Broadly construed, leisure motivation research can be defined as the study of psychological and sociological reasons for participating in leisure activities. It includes examining why individuals become involved in various leisure activities and patterns as well as how leisure is related to intrinsic motivation, constraints negotiation, and culture. In this review, we focus on leisure motivation scales and leisure constraints negotiation, the relationship between leisure motivation and culture, and the cross-cultural study of leisure motivation. We start with a brief discussion of the history of leisure motivation. Next, we examine several leisure motivation scales, which have been developed by previous researchers. We then review the nature of the relationship between leisure motivation and leisure constraints negotiation, and consider how culture affects leisure motivation. Lastly, we draw some conclusions regarding the progress of leisure motivation.

A Brief History of Leisure Motivation

Leisure motivation can be defined as a need, reason, or satisfaction that stimulates involvement in a leisure activity (Crandall, 1980). Originally, leisure motivation was thought to comprise two types of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic.

Intrinsic motivation theory has been applied to diverse areas of leisure behavior, such as personality-situation interaction (Iwasaki & Mannell, 1999), recreational sport participation (Alexandris, Tsorbatzoudis, & Grouios, 2002), personally salient activities (Waterman, 2005), and leisure with a close friend (Walker, 2008). Extrinsic motivation theory has been applied to diverse areas such as academic achievement (Hayenga & Corpus, 2010) and physical activity (Dacey, Baltzell, & Zaichkowsky, 2008).

During the past two decades, leisure motivation research has begun to take on a central role in leisure studies. Exhaustive categories for describing leisure motivation were developed in the 1980s. Crandall (1980) developed 17 motivational categories and items that were considered to be important for leisure. In the 1990s, Crandall’s Leisure Motivation Scale was applied to research on vacations (Lounsbury & Polik, 1992) and tourism (Ryan & Glendon, 1998).

We are, however, entering an era when leisure motivation is beginning to be embraced by those researching leisure constraints negotiation (Hubbard & Mannell, 2001; Lee & Scott, 2009) and culture (Walker, 2009; Walker & Wang, 2008). Developmentally, leisure motivation has reached a stage in its development where it has come of age. However, as we will discuss below, there are a number of challenges that those conducting research on leisure motivation need to pay attention to if this field is to thrive in the coming decade.

Leisure Motivation Scales

The Leisure Motivation Scale (Beard & Ragheb, 1983) has been utilized in all kinds of settings in order to understand leisure motivation. After rigorous testing, a comprehensive list of 48 leisure motivations was developed by Beard and Ragheb. The contents of this list can be categorized into four subscales: intellectual, social, competence mastery, and stimulus avoidance.

Lounsbury and Polik (1992) adapted Beard and Ragheb’s (1983) Leisure Motivation Scale in order to measure expressed needs prior to a vacation and met needs following a vacation in relation to the same four domains as those developed by Beard and Ragheb. The shortened version of the Leisure Motivation Scale was applied to a sample of 1,127 British holidaymakers (Ryan & Glendon, 1998). Starzyk, Reddon, and Friel (2000) utilized the Leisure Motivation Scale in order to study leisure motivation and psychosocial adjustment among young offenders and high school students. The Leisure Motivation Scale was also used in a pilot study, where it and the Recovery Assessment Scale were used to measure the association between leisure motivation and recovery (Lloyd, King, McCarthy, & Scanlan, 2007).

In order to measure the intrinsic motivation of leisure behavior, a scale was developed by Weissinger and Bandalos (1995) for measuring individual differences in the disposition toward intrinsic motivation in leisure behavior and data from nine examinations of the reliability and validity of the instrument were reported. The 24-item Intrinsic Leisure Motivation Scale displayed Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .872 to .913. Based on self-determination theory, Baldwin and Caldwell (2003) have developed a new self-report scale used to measure adolescents’ free time motivation (Free Time Motivation Scale–A; FTMS–A). The scale is used to measure five forms of motivation and is appropriate for use with young adolescents (aged 12-15).

Leisure Motivation and Leisure Constraints Negotiation

There are essentially three types of constraints on leisure: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural (Jackson, 2000). The study of leisure constraints has a long history (Jackson, 1990), but the history of the study of leisure constraints negotiation is comparatively short (Hubbard & Mannell, 2001).

Initially, research on leisure constraints negotiation was primarily descriptive. Hubbard and Mannell (2001) were the first to conduct empirical tests of the relationships between leisure constraints negotiation and motivation. They used regression and structural equation modeling procedures, testing four models of leisure constraints negotiation (independence, buffer, mitigation, and reduction). Hubbard and Mannell’s study lacked universality, in that a specific sample of employees, types of leisure activity, and context were investigated. This is a limitation that was overcome by White (2008). Using hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling, White conducted an empirical test of constraints negotiation, examining the relationships among motivation, constraints, negotiation, negotiation-efficacy, and leisure activity participation.

As an extension of Hubbard and Mannell’s (2001) study, Son, Mowen, and Kerstetter (2008) tested a model of the leisure constraint negotiation process. The model they tested was the constraint negotiation dual channel model. It was found that the independent and opposing effects of constraints and negotiation and the indirect effect of motivation on participation provided a better fit for the data than did the reduced independence model, which omitted the independent effect of motivation on participation.

Despite differences in age and social class, leisure constraints are experienced by all women. Similar to the findings gained in previous leisure studies (see e.g., Little, 2002), qualitative analysis revealed that while women experienced various constraints, they could successfully negotiate these constraints by restructuring their adventure experience or by reinforcing their commitment to adventure as a life priority. American Muslims’ negotiation of leisure constraints has also been examined (Livengood & Stodolska, 2004).

Alexandris, Kouthouris, and Girgolas (2007) tested the relationships among motivation, negotiation, and the intention to continue participating in recreational skiing. They simultaneously tested the mediating role of negotiation in the relationship between motivation and the intention to continue participation. In a sample of Japanese women and men, Lee and Scott (2009) used a survey to examine the relationship that leisure has to leisure constraints, constraints negotiation, and frequency of participation.

Leisure Motivation Across Cultures

Our ways of thinking are heavily influenced by the particular cultures and subcultures in which we live and learn (Kelly & Freysinger, 2000). In Western culture people tend to understand social situations in competitive terms, while in Eastern culture people tend to understand social situations in collectivistic terms.

Leisure Motivation, Culture, and Self-construals

Culture significantly influences leisure motivation. Walker, Deng, and Dieser (2005) found that the type of self-construal a person has affects his or her emotions, cognitions, and motivations. Self-construals are an important factor in the study of cultural differences in leisure theory and are a potential stimulant for future theory development and research (Mannell, 2005). Based on a previous study, Walker (2009) examined Canadian and Mainland Chinese students’ leisure activities, investigating the role self-construals played as an intervening variable between culture and motivation. Separate hierarchