organisation, and control.
Organisation and Planning. Individuals who prefer routine value having a plan, organising, and following schedules. They find that having structure and organisation helps them manage time effectively, stay motivated, and maintain stability and attentiveness throughout the day.
‘To have a plan for the day.’
‘Helps me to manage my time, get the most from the day.’
'Keeps me motivated.'
‘I like schedules.’
'It's easier to have an organised day.'
‘Keeps me stable and attentive.’
Messiness and Inefficiency. Individuals struggle with disorganisation and difficulties in concentration when their routine is disrupted, leading to disoriented, messy, and less productive feelings.
‘Disoriented.’
'Messy and disorganised.'
‘More lazy.’
‘I find it difficult to concentrate when my routine gets interrupted.’
Psychological Well-being. This category collectively highlights the impact of routine on individuals' mental and emotional states. These individuals rely on routine to alleviate these negative emotions and maintain stability.
Mental and Physical Well-being.Individuals express the importance of having a routine for maintaining mental and physical health, keeping the brain engaged, enhancing productivity, sustaining motivation, staying active, feeling connected to daily life, preserving sanity, and aiding memory by utilising tools like weekly lists.
‘For mental and physical health reasons.’
‘Keeps my brain going.’
‘Keeps me active.’
‘It keeps me in touch with everyday life.’
‘It keeps me sane.’
‘I am afraid to forget things, so a weekly list helps me remember.’
‘It's easier to remember.’
Negative Mood and Mental Health. The adverse emotional states are being experienced by individuals who prefer a routine (when placed in a setting where there would be no routine). These individuals report depression, unhappiness, anxiety, restlessness, and feeling lost or disoriented. They also express challenges with concentration, frustration, memory, and a general feeling of being overwhelmed or ineffective in managing their day.
‘Lazy and depressed.’
‘Lost.’
‘I think I would get easily bored.’
‘Disoriented.’
‘Disturbed and anxious.’
‘Hopeless and forgetful.’
‘More stressed.’
‘I would think too often that I have forgotten to do something.’
‘Anxiety that I might forget to do my tasks and take my medicine.’
Non-routine
In this study, we investigated the preferences of twenty-nine per cent of participants who self-reported a preference for a non-routine lifestyle. These participants were asked to answer two key questions: "Why do you not like having a routine?" and "How would it make you feel if you had to follow a strict routine?" Below are categories and subcategories that captured participants' reasons for avoiding routine and the emotional impact they experienced when faced with strict routines.
Unrestrained Exploration. This category captures the essence of the below subcategories, highlighting the value placed on freedom, flexibility, and the ability to explore different options and experiences.
Desire for Freedom and Spontaneity. Individuals prefer flexibility, spontaneity, and the ability to choose according to their desires, highlighting a strong desire for personal freedom and avoiding strict routines.
‘Just go with the flow.’
‘I can come and go as I please.’
‘I like being spontaneous.’
‘I prefer my freedom and doing what I want rather than what I have to.’
Preference for Flexibility and Variety.Individuals enjoy a relaxed and flexible lifestyle, a leisurely pace, a desire for changes and diversity in their daily activities, and a strong preference for freedom and being unrestricted by routines or schedules.
‘I enjoy my relaxed and flexible lifestyle.’
‘I enjoy a more leisurely pace.’
‘I like changes.’
‘I like my days being different.’
‘Because for me each day is different as I am not working now it's great freedom to be off the clock.’
Emotional Discomfort. This category encompasses the emotional challenges and negative feelings associated with the restriction and monotony imposed by a rigid routine, highlighting the impact on individuals' emotional well-being and their preference for more diverse and stimulating experiences.
Negative Emotional States.The participants felt miserable, frustrated, anxious, angry, under pressure, uneasy, and nervous when contemplating the prospect of following a strict routine, indicating potential adverse effects on their emotional well-being.
‘Miserable.’
‘Frustration and anxiety.’
‘In prison.’
‘Angry.’
