Leisure motivation revisited why people recreate

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmle20Download by: [Universidad Nacional Colombia]Date:20 March 2016, At: 05:17Managing LeisureISSN: 1360-6719 (Print) 1466-450X (Online) Journal homepage: /loi/rmle20Leisure motivation revisited: why people recreateJohn E. Dillard & Donald L. BatesTo cite this article: John E. Dillard & Donald L. Bates (2011) Leisure motivation revisited: why people recreate, Managing Leisure, 16:4, 253-268, DOI: 10.1080/13606719.2011.613624To link to this article:/10.1080/13606719.2011.613624Published online: 16 Nov 2011.Submit your article to this journalArticle views: 1688View related articlesCiting articles: 1 View citing articlesLeisure motivation revisited:why people recreateJohn E.Dillard and Donald L.BatesCollege of Business,University of Houston Downtown,USAThe concepts of leisure and recreation have been studied at great length over the past 50years.In this study,the authors explore whether a unified theory of leisure/recreation is possible and,if so,what elements are essential to answer the question of ‘why people recreate’.Utilizing a two-stage research methodology (qualitative and quantitative),the authors discovered four core values/motivations for leisure/recreation.These are:(1)escape;(2)enhancing relationships;(3)per-sonal mastery;and (4)winning.A perceptual map of leisure/recreation identified two anchor sets:(1)‘activity participation’(self versus with others);and (2)‘benefit attained’(the experience versus the results).The ‘benefit attained’axis is a significant differentiator between leisure/recreation partici-pants,particularly on the demographics of income and gender.The results side is more predomi-nantly male and high income.The proposed unified theory can help leisure managers to understand their markets and position their products and services to meet the needs of their markets.Keywords:leisure,recreation,motives,benefitsINTRODUCTIONThe concepts of leisure and recreation have been the subject of considerable debate and research during the past 50years.On the debate side,significant attention has been focussed on attempting to define and conceptualize leisure.One of the early schools of thought regarding a framework for leisure and one embraced by most modern sociologists equates leisure directly with free time (Smigel,1963).In contrast to this framework is the notion that leisure occurs during free time,but not all free time qualifies as leisure (de Grazia,1964;Pieper,1952).Kaplan (1960),in one of the earliest multi-variate research approaches to the study of leisure,incorporated the following seven essential elements in his definition of leisure:(1)an anti-thesis to work as an economicfunction;(2)a pleasant expectation andrecollection;(3)a minimum of involuntary social-roleobligations;(4)a psychological perception offreedom;(5)a close relation to the values of theculture;(6)the inclusion of an entire range frominconsequence and insignificance to weightiness and importance;(7)often,but not necessarily,an activitycharacterized by the element of play.Neulinger (1974)postulated that leisure had but two dimensions:(1)perceived freedom,i.e.the activity had to be undertaken freely,without constraint or compulsion and (2)intrinsic motivation,the concept that satis-faction arises from engaging in the leisure activity itself (not in some pay-off from the activity).Mannell (1980),Unger (1984),and Shaw (1985)all found an empirical supportManaging Leisure ISSN 1360-6719print /ISSN 1466-450X online #2011Taylor &Francis/10.1080/13606719.2011.613624Managing Leisure 16,253–268(October2011)D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i d a d N a c i o n a l C o l o m b i a ] a t 05:17 20 M a r c h 2016for perceived freedom as an essential com-ponent of leisure while Iso-Ahola (1979a,1979b)discovered a strong support for both tenets of Neulinger’s theory.Neulinger’s work led researchers down the path of attempting to more clearly identify which attributes of an activity defined leisure as leisure.Samdahl (1991)found that leisure provided the opportunity to explore and understand one’s true self and to develop self-identity.Henderson (1990)and Lee et al.(1994)confirmed what was widely speculated,i.e.that leisure provided a posi-tive mood and lessened tension.Gunter (1987)discovered that leisure provided a sense of adventure,spontaneity,fantasy,and lack of awareness of the passage of time.A second set of researchers focussed on the leisure experience itself,the idea being that if one understands the nature and quality of the leisure experience,that this best defines leisure.Csikszentmihalyi (1975)interviewed subjects engaged in several types of leisure activities and found the most rewarding leisure experiences were considered challenging and ones where the participants lost track of time.Because a significant portion of a person’s leisure time occurs as part of everyday life,Larson and Csikszentmihalyi (1983)devel-oped the experiential sampling method (ESM)as a way to better define leisure.The ESM was designed to capture the full range of perceptions and feelings in both work and leisure settings.In a typical experiment,respondents carried electronic pagers with them for several days.During each day,they would be ‘beeped’several random times at which time they would answer a brief series of questions regarding their current activity,including such things as their psychological state,the social context,and the physical context.Mannell et al.(1988)and Samdahl (1988)utilized the ESM to explore the experiential outcomes of conditions predicted to foster optimal leisure states while Larson et al.(1986)utilized the ESM to evaluate leisure activities as a context for social relationships.Samdahl and Jekubovich (1993)utilized the ESM to determine when,where,and in what settings their subjects viewed their activities as leisure.Of significant interest,it was discov-ered that respondents actively organized themselves and their lives to make room for leisure experiences.Stebbins (1982,1997)distinguished between ‘casual’and ‘serious’leisure,the former being fairly short experiences that required little or no training,while the latter were more in the hobbyist or pursuit categories.Serious leisure/recreation capti-vates its participants with its complexities,nuances,and challenges.At the same time that leisure was being refined from definitional and conceptual standpoints,other researchers were pushing the study of leisure in other direc-tions.One of the central concerns to emerge as a focal point in leisure research was to understand the motivations that individuals have for participating in leisure/recreational activities.Maslow (1954)theo-rized at a macro level that everyone pos-sesses only five types of needs which occur in a hierarchy of importance.The lowest needs are physiological needs followed by safety/security needs,belongingness/love needs,ego/self-esteem needs,and,finally,self-actualization needs.Maslow’s theory was simply that these needs pertained to all aspects of life (leisure and recreation included)and an individual progressed through the hierarchy in a systematic fashion,i.e.once lower level needs are met and satisfied,an individual’s behavior is influenced by the next highest level of needs.Even though Maslow’s theory has been difficult to substantiate empirically (Steers and Porter,1991;Wahba and Brid-well,1976),Mannell and Kleiber (1997)report that Maslow’s theory is referred to fre-quently by leisure theorists and provides a framework for determining when and under254Dillard and BatesD o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i d a d N a c i o n a l C o l o m b i a ] a t 05:17 20 M a r c h 2016what conditions,leisure/recreation becomes an important issue to individuals.Tinsley and Kass (1978)discovered 44leisure/recreation needs that could be com-bined and reduced to eight general cat-egories of motivation:(1)self-expression,(2)companionship,(3)power,(4)compensation,(5)security,(6)service,(7)intellectual estheticism,(8)solitude.The recreation experience preference (REP)scales (Driver,1977,1983)were developed primarily to assist managers of outdoor recreation areas understand the needs of visitors to these areas and to measure the dimensions of peoples’recreation experi-ence.Originally,Driver constructed 39REP scales which were eventually reduced to 19categories.Manfredo et al.(1996)further reduced the 19categories to 11,as follows:(1)achievement,(2)autonomy,(3)similar people,(4)new people,(5)learning,(6)enjoying nature,(7)introspection,(8)social escape,(9)physical escape,(10)teaching,(11)risk reduction.Rosenthal et al.(1982)took the 39REP scales and found that only eight were important to recreationists utilizing natural and wilder-ness areas.It raised the question as to whether motivation(s)for leisure/recreation activity varied from activity to activity.In the early 1980s,two scales that have subsequently undergone considerable testing were developed.Beard and Ragheb (1980,1983)constructed the leisuremotivation scale that proffers four motiva-tional domains –an intellectual domain (the need to engage in a learning experi-ence),a social domain (the need for friend-ship and respect),a mastery domain (the need for challenge and achievement),and an escapism domain (the need to get away from overstimulating experiences).At almost the same time,Unger and Kernan (1983)formulated the subjective leisure scale (SLS)consisting of 26items,represent-ing six domains.These six domains were:intrinsic satisfaction,perceived freedom,arousal,mastery,involvement,and sponta-neity.Neal et al.(1999)performed a compre-hensive validation of the SLS.In the 1990s,Tinsley and Eldredge (1995),utilizing the paragraphs about leisure (PAL)questionnaire (each scale of the PAL consists of a brief description regarding the satisfac-tion of a specific psychological need)for 3771participants,uncovered 10significant leisure/recreation activity motives,namely:(1)novelty,(2)belongingness,(3)service,(4)sensual enjoyment,(5)cognitive stimulation,(6)self-expression,(7)creativity,(8)competition,(9)vicarious competition,(10)relaxation.Finally,Iso-Ahola (1982,1989)postulated that there are only two motivational dimen-sions to leisure/recreation behavior –escape and seeking.Escape includes getting away from both personal and interpersonal (work)elements.The satisfaction from the seeking aspect can also contain personal and interpersonal components.Personal involves the satisfaction around such elements as competence,challenge,and relaxation.Interpersonal satisfaction in the seeking dimension might include social contact with friends and/or family.Leisure motivation revisited255D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i d a d N a c i o n a l C o l o m b i a ] a t 05:17 20 M a r c h 2016The preceding sections demonstrate the total lack of consensus in the theoretical underpinnings of both the definition of leisure/recreation and the motivational aspects of participation.The simple question,‘why do people engage in leisure activity/recreate?’has no standard theoretical para-digm with which to structure an answer.Despite the considerable ambiguity that existed in the literature as the 1990s was drawing to a close,leisure and recreation motivation research faded away to be replaced by newer concepts such as leisure benefits and leisure constraints theory.Searle (2000)and Samdahl and Kelly (1999)both conjectured that unified theory (and theory in general)was severely lacking in the leisure/recreation field.The purpose of this research is twofold:1.to reopen the evaluation of leisure/recreation motivation and2.to explore whether a unified theory of leisure/recreation is possible and,if so,to determine what elements are essential to answer the question of ‘why people recreate’.For leisure professionals,these questions are fundamental:decision-making in leisure provision needs to be serviced by knowledge of what motivates leisure participants.RESEARCH METHODOLOGYA two-stage research methodology was employed for this research.Stage 1was a qualitative stage consisting of 500telephone interviews.A random list of 75,000US auto-motive owners and lessors served as the initial data list for both stages of this research.A quota sampling technique was utilized to ensure participation across several relevant variables,as follows:(1)age;(2)gender;(3)marital status;and (4)race.Additionally,each subject was screened to meet the following criteria:(a)they had tohave been employed continuously over the past 12months;(b)household income had to be at least $30,000;and (c)they had to have taken at least one vacation in the past 18months.Each qualified subject was asked the following question:‘consider all leisure/recreational activities that you might engage in during your leisure time.What are the most important considerations for you as a prerequisite for engaging in these activities?’Table 1summarizes the responses obtainedTable 1Recreation/Leisure Inventory (RLI)ItemsRelaxing Being aloneEngaging in strenuous activity Socializing with friends Meeting new people Reducing tensionPushing oneself through competition Taking risks Losing oneself CompetingBroadening one’s horizons ExercisingReaching highest potentialEngaging in non-strenuous activity Family activityPushing one’s personal limits/pushing the envelope Getting away from one’s busy life Challenging one’s abilities Feeling refreshedMaking the family closerStaying connected to outdoors Exploring new places Intellectual stimulationBeing a role model for/playing with my children Building self-confidence Bonding with friendsBecoming more accomplished/better at activity Escaping one’s social life Releasing frustration Feeling less irritable Keeping score Self-improvement Enjoying naturePersonal growth and development Being challenged256Dillard and BatesD