Leisure Constraints Model Research Articles

Sport Participation Constraints of Malaysian University Students

The purpose of this paper is to examine the reasons that keep Malaysian university students from participating in sport activities during their leisure time. The three-dimensional leisure constraints model was used as the theoretical framework for the study. The sample consisted of 303 students from University Putra Malaysia using survey instruments based on Crawford and Godbey’s (1987) Leisure Constraints Model. The instrument is designed to measure three types of constraints to sport participation: (1) structural, (2) interpersonal and (3) intrapersonal. Data were analyzed by descriptive statistics, t-tests and ANOVA. The results suggest the subjects were constrained most by structural factors such as lack of information about existing sport activities and facilities, inconvenient facility location and inconvenient facility operating hours. Female students experienced higher levels of structural and intrapersonal constraints than their male counterparts. Implications of the findings for sport administrators were given to overcome some constraints, and increase student’s participation in sport activities.

Nature Tourism Constraints: A Cross-Activity Comparison

The purpose of this paper is to examine the reasons that keep individuals from participating in three nature-based tourism activities registering limited growth in contrast with the increasing popularity of tourism in general. The three-dimensional leisure constraints model was used as the theoretical framework for the study. The sample consisted of nature enthusiasts from several US states who showed an interest in nature tourism but did not participate in the selected activities during the last two years. Confirmatory factor analysis partially supported the three-dimensional model across the activities. Repeated measures comparisons showed that the importance of leisure constraints varied across them within the same group of individuals.

Perceived Constraints on Recreational Sport Participation: Investigating their Relationship with Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation and Amotivation

This study aimed to investigate the influence of constraint dimensions on intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation. The self-determination theory and the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivationwere used as the theoretical framework. Two hundred and fifty seven (N = 257) adult individuals (residents of the city of Thessaloniki, Greece), who reported participation in some type of sport and physical activity, completed the Sport Motivation Scale and the leisure constraints questionnaire. The results indicated that intrapersonal constraints accounted for 38% of the variance in amotivation, and 15% of the variance in intrinsic motivation. No relationships were revealed between interpersonal and structural constraints and motivation, and between constraint dimensions and extrinsic motivation. These results suggest that intrapersonal constraints act as de-motivating forces for individuals. They support elements of the hierarchical model of leisure constraints, and further clarify the role of motivation in the model. Finally, they suggest that future research should focus on the conceptualization of intrapersonal constraints, and their relations with other social and psychological mediators of motivation that have been proposed in the literature.

An Examination of Leisure Constraints, Participation in Creative Activities and Hobbies, and Leisure Boredom in a Sample of Korean Adults

A model of leisure constraints (Crawford, Jackson, & Godbey, 1991) is used as a framework for examining the level of participation in creative activities and hobbies and its relationship to leisure boredom among Korean individuals over 18 years of age. For this study, 1,014 Korean participants were recruited with an on-site survey conducted in two urban parks in the Republic of Korea. The study has been designed to investigate the relationships that exist between constraints on participation in creative activities and hobbies and the dimensions of change in participation in creative activities and hobbies, as well as the way that this relates to leisure boredom. The results of this analysis indicate that leisure constraints have an impact on the level of change in participation in creative activities and hobbies, which, in turn, serves to predict the level of leisure boredom. As expected, the results of a path analysis support the proposed leisure boredom model and account for 15% of the variation in the leisure boredom score.

Leisure Constraints: A Replication and Extension of Construct Development

This research replicates and extends previous work on leisure-constraints construct development by applying constraints data from a sample of adults with mental retardation. Factor analysis extends definitions for three constraint categories (intrapersonal, interpersonal, structural), confirming the nonhomogeneous nature of leisure constraints. Interpersonal constraints, for example, may have multiple meanings depending upon where one is situated along the continuum from dependence to interdependence to independence. Model testing fails to replicate the hypothesized hierarchy among the three constraint categories. Intrapersonal constraints may not be salient reasons for nonparticipation in leisure interests, whereas structural and interpersonal constraints appear to be in need of negotiation. The findings support the need to refine the propositions associated with the proposed hierarchical model of leisure constraints.