‘Under pressure.’
‘Anxiety and probably depressed.’
‘Uneasy. I wouldn't like it.’
‘Nervous.’
Boredom and Monotony.Participants' sentiments of feeling bored, as if they were prisoners, and struggling with the repetitive nature of a strict routine, highlighted their aversion to monotony and the desire for more varied experiences.
‘Bored.’
‘Like a prisoner.’
‘Struggling with monotony.’
Resistance to Control. This category represents individuals' resistance and aversion to feeling controlled or constrained by structured routines.
Resistance to Structure and Planning. Individuals' aversion to feeling constrained or restricted by structured routines, as they perceive it as limiting their freedom, preferring the flexibility of making spontaneous decisions and resisting the need for schedules or to-do lists.
‘It feels like a job, I like my freedom.’
‘I prefer making last-minute decisions. I don't like to-do lists. It feels like I am under pressure.’
‘I don't like scheduled days.’
Sense of Constraint and Limitation.When faced with a strict routine, individuals' feelings of confinement, control, and restriction reflect their preference for autonomy and the ability to make independent choices.
‘Confined.’
‘Being in a cage.’
‘Feeling trapped.’
‘I would feel restricted.’
‘I wouldn't like that, I like doing things on my own.’
‘Like I am being controlled.’
Scales Validity
The internal consistencies of the scales used in the study were evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. The Preference for a Routine (PFR) scale demonstrated a Cronbach's alpha of .777, indicating acceptable internal consistency. The Preference for a Routine-Short version (PFR-S) scale exhibited a Cronbach's alpha of .649, suggesting a questionable level of internal consistency. The Big Five Inventory (BFI) subscales showed varying degrees of internal consistency, with Extraversion achieving a Cronbach's alpha of .801, indicating good internal consistency. In contrast, Agreeableness showed a Cronbach's alpha of .740, reflecting acceptable internal consistency. Conscientiousness had a poor internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of .571, suggesting some variability in the scale's items. Neuroticism obtained a Cronbach's alpha of .723, indicating acceptable internal consistency, and Openness demonstrated good internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of .808. The Brief Self-Control Scale (BSCS) yielded a Cronbach's alpha of .656, suggesting questionable internal consistency. The Brief Self-Control Scale analysis revealed that Cronbach's alpha would increase to .704 if item number 7 were deleted. The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BTI) achieved a good internal consistency with a Cronbach's alpha of .820. Finally, the Intolerance of Uncertainty (IOU) scale exhibited good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha of .891. Based on the computed Cronbach's alpha values, most scales showed acceptable internal consistency (see Table 1).
Correlation Analysis Between PRS and PRS-S
Pearson's correlation was chosen to measure the validity between the Preference for Routine Scale (PRS) and the shorter form of the Preference for Routine Scale (PRS-S) because it can examine the strength and direction of the relationship, providing insight into the extent to which the two scales measure a similar construct of preference for routine.
The relationship between PRS (M = 28.74, SD = 7.92) and PRS-S (M = 13.90, SD = 4.59) was investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient within subjects (n = 100). Preliminary analyses were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality and linearity. There was a strong positive correlation between the two scales, r = .89, n = 100, p <.001, 95% CI [0.84, 0.92], with high levels of preference for routine.
Comparison of Preference for Routine - PFR-SR vs. PFR and PFR-S
To investigate whether participants who self-reported a preference for routine and non-routine (PFR-SR) had similar scores on the measured scales (PRF and PRF-S) that assess the same construct explicitly, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The assumptions of normality, absence of outliers, and homogeneity of variance were satisfied.