o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i d a d N a c i o n a l C o l o m b i a ] a t 05:17 20 M a r c h 2016in Stage 1qualitative and serves as the basis for Stage 2of the research.Stage 2consisted of two steps.First,1500subjects were recruited to participate in an on-line survey with screening identical to Stage 1(anyone telephoned in Stage 1was eliminated from Stage 2);these 1500subjects were then directed to a dedicated website,where they could complete a questionnaire.The questionnaire had two parts.Part 1asked the respondents to indicate the impor-tance of each of the items in Table 1on a scale of one to seven where seven was very important and one was not important at all.Part 2asked the respondents to identify the single item that was the most important reason for their participation in leisure/recreation activities and to explain briefly their philosophy of leisure/recreation.Because Stage 2survey took 10–15min to complete and there was no incentive offered to complete the survey,it was antici-pated that there would be a significant amount of drop-off/abandonment of survey completion.The objective was to obtain at least 500completed surveys as had been done in Stage 1.Of the 1500original recruits,622completed a useable questionnaire.The demographics of the 622participants did not differ significantly from the original group of 1500subjects.RESULTSRespondents were asked to rate the similarity of several pairs of recreational/leisure activities.Through multidimensional scaling,a vertical dimension of ‘activity participation’emerged (self versus with others)while a horizontal dimension regard-ing the ‘benefit attained’by the participant (experience versus results)became appar-ent.Figure 1illustrates this perceptual map for all respondents across all activities.Table 2summarizes the demographic elements of the participants.Utilizing factor analysis on the recreation/leisure items presented in Table 1,four core recreational values/motivations were discov-ered along with two sub-values/motivations.The core value model is summarized in Figure 2while Table 3summarizes the rotated factor matrix (all values below 0.3are suppressed)for the recreational/leisure items in Table 1.As can be seen in Figure 2,the four core values are escape,enhancing relationships,personal mastery,and winning.Within two of the core values,a sub-value/motivation emerged.In personal mastery,there was a self-actualizer sub-value which extended personal mastery to ‘reach one’s highest potential’.Additionally,in winning,a play hard sub-value was discov-ered.This sub-value revolves around ‘pushing one’s personal limits to the extreme’.DISCUSSIONThere are several vantage points from which to view these findings.The first question is to what extent do the core values/motivations mesh with previous findings?Interestingly,almost every previous researcher has found one or more of the values but no one uncov-ered all of them.Additionally,the value/motivation of ‘winning’appears to be com-pletely new although Tinsley and Eldredge (1995)identified ‘competition’as one of their 10motives.However,competition and winning,while perhaps related are by no means the same.Further,while some of Tinsley and Eldredge’s other identified motives might fit in the realm of ‘escape’(e.g.relaxation,sensual enjoyment,cognitive stimulation,novelty,and creativity),per-sonal mastery and enhancing relationships are largely ignored.Unger and Kernan (1983)identify mastery and,perhaps,touch on enhancing relationships with ‘involve-ment’but none of the other core values/motivations.Beard and Ragheb (1980,1983)perhaps come closest with ‘escapism’andLeisure motivation revisited257D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i d a d N a c i o n a l C o l o m b i a ] a t 05:17 20 M a r c h 2016‘mastery’domains,though their mastery domain has the element of challenge in it.Their ‘social’domain lacks any family com-ponent while their ‘intellectual’domain would seem to fit more under the core value/motivation of personal mastery.Driver’s (1977,1983)REP scales have some aspects of the core values/motivations represented.For example,escape is at least partially addressed through ‘enjoying nature’,‘introspection’,‘autonomy’,‘social escape’,and ‘physical escape’;personal mastery is at least related to ‘achievement’but it is difficult to discern any of the other core values/motivations in the REP scales.Of the eight categories of motivation pro-posed by Tinsley and Kass (1978),only ‘com-panionship’and ‘solitude’might touch the core values/motivations in Figure 2.And finally,Iso-Ahola’s (1982,1989)model,while identifying ‘escape’as one of two motiva-tional