A Rejoinder to Henderson's and Jackson's Commentaries on “A Critique of Leisure Constraints”

It is both exciting and intimidating to engage in this dialogue with Ed Jackson and Karla Henderson. Their expertise in the area of leisure constraints is widely acknowledged and their reviews evoke critical questions about our article. Since the main point of this exchange is to raise issues for reflection, we will respond only in general terms to some basic points in their commentaries. Jackson noted some ambivalence in our article, pointing out that we interpret our data as evidence of leisure constraints while also rejecting that interpretation as being too limited. This ambivalence is intentional and reflects our attempt within this paper to capture the processes by which we came to these understandings. Part I data analysis was initially written and submitted as a conference presentation that offered support for leisure constraints. During the four months between acceptance of that paper and the conference itself, our own thinking evolved into a radically different under standing of these data. In fact, when the proceedings were released we did not recognize our own abstract that we had written four months earlier! In this paper we tried to parallel the unfolding nature of that understanding. The ambivalence that Jackson noted is real, in part because the process took us from one understanding to another as we worked our way through the data. But also, by intentionally showing how our data support the leisure constraints framework we hoped to illustrate the vagaries of theoretical interpretation. Our intent was to raise questions rather than to offer answers. Both Henderson and Jackson criticize us for relying too heavily on an older model of leisure constraints and not effectively representing the more recent literature which conceptualizes constraints much more broadly. That may be a major fault in our paper, which was initially drafted in 1992 when the Crawford, Jackson and Godbey (1991) model was still current. However, we feel our discussion would be substantively the same even if it were premised upon the more recent literature. Contemporary discussions of leisure constraints still encourage us to understand people's leisure by viewing it as a process of encountering and negotiating threats and constraints. Whether we used an older model or the more recent literature, we would still reach the conclusion that this perspective seems limited for understanding the breadth of factors that shape people's leisure choices. We have a serious concern about how the original discussions of leisure constraints have evolved to encompass too much. Jackson himself refers to this as the Pacman problem, suggesting that the constraints model eats and incorporates everything that gets in its path. It is ironic, then, that Henderson and Jackson accuse us of using a narrow interpretation of leisure constraints that focuses only on participation. In our view, the broader conceptualizations that they prefer (relating constraints to factors that shape preference or experience) would simply magnify our concern. It was troubling enough when leisure in the presence of constraints was viewed as evidence of successful constraint negotiation; now it appears that our leisure preferences and experiences are, themselves, the consequence of constraints or constraint negotiation. The all-encompassing and irrefutable nature of this claim illustrates how the constraints framework has evolved into a pervasive system of beliefs that shape and filter the way that many researchers see every aspect of leisure. …

A Critique of Leisure Constraints: Comparative Analyses and Understandings

This paper reports two separate analyses based on interviews in which people talked about the factors that shaped leisure within their everyday lives. In the first analysis, researchers used the leisure constraints model of Crawford, Jackson and Godbey (1991) and sought examples of structural, interpersonal and intrapersonal constraints. That analysis seemed to confirm the existence of leisure constraints and constraint negotiation in people's everyday lives; however, it also missed many of the dynamic factors that shaped and influenced these people's leisure choices. The researchers then returned to the data and used constant comparative analysis in order to capture the factors that best described the way these people made decisions about their leisure. A comparison of these two analyses is the basis for discussion and critique of leisure constraints as a framework for understanding factors that influence people's leisure choices and behavior.

Perception of Constraints and Strength of Motivation: Their Relationship to Recreational Sport Participation in Greece

This study, based on Crawford, Jackson and Godbey's (1991) hierarchial model of leisure constraints, aimed to: (a) investigate the influence of constraints dimensions on recreational sport participation; (b) empirically test the “balance” proposition, by investigating the relationships between perception of constraints dimensions and strength of motivation for participation. The data were collected via a self-administered household questionnaire survey in an urban area in Greece. The results indicated that: (1) the constraints dimensions offered a significant contribution towards the prediction of participants and non-participants; (2) the individual/psychological lack of interest, lack of knowledge and time dimensions were the best predictors for distinguishing between participants and non-participants; (3) the strength of motivation was found to be negatively related to the perception of constraints, supporting the “balance” proposition.

An analysis of leisure constraints based on different recreational sport participation levels: Results from a study in Greece

What constraints are experienced by a sample of the Greek population when participating in recreational sport activities? An attempt was made to answer this question by using data collected by a household survey conducted in an urban area in Greece. The study aimed specifically to investigate (a) constraints on recreational sport participation, as experienced by a sample of the Greek population; (b) the relationship between constraint dimensions (derived by a principal component analysis) and sport participation or nonparticipation; and (c) the relationship between constraint dimensions and frequency of sport participation. The results indicated that (a) the most important perceived constraints were time and facilities‐ or services‐related problems; (b) nonparticipants were significantly more constrained than participants, particularly in the intrapersonal dimension; and (c) perception of constraints decreased with the level of participation. The study provides support of the hierarchical model of leisure constraints (Crawford, Jackson & Godbey, 1991); intrapersonal constraints were shown to be significantly related to sport participation or nonparticipation. Moreover, the results suggest that there are similarities between the perceptions of constraints of the Greek sample and those of participants in previous North American research, despite the different cultures and recreational provision. The implications of these results are discussed in terms of the hierarchical model of leisure constraints, and the importance and removal of intrapersonal constraints, service provision, and cross‐cultural comparisons.