Evolution of Cross-Cultural Analysis in the Study of Leisure: Commentary on “Culture, Self-Construal, and Leisure Theory and Practice”

Abstract

In a 1997 review of the social psychology of leisure literature, Doug Kleiber and I concluded that there was no comprehensive social psychology of cultural differences in leisure (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997, p. 27). A number of researchers at the time had raised this issue, arguing that leisure research had focused primarily on members of the dominant culture in North America and ignored cultural and ethnic differences (e.g., Floyd & Gramann, 1993). As noted by Walker, Deng, and Dieser in their paper, this issue has since been taken up by other leisure scholars (e.g., Floyd, 1998; Hutchison, 2000; Stodolska, 2000). However, I believe that the authors' paper goes some way toward correcting this lack of theory. It is important for its development of leisure theory on cultural differences and as a potential stimulant for future theory development and research.Theory and research in cross-cultural psychology has until quite recently remained on the periphery of mainstream social psychology (Matsumoto, 2000), and this is certainly the case in its application to the study of leisure. However, the importance and contributions of cross-cultural psychological analysis is gaining in recognition in mainstream social psychology, and the conceptual analysis provided by the Walker, Deng, and Dieser paper makes its contribution by introducing this type thinking to the field of leisure studies. In their paper, they illustrate this perspective by providing a highly relevant example of how an important social psychological and leisure construct, like intrinsic motivation, might operate as a basic psychological process across cultures but affect experiential and behavioral outcomes, including leisure, differently depending on cultural context.Though there has been a steady increase in interest in the ethnic and cultural dimensions of leisure in recent years, research has been largely descriptive of differences among various cultural, ethnic, and racial groups (Floyd, 1998). Researchers have focused on identifying differences in leisure constraints (e.g., Tsai & Coleman, 1999), meanings, needs and motives (e.g., Toth & Brown, 1997; Walker & Dieser, 2001; Yuan & McDonald, 1990), preferences (Shinew, Floyd, McGuire, & Noe, 1995), and behaviors (e.g., Floyd & Shinew, 1999), and how these vary in relation to recreational settings (e.g., Virden & Walker, 1999; Williams & Carr, 1993). Though some theory has been developed and tested to explain and predict these differences in leisure behavior, basic research on the actual social psychological mechanisms underlying ethnic and cultural differences in leisure remains to be done (Hutchison, 2000). It is here where I believe Walker and associates make their greatest contribution to our thinking about the cross-cultural dimensions of leisure. They illustrate how cross-cultural analysis can be used to acquire a detailed picture of not only how but why the meaning of leisure and people's reaction to it might differ from one culture to another. This development is important for two reasons. First, as the authors have noted, it is important to move beyond a description of differences to an understanding of why these differences exist. Second, the type of analysis and research discussed in the paper is a way of determining the extent to which various social psychological processes, including those involved in leisure, are culturally universal or culturally relative. Even though differences in leisure behavior, motives, and preferences for activities and settings may be found to exist, the psychological foundations of leisure (e.g., freedom of choice and intrinsic motivation) may be shown to be important regardless of culture once it is discovered how cultural values influence the underlying basic social psychological processes themselves. For example, as the authors suggest, intrinsic motivation is important to leisure for both Euro-North Americans and East Asians. …