dimensions,would seem to oversim-plify the balance of leisure/recreation core values/motivations by putting everything else under the dimension of ‘seeking’.Each respondent was ‘scored’into one of the four leisure/recreation core values/motivations.Figure 3illustrates the size of each core value.The largest corevalue/Fig.1.Recreation/Leisure Perceptual MapTable 2Participant Demographics Category Sample size%Age22–3920933.6041–6027744.5360+13621.86Total 622100.00Gender Male 46073.95Female 16226.05Total 622100.00Marital status Married 44671.70Single 17628.30Total 622100.00Race White 45372.83Non-white 16927.17Total622100.00HH income$30,000–74,99932151.61$75,000–124,99916426.37$125,000–174,9999615.43$175,000+41 6.59Total622100.00258Dillard and BatesD o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i d a d N a c i o n a l C o l o m b i a ] a t 05:17 20 M a r c h 2016motivation is ‘enhancing relationships’with 33.9%.This is more than twice the size of the smallest core value/motivation ‘winning’(15.9%).If we divide the core values/motiv-ations axes and compare halves,an interesting finding emerges.There are no differences demographically between those who are inner directed versus those who are outer directed.However,the ‘results driven’(right-hand)side of the model is dis-tinctly more male and has significantly higher income than the ‘experience driven’(left-hand)side.Table 4below highlights these differences and illustrates that over 90%of the results driven side of the percep-tual map is male and that a substantially higher proportion of high-income house-holds are on the right-hand side.Finally,the question of whether specific leisure/recreational activities fall into specific core values must be addressed.The answer is yes and no.There are many activities that would appear on the surface to be heavily influenced by a single core value.For example,walking,fishing,andbackpacking/hiking would seem to be linked to the core value of escape;camping and bowling would seem more about enhan-cing relationships;skiing and golf might be best linked to personal mastery;and pro/college football and soccer would ultimately be about winning.But ultimately,the core value is aligned with the individual such that,for example,the same activity might be in any of the core values/motivations.A simple example of this is golf.It ’s an escape for some individuals,a social or family event for others,something to be mas-tered for others,and all about winning the bet on the 18th hole for others.CONCLUSIONSThe two initial purposes of this research were to:(1)reopen the evaluation of leisure/recreation motivation and (2)explore whether a unified theory of leisure/recreation is possible.Several significant findings emerged,asfollows:Fig.2.Leisure/Recreation Core Values/MotivationsLeisure motivation revisited 259D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i d a d N a c i o n a l C o l o m b i a ] a t 05:17 20 M a r c h 2016(1)the perceptual map of leisure/recrea-tion motivation identifies two anchor sets:(1)‘activity participation’–inner (self)versus outer (others)directed and (2)‘benefit attained’–experience versus results driven.The experience/results axis is a significant differentiator between leisure/recrea-tion participants particularly on the demographics of income and gender.Table 3Rotated Factor Matrix of Recreational/Leisure Items From Table 1Leisure motivationsFactor 1Factor 2Factor 3Factor 4Escape Enhancing relationshipsPersonal masteryWinningRelaxing 0.860.34Being alone0.71Engaging in strenuous activity 0.55Socializing with friends 0.91Meeting new people 0.46Reducing tension0.69Pushing oneself through competition 0.89Taking risks 0.66Losing oneself 0.77Competing0.92Broadening one’s horizons 0.390.46Exercising0.56Reaching highest potential0.73Engaging in non-strenuous activity Family activity0.88Pushing one’s personal limits/pushing the envelope0.82Getting away from one’s busy life 0.82Challenging one’s abilities Feeling refreshed0.65Making the family closer0.81Staying connected to outdoors 0.64Exploring new places 0.58Intellectual stimulation0.47Being a role model for/playing with my children0.77Building self-confidence 0.57Bonding with friends0.84Becoming more accomplished/better at activity0.92Escaping one’s social life 0.83Releasing frustration 0.65Feeling less irritable 0.57Keeping score 0.94Self-improvement 0.84Enjoying nature0.49Personal growth and development0.73260Dillard and BatesD o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i d a d N a c i o n a l C o l o m b i a ] a t 05:17 20 M a r c h 2016The results side is more predomi-nantly male and high income;(2)the analysis identifies four leisure/recreation core values/motivations;these are escape,enhancing relation-ships,personal mastery,and winning.From a size standpoint,the enhancing relationships is the largest core value/motivation at 33.9%,while the winning core value/motivation was the smal-lest at 15.9%.Additionally,within two of the core values,a sub-value/motiv-ation was discovered.In personal mastery,there was a self-actualizer sub-value which extended personal mastery to ‘reach one’shighestFig.3.Size of the Leisure/Recreation Core Values/MotivationsTable 4Experience Driven Versus Results Driven:Selected DemographicsCategoryOverall sampleOverall (%)N =398N =224Experience driven (%)Results driven (%)Gender Male 46074.064.690.6Female 16226.035.49.4Total622100.0100.0100.0HH income$30,000–74,99932151.668.621.4$75,000–124,99916426.424.130.4$125,000–174,9999615.4 5.333.5$175,000+41 6.6 2.014.7Total622100.0100.0100.0Leisure motivation revisited 261D o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i d a d N a c i o n a l C o l o m b i a ] a t 05:17 20 M a r c h 2016potential’.Additionally,in winning,a play hard sub-value was discovered.This sub-value revolves around ‘pushing one’s personal limits to the extreme’.The core value/motivation of winning is new and has not been reported to the authors’knowledge in other leisure/recreation motivation research findings;(3)leisure/recreational activities are notsingle core value specific.To specifically address the unified theory aspect,the 41motivations reported in the lit-erature review were evaluated and matched against the four (4)core values discovered in this research.Table 5summarizes the matching effort.As can be seen,each of the 41motivations previously cited does poten-tially fit in one or more of the four core values.While additional research is certainly required,there is at least some face validity for the notion that a unified theory of leisure and recreation is possible.MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONSAt any level of recreational management (strategic to operational)in any type of organization (profit/non-profit or product producing/facilities provision),these find-ings have utilitarian value because they enhance a manager’s knowledge base in two major ways:first,there is significant vali-dation of previous findings regarding the motivations for leisure/recreation and second,it adds to a manager’s understand-ing of the population they want to serve by uncovering and tying together all of the rec-reational core values/motivations.This permits the leisure manager at the strategic level to first,determine the relative size of the segment(s)they target to serve and,hence,determine the capacity they should plan for,and second,position their rec-reational opportunities,albeit a product,e.g.a boat or facility,e.g.park,to matchthe core needs/motivation of the target market.Let us briefly examine how a manager might utilize the findings of this research to better understand and/or target his market and customers.Hypothetical Company A currently produces a small line of boats tar-geted primarily at families with pany A’s advertising and sales materials all picture families and family activities on the pany A’s total relevant market is 15,500units of which they cur-rently have a 10%market share (1550units).Management at Company A is wonder-ing how they might grow their market share,but is somewhat uncertain as to proper direction.Management could take either or both of the approaches below.Approach 1The core value sizes of the current market can be projected utilizing the percentages in Figure 3.Table 6illustrates the breakdown of Company A’s total market using this approach.As can be seen,Company A cur-rently has approximately a 29.5%share (1550/5255)of the ‘enhancing relationships’segment.Growth could potentially come by expanding into the ‘socializing with friends’sub-segment of ‘enhancing relationships’or by moving into the new core value ‘escape’.This approach,while useful at a macro level,includes no real market data and/or competitive insights.Approach 2The second approach would actually incor-porate market data into the process.Table 7is a sample data collection instrument that could be handed out or made available at Company A’s exhibit/booth at one or more boat/trade shows with the following instructions:‘we are currently gathering some data on what are the important con-siderations in leisure/recreation activities.Below are six statements.Put an X next to262Dillard and BatesD o w n l o a d e d b y [U n i v e r s i d a d N a c i o n a l C o l o m b i a ] a t 05:17 20 M a r c h 2016。