The independent samples t-test showed statistically significant differences in mean scores between the groups for the PFR and PFR-S scales. For the PFR scale, the mean score for the Routine group (M= 32.34, SD = 6.06) was significantly higher than the mean score for the Non-Routine group (M = 19.93, SD = 4.12), t(98) = -10.10, p < .001. The magnitude of differences in the means (mean difference = -12.41, 95% CI: -14.85 to -9.97) was large, Cohen’s d = -2.23. Similarly, for the PFR-S scale, the mean score for the Routine group (M = 15.62, SD = 4.07) was significantly higher than the mean score for the Non-Routine group (M = 9.69, SD = 2.67), t(98) = -7.23, p < .001. The magnitude of differences in the means (mean difference = -5.93, 95% CI: -7.56 to -4.30) was large, Cohen’s d = -1.59.
Exploring Predictors of Routine Preference
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis (HMRA) was used to examine the hypothesis that personality traits may significantly predict an individual's preference for a routine (using the PFR scale). Accordingly, the first block of predictors includes personality variables, which are believed to have an inherent influence on routine preference. By incorporating these variables in the initial block, the researchers aim to evaluate their independent contribution and establish a foundation for subsequent analysis. The second block introduces Self-control, Impulsiveness, Intolerance of Uncertainty and Age to examine their impact on routine preference further.
Before interpreting the results of the HMRA, several assumptions were tested, and checks were performed. First, an inspection of the normal probability plot of standardised residuals and the scatterplot of standardised residuals against standardised predicted values indicated that the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity of residuals were met. Second, Mahalanobis distance did not exceed the critical χ2 for df = 9 (at α = .001) of 27.88 for any cases in the data file, indicating that multivariate outliers were not of concern. Finally, relatively high tolerances for all nine predictors in the final regression model indicated that multicollinearity would not interfere with our ability to interpret the outcome of the HMRA.
In step 1, personality traits (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness) accounted for a significant 43.8% of the variance in preference for routine, R2 = .438, F (5, 94) = 14.64, p < .001. In step 2, Self-control, Impulsiveness, Intolerance of Uncertainty and age were added to the regression equation, accounting for an additional 30.7% of the variance in preference for routine, ∆R2 = .307, ∆F (9, 90) = 27.06, p < .001. In combination, the nine predictor variables explained 74.5% of the variance in compliance, R2 = .745, adjusted R2 = .719, F (9, 90) = 29.19, p < .001. By Sawilowsky's (55) conventions, a combined effect of this magnitude can be considered “huge” (f2 = 2.92).
In the final model, only three control measures were statistically significant, with the Intolerance of Uncertainty recording a higher semi-partial correlation (sr = .36, p < .001) than the Impulsiveness (sr = - .19, p = .001) and the Openness (sr = - .34, p > .001). Unstandardised (B) and standardised (β) regression coefficients and squared semi-partial (or ‘part’) correlations (sr2) for each predictor on each step of the HMRA are reported in Table 2.
Table 2. Unstandardised (B) and Standardised (β) Regression Coefficients and Squared Semi-Partial Correlations (sr2) for Each Predictor in a Regression Model Predicting Preference for Routine in Older Adults.
Variable
|
B [95% CI]
|
β
|
sr2
|
Step 1
|
|
|
|
|
Extraversion
|
-0.10 [-0.31, 0.12]
|
-0.08
|
0.00
|
Agreeableness
|
-0.03 [-0.28, 0.22]
|
-0.02
|
0.00
|
Conscientiousness
|
0.44 [0.14, 0.74]
|
0.24
|
0.05
|
Neuroticism
|
0.35 [0.10, 0.59]
|
0.25
|
0.05
|
Openness
|
-0.50 [-0.70, -0.30]
|
-0.46
|
0.15
|
Step 2
|
|
|
|
|
Extraversion
|
-0.02 [-0.18, 0.14]
|
-0.02
|
0.00
|
Agreeableness
|
-0.00 [-0.18, 0.18]
|
0.00
|
0.00
|
Conscientiousness
|
-0.12 [ -0.39, 0.15]
|
-0.07
|
0.01
|
Neuroticism
|
-0.01 [-0.20, 0.18]
|
-0.01
|
0.00
|
Openness
|
-0.45 [-0.59,-0.31]
|
-0.41
|
0.11
|
Self-Control
|
0.14 [-0.03, 0.32]
|
0.12
|
0.00
|
Impulsiveness
|
-0.23 [-0.35, -0.10]
|
-0.28
|
0.01
|
Intolerance of Uncertainty
|
0.42 [0.29, 0.54]
|
0.47
|
0.04
|
Age
|
0.08 [-0.06, 0.22]
|
0.06
|
0.13
|
Note. CI - Confidence interval.
Comparison of Personality Traits, Self-Control, Impulsiveness, Intolerance of Uncertainty and Age Between Individuals Preferring Routine and Non-Routine Lifestyles.
To get a better insight into collected data, an independent samples t-test was used to determine if there were significant differences between individuals who self-reported preference for a routine and those who preferred non-routine (PFR-SR) for the predictor variables (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness, Self-Control, Impulsiveness, Intolerance of Uncertainty and Age).
For the Big Five Inventory scale, the mean Extraversion score for individuals who prefer non-routine (M = 31.28, SD = 4.46) was higher compared to those who prefer routine (M = 27.07, SD = 6.37), t(98) = 3.24, p < .001. The magnitude of differences in the means (mean difference = 4.21, 95% CI: 1.63 to 6.78) was fairly large, with Cohen’s d = .71. No significant difference was found in Agreeableness between individuals who prefer non-routine (M = 33.34, SD = 4.46) and those who prefer routine (M = 34.03, SD = 5.81), t(98) = -0.57, p = .571. Individuals who prefer routine (M = 36.80, SD = 3.78) scored significantly higher in Conscientiousness compared to those who prefer non-routine (M = 33.03, SD = 4.44), t(98) = -4.30, p < .001. The magnitude of differences in the means (mean difference = -3.77, 95% CI: -5.51 to -2.03) was large, with Cohen’s d = .95. The mean Neuroticism score was significantly higher for individuals who prefer routine (M = 24.58, SD = 5.49) compared to those who prefer non-routine (M = 20.90, SD = 5.48), t(98) = -3.05, p = .003. The magnitude of differences in the means (mean difference = -3.69, 95% CI: -6.08 to -1.28) was fairly large, with Cohen’s d = .67. Individuals who prefer non-routine (M = 39.48, SD = 5.45) scored significantly higher in Openness compared to those who prefer routine (M = 34.42, SD = 7.42), t(98) = 3.32, p < .001. The magnitude of differences in the means (mean difference = 5.06, 95% CI: 2.04 to 8.08) was fairly large, with Cohen’s d = .73.
Individuals who prefer routine (M = 46.66, SD = 5.55) scored significantly higher in Self-control compared to those who prefer non-routine (M = 40.52, SD = 6.72), t(98) = -4.72, p < .001. The magnitude of differences in the means (mean difference = -6.14, 95% CI: -8.73 to -3.56) was large, with Cohen’s d = 1.04.
The mean Impulsiveness score for individuals who prefer non-routine (M = 72.48, SD = 10.55) was significantly higher compared to those who prefer routine (M = 60.37, SD = 7.07), t(98) = 6.69, p < .001. The magnitude of differences in the means (mean difference = 12.12, 95% CI: 8.52 to 15.71) was large, with Cohen’s d = 1.47.
Individuals who prefer routine (M = 34.82, SD = 8.01) scored significantly higher in Intolerance of Uncertainty compared to those who prefer non-routine (M = 23.21, SD = 4.35), t(98) = -7.36, p < .001. The magnitude of differences in the means (mean difference = -11.61, 95% CI: -14.74 to -8.48) was large, with Cohen’s d = 1.62.
No significant difference was found in Age between individuals who prefer a routine (M = 73.48, SD = 6.45) and those who prefer a non-routine (M = 70.79, SD = 6.16), t(98) = -1.91, p = 0.06.
The HRMA and the independent sample t-tests demonstrate the characteristics of participants who prefer routine and non-routine. This model is presented in Figure 4.