Dr. Carlton F. Yoshioka, Professor
Arizona State University
Department of Recreation Management and Tourism
P.O. Box 874905
Tempe, Arizona 85287-4905
E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org .
Dr. Ralph Nilson, Professor and Dean
University of Regina
Faculty of Physical Activity Studies
Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada S4S OA2
Dr. Steven Simpson, Associate Professor
(former Fulbright Scholar in the Department of Geography
at the National Taiwan University)
University of Wisconsin/La Crosse
Department of Recreation Management and Therapeutic Recreation.
E-mail: email@example.com .
Keywords: cross-cultural, desired psychological benefits,
During the past two decades, there has been increased research interest in the activity of leisure1 and the importance of leisure as it impacts society. The efforts of these scholars have made it increasingly clear that leisure represents an important cultural aspect of national and community life. Kraus (1994) describes the role of leisure in two ways: (a) as a mirror that reflects the national character and cultural values of society; and (b) as a significant force in shaping and changing culture of a society. One study (United Media Enterprises, 1982) reported Americans spent more than half their free time in front of their home television set that is classified as the new American Hearth or Fireplace--a center for family activities, conversation and companionship. Unfortunately, the recent dominance of television and other media related activities reflect and influence society's values, both positive and negative.
More recently, some scholars have started to investigate the psychological need-fulfilling benefits of leisure participation. Since the turn of this century, psychologists have been aware of the impact of an individual's job on mental health and overall life satisfaction. In contrast, Tinsley, Barrett and Kass (1977) noted that little theory development and research has been done on the effects of leisure activity on mental well-being, work and life satisfaction. One model utilized by current leisure scholars (Driver, Tinsley & Manfredo, 1991) is based on the theme that the benefits of leisure occur in a sequenced chain of causality, with many specific benefits (e.g., companionship, achievement or stimulation) serving as intermediate outcomes that need to be met prior to gratification of more holistic human needs (e.g., personal growth, self esteem). From this perspective, leisure is then considered an important factor in helping people meet basic psychological needs, especially those that are not attained in work related opportunities. This study attempts to understand individual behavior as it compares the desired psychological benefits of leisure across a selected sample of North American, Canadian, Japanese, and Taiwanese college students.
Cross-Cultural Analysis Of Leisure Behavior
Empirical research has examined the variation of leisure and recreation behavior across cultural and ethnic groups for several decades (Edwards, 1981; Hutchison & Fidel, 1984; Washburne, 1978; Yancey & Snell, 1976). Various theoretical approaches to cultural variation in recreation and sport participation have been offered, these include: (a) the socio-economic and demographic approach that connect similarities and differences of groups to social class determinants (Burdge, 1969; Harry, 1971); (b) the second approach of marginality suggests that the difference in leisure participation is explained by the differential access to recreation opportunities and resources due to lower discretionary income of certain cultural groups and the inequitable distribution of recreation facilities and resources by the public sector (Bultena & Field, 1978; White, 1975); and (c) the last approach, the ethnicity theory, proposes a set of cultural patterns of a subculture that are different from the majority of the dominant population (Edwards, 1981; Hutchison, 1987; Washburne, 1978; Stamps & Stamps, 1985).
More recently, research has turned to understanding the nature and meaning of leisure from a cultural and ethnic group perspective (Hutchison, 1988; Irwin, Gartner & Phelps, 1990). The majority of ethnic research has focused on the black versus white racial differences. However, little research has been published that extends and relates to the behavioral understanding of leisure of different cultures and nationalities (Allison, 1988; Roberts & Olszewska, 1989). Studies based on a cultural perspective usually consist of comparative analyses of differences in recreation patterns between groups across different countries (Szalai, 1966; Robinson, 1967). International studies also have examined behavior from a limited and inadequate perspective (Hantrais & Samuel, 1991). For example, researchers from the Japanese Society of Leisure and Recreation Studies conducted a survey of the leisure and recreation related research in Japan from 1981 to 1987. Nishino and Takahashi (1989) concluded that despite the success of the economic growth resulting in higher levels of income and greater supply of material goods, the importance of leisure and recreation in the enhancement of the quality of life of the Japanese has not kept pace. In addition, this paper found Japanese research efforts to be descriptive and "focused on numbers--number and extent of facilities, number of participants in a given activity, number of leisure hours in a week, and so on" (p. 14). Nishino and Takahashi (1989) recommended that future efforts be directed to enhancing the sophistication of leisure research with sociological and psychological methodologies and to address such topics as attitudes toward leisure, motivations for participation and perceived psychological benefits.
The Concept Of Desired Psychological Benefits
Early work on leisure behavior used Maslow's (1954) concept of human needs as a foundation to understanding individual behavior. Subsequently, research on desired psychological benefit of leisure was based on the works of Lawler (1973) in industrial psychology and Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) in attitude theory and measurement. The Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) Theory of Reasoned Action, and later refined by Ajzen (1985) into the Theory of Planned Behavior is centered on expectancy-valence formulations of human decision-making and behavior. Specifically, the theory of Planned Behavior deals with antecedents of attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral controls--antecedents that are significant determinants of intentions and actions. It is grounded in the theory that suggests that behavior occurs because of psychological outcomes that are known, expected and/or valued by the participant. This suggests that people may participate in leisure activities to meet certain goals or satisfy specific needs, and that leisure activities are more of a means to an end rather an end in themselves. For this reason, leisure behavior is believed to serve as an intervening variable in the production of benefits and enhancements of one's quality of life for individuals and society.
Driver (1977) used economic and consumer behavior theories to describe leisure behavior as problem solving behavior. He suggested that each recreationists carries an unique set of inherent, situational and learned characteristics that influence thinking and behavior. For example, psychological and physiological traits, available time and income, past leisure experiences, and perception of leisure opportunities were seen as characteristics that interacted to influence the desire to experience leisure. This desire was perceived as a problem when that particular desire was not yet attained. Driver (1977) developed 19 different desired psychological outcome domains or structures. Each domain was developed to help identify and quantify the relative importance of the particular psychological outcome or motive. The accepted domains include achievement, leadership, social, learning, relationship with nature, exercise, and escape. Over the years, numerous studies have used the Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scale of outdoor recreation users and correlated it to the variables of management preferences (Manfredo, Driver & Brown, 1983), river resource setting (Knopf, Peterson & Leatherberry; 1983), and past experience (Schreyer & Lime, 1984). These combined efforts have developed numerous desired psychological benefit scales (motives) that systematically identified the reasons for recreation and leisure participation. These desired psychological benefit scales have been used to explain the motives behind many outdoor recreation activities.
This study examines diversity of desired psychological
benefits of leisure as influenced by cultural and racial
The specific definition for leisure participation included active
in some outdoor recreation related activity that was freely
This study was accomplished through a comparative analysis of a
sample of college students from the United States, Canada, Japan, and
Comparative analysis research suggests that specific psychological
values and norms of different cultural or national groups are revealed
through patterns of behavior expressed in games and activities (Roberts
& Sutton-Smith, 1962). The theoretical proposition assessed
this study was that the more diverse the cultural and racial attributes
between American, Canadian, Japanese, and Taiwanese the more dissimilar
would be the group's desired psychological benefits to leisure.
Data were obtained from a questionnaire distributed
to students enrolled in introductory leisure and recreation and
recreation courses at a large Southwestern university in the United
and University of Regina in Saskatchewan, Canada during the summer and
fall semesters of 1996. Student attending these courses were
from all levels of undergraduate students and majors within the
fulfilling a general studies requirement. Data were also obtained
during the same time period from several classes from a university
in Nakajo-machi, Niigata-ken, Japan, an institution affiliated with a
Mid-Western university in the United States. These students take
courses from English speaking Japanese instructors or from visiting
from the United States. The written questionnaires printed in
were not translated to Japanese, but several of the difficult words
translated prior to the final administration to avoid language
The Taiwan portion of the sample was collected from three different
of higher learning in the metropolitan Taipei area: National Taiwan
Chinese Cultural University and National Taiwan Normal
The written questionnaires were completely translated into Chinese2 and
pilot tested to avoid problems in the translation process. Of the
four classes surveyed, one consisted of a freshman class in
The other three classes fulfilled general studies requirements and
a wide range of undergraduate majors.
The development and validation of the desired psychological
benefit scale used in this study is found in previous research based on
motivation studies following the work of Driver (1977) and others
& Kass, 1979; Virden & Knopf, 1989). The basic intents of
the REP (Recreation Experience Preference) scale are to measure the
to which specific experiences are desired and expected from
in leisure or recreation activities. In this study, 24 individual
items were measured on a 5-point (1) "not-at-all-important" to (5)
scale. The actual items comprising each scale are included in
2. Over 50 empirical studies conducted by Driver and others to
the reliability and validity of the REP scale (Driver, Tinsley &
1991). The reliability of the full-item scale exceeds .75, with
ranging from a low of .60 to .80. In addition, the stability of
REP scale over time (i.e., test-retest reliability) was found to be
over time for average scales and domain scores computed across subjects
at different points in time (Graefe, Ditton, Roggenbuck & Schreyer,
1981). Tests of content validity (i.e., separate clustering and
about logical fits of items in clusters) made by many researchers, and
content validity of the REP scales has been upheld (Graefe, et. al.,
The only concern is the use of a least two or more core items per scale
or subscale; problems of validity have occurred when one-item scales
The data were analyzed in four steps. First,
descriptive statistics were obtained to characterize the three
samples. Second, factor analysis was used to determine the
of the desired psychological benefits of leisure participation.
factor scores were computed for all the respondents, and these were
as the independent variables in subsequent testing. Finally,
was performed using the factor scores to examine the differences
desired psychological benefits for each of the three cultural groups.
The total sample consisted of 449 undergraduate students attending universities in North-central Japan (Tokai University), Southwestern United States (Arizona State University), Province of Saskatchewan, Canada (University of Regina) and Taiwan (National Taiwan University). To ensure a greater degree of equivalence of the samples from the different countries, the samples were statistically matched in terms of age and educational attainment. Students were 18 to 20 years old and were either in the second year (sophomore) or third year (junior) of school. Table 1 represents the four samples by sex, age, marital status and year in school. Due to the administration of the survey as part of the in-class activities, no students refused to complete the questionnaire, but several respondents in each group did not answer all questions and were excluded from the study.
|Sex (% male)||58||52||50||55|
|Marital Status (% single)||96.2||99||96||98|
|Year in College
A principal component factor analysis extraction technique was used
in grouping responses to 24 items adapted from the desired
benefit variables based on the REP scales (Driver, 1977). Using a
minimum eigenvalue of 1.00, five domains were identified when the data
were factor analyzed. Motivational scales were created to
each factor by including items that resulted in inter-item correlation
of at least 0.40 as suggested by Driver (1977). Table 2 contains
the five variables created from the regression factor scores that were
labeled achievement (Cronbach's alpha=.80), nature appreciation (.79),
solitude/escape (.83), family (.72) and fun/thrills (.60).
|Achievement||.80*||2.91**||Developing skills and abilities
Talking to new people
Showing others I can do it
|Nature Appreciation||.79||3.45||Observing beauty of nature
Seeing spectacular scenery
Having quiet time
Being in undeveloped area
|Solitude/Escape||.83||2.91||Getting away from other people
Getting away from civilization
Seeing few people
|Family||.72||3.43||Doing something with family
Enjoying family and friends
|Fun/Thrills||.60||3.79||To have thrills and excitement
The motivational scale item of "fun/thrill" was determined to be the most important factor, exhibiting a mean score of 3.79 on a five-point (1) "not at all " to (5) "of utmost importance" scale for all the students. The remaining motivational scale item preferences in order of importance were nature appreciation (mean=3.45), family (3.43), achievement (2.91) and solitude/escape (2.91).
Desired Psychological Benefit Differences
was performed to determine if differences on the five regression factor
score variables were significantly related to the four groups of
The MANOVA procedure revealed significant differences exist among the
groups on the basis of desired psychological benefits, F(3,577) =
p < .001. Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) and
analyses were used to determine which desired psychological variables
responsible for the overall group differences. The analyses
that two of the five variables made significant contributions to the
group effect. Specifically, univariate ANOVAs revealed that the
of achievement, F(3,169) = 13.10, p < .001 and fun/thrills, F(3,169)
= 22.25, p < .001, were significantly related. The
discriminant function coefficients developed into two functions.
The predictor set of variables for the first function resulted in
loading primarily in the fun/thrills motive (1.10), and negative
on the motives of achievement (-.27), nature appreciation (-.19) and
(-.19). Function 2 loaded significantly on the motives for
(1.02) and nature appreciation (.18). This particular set of
loaded negatively for family (-.14), and slightly loaded on the motives
of solitude/escape (-.02) and fun/thrills (-.03). Results are
in Table 3.
|Scale||Univariate F (3,169)||Standardized discriminate function coefficient|
Percent of Variance=63.9
Significance Level <.001
Percent of Variance=34.09
Significance Level <.001
The Scheffe follow-up tests indicated that Asian
and North American differences were present in the domain of seeking
(Canadians and Americans reported a very high level of importance in
domain as compared to the Japanese and Taiwanese). Taiwanese
lowest importance levels for the domains of achievement, nature
solitude/escape and thrills/excitement. Americans reported the
importance levels for the domains of family and
Canadians along with the Taiwanese reported lowest levels of importance
in the domain of family. Japanese reported the highest importance
levels for the domains of achievement, nature appreciation and
One common link for interpretation of the discriminant function
is the loadings for both sets of predictor variables for the motive of
solitude and escape. It seems that the motive to obtain solitude
and escape is important whether it is associated with the additional
of achievement in one function or the contrasting set of motives of
fun and thrills and not obtaining achievement and nature appreciation
the outdoor experience. The univariate F values and discriminate
coefficients are presented in Table 3, and the means and standard
for each desired psychological variable are presented in Table 4.
The results moderately support the notion that differences exist among
the four samples of students after two of the five significant F value
differences were found.
* Likert scale ranged from 1 (not at all important) to 5 (of utmost importance)
** US = United States
C = Canada
J = Japan
This study of leisure behavior was based on a conceptual framework that suggests that cultural or national behavior attributes are expressed in subsequent variations of leisure activities. On the basis of the research recommendation of Hutchison (1988), the purpose of the study was to determine if desired psychological benefits to outdoor recreation participation were different between Japanese, Taiwanese, Americans, and Canadians. The findings suggest that there are differences between the North American samples and the Asian samples regarding desired psychological outcomes. Surprisingly, the Asian groups varied significantly from the North American groups in only one psychological domain of seeking thrills/excitement. Specifically in the case of the Japanese group, variability was found in four of the five domains of psychological preferences. High levels of importance were found in the domains of achievement, nature appreciation, and solitude; and low levels of importance were noted in the domain of thrills/excitement. The strong achievement motivation of the Japanese is well established by Blinco (1992), Yan and Gaier (1994) and others. In the case of the Taiwanese, they expressed the lowest levels of importance for achievement, family and thrills/excitement. These findings support the notion that all Asian groups are not culturally monolithic and exhibit significant differences in psychological outcomes for leisure (Nishino, Shimoyama and Konno, 1984). Variation also resulted between the North American groups of Americans and Canadians for the preference for achievement. Finally, the Japanese and American groups reported high levels of psychological preferences for the domains of nature appreciation, and family. Surprisingly, Americans and Japanese are more alike in their desired psychological benefits for leisure than one would expect from groups with seemingly divergent cultural and ancestral backgrounds. The notion that significant differences exist between North Americans and Asians was partially supported, but the findings offer an expanded view of cultural and ancestral variability that would involve similarities and differences between all four groups participating in the study.
Although a rigid survey schedule was followed, the small and particular nature of the respondents restricts the overall generalization of the results. The homogeneous group of students from all institutions of higher learning allowed for a certain amount of control for intervening variables such as age, education, income and family life cycle. The homogeneous nature of the student subgroup within the overall community setting, allowed for control of between-group variations in demographic variables, the within-group variations, however, may have impacted the results to where these sub-cultural groups were influenced by factors outside the university community. Another limitation of the study was the lack of specificity of the concept of recreation and leisure. It was assumed that the respondents understood the concept of leisure and outdoor recreation participation. More research is needed to address these limitations.
This study supports the continued use of Driver's Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scale in cross-cultural examinations. The factor analyzed constructs from the original 24 separate items resulted in five psychological motives of leisure behavior. The reliability coefficients (Cronbach's Alpha) provided evidence of the internal stability of the created constructs. Since the Japanese students understood English very well, it is assumed that the meanings of the statements were not incorrectly interpreted. Replication of the motivational scales in other student samples would verify the overall usefulness of this instrument. It is also assumed that the translations into Chinese for the Taiwanese sample did not change or alter any of the desired meanings or understandings used in the written questionnaires.
In conclusion, the study found that cultural or racial
group variability seems to influence the underlying psychological
related to leisure behavior. More research is needed to further
the experience preference variability approach by utilizing a broader
of cultural and/or racial groups.
1 No single definition of leisure is accepted. Most definitions do not clearly differentiate leisure activity from other types of human behavior. For the purpose of this study, leisure is conceptualized as any activity that is freely chosen and pursued for its own sake--the intrinsic motivation dimension.
2 The survey instrument was translated into Chinese by Yang
and Chang Ben-Chu.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intentions To Actions: A Theory Of Planned Behavior. In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckmann (eds). Action-control: from cognition to behavior. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Allison, M. (1988). Breaking boundaries: Future directions in cross-cultural research. Leisure Sciences, 10(4), 247-259.
Blinco, P.M.A. (1992). A cross-cultural study of task persistence of young children in Japan and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23, 407-415.
Bultena, G. & Field, D. (1978). Visitors to national parks: A test of the elitism argument. Leisure Sciences, 1(4), 359-409.
Burdge, R. (1969). Levels of occupational prestige and leisure activity. Journal of Leisure Research, 1, 262-274.
Driver, B. (1977). Item Pool For
Scales Designed To Quantify The Psychological
Outcomes Desired And Expected From Recreation Participation.
from: USDA Forest Service Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.
Driver, B.L., Tinsley, H.E. & Manfredo, M.J. (1991). The
About Leisure And Recreation Experience Preference Scales: Results From
Two Inventories Designed To Assess The Breath Of
The Perceived Psychological Benefits Of Leisure. In B.L. Driver, P.J. Brown & G.L. Peterson (eds), Benefits of leisure. State College, PA:Venture Publishing.
Edwards, P. (1981). Race, residence, and leisure style: Some policy implications. Leisure Sciences, 4(2), 95-112.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Welsey.
Graefe, A., Ditton, R., Roggenbuck, J. & Schreyer, R. (1981). Notes on the stability of the factor structure of leisure meanings. Leisure Sciences, 4(2): 51-65.
Hantrais, L. & Samuel, N. (1991). The state of the art in comparative studies of leisure. Society and Leisure. 14(2): 381-398.
Harry, J. (1971). Work and leisure. Pacific Sociological Review, 14, 301-309.
Hutchison, R. (1987). Ethnicity and urban recreation: Whites, blacks, and hispanics in Chicago's public parks. Journal of Leisure Research, 19(3), 205-222.
Hutchison, R. (1988). A critique of race, ethnicity, and social class in recent leisure-recreation research. Journal of Leisure Research, 20(1), 10-30.
Hutchison, R. & Fidel, K. (1984). Mexican-American recreation activities: A reply to McMillen. Journal of Leisure Research, 16(4), 344-349.
Irwin, P. Gartner, W. & Phelps, C. (1990). Mexican-American/Anglo cultural differences as recreation style determinants. Leisure Sciences, 12(4), 335-348.
Knopf, R., Peterson, G. & Leatherberry. (1983). Motives for recreational river floating: Relative consistency across settings. Leisure Sciences, 5, 231-255.
Kraus, R. (1994). Recreation and Leisure in Modern Society. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little Brown.
Lawler, E.E. (1973). Motivations in Work Organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Manfredo, M., Driver, B. & Brown, P. (1983). A test of concepts inherent in experience based setting management for outdoor recreation areas. Journal of Leisure Research, 15(3), 263-283.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Nishino, H., Shimoyama, M. & Konno, M. (1984). A study on motivation, expectation and satisfaction of leisure. Journal of Leisure and Recreation Studies, 13, 7-23.
Nishino, H., Takahashi, K. & Miyake, M. (1986). A study on the psychological reason why elderly people continue recreation activities. Research Quarterly of Freetime, 16, 11-29.
Nishino, H. & Takahashi, K. (1989). Current leisure and recreation research in Japan. World Leisure and Recreation, 3(3), 11-14.
Roberts, K. & Olszewska, A. (1989). Leisure and Life-Style: A Comparative Analysis of Free Time. London: Sage Publications.
Robert, J. & Sutton-Smith, B. (1962). Child training and game involvement. Ethnology, 1, 166-185.
Robinson, J. (1967). Daily Participation In Sports Across Twelve Countries. In G. Luschen (Ed.), Cross-cultural analysis of sport and games. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Company.
Schreyer, R. & Lime, D. (1984). A novice isn't necessarily a novice--The influence of experience use history on subjective perceptions of recreation participation. Leisure Sciences, 6(2), 131-149.
Stamps, S. & Stamps, M. (1985). Race, class, and leisure activities of urban residents. Journal of Leisure Research, 17(1), 40-56.
Szalai, A. (1966). The multinational comparative time-budget research project: A venture in international research cooperation. American Behavioral Scientist, 10, 1-31.
Tinsley, H. & Kass, R. (1979). The latent structure of the need satisfying properties of leisure activities. Journal of Leisure Research, 11(4), 278-291.
United Media Enterprises. (1982). Where Does the Time Go? New York:Newspaper Enterprise Association.
Virden, R. & Knopf, R. (1989). Activities, experiences, and environmental settings: A case study of recreation opportunity spectrum relationships. Leisure Sciences, 11(3), 159-176.
Washburne, R. (1978). Black under-participation in wildland recreation: Alternative explanations. Leisure Sciences, 1(2), 175-189.
White, T. (1975). The relative importance of education and income as predictors in outdoor recreation participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 7(3), 191-199.
Yan, W. & Gaier, E.L. (1994). Causal attributions for college success and failure. Journal Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 146-158.
Yancey, W.& Snell, J. (1976). Parks as aspects of leisure in the
inner city: An exploratory investigation. Research in the Parks -
of National Park Centennial Program Symposium. American
Association for the Advancement of Science. USDI Symposium Series. Number 1, 146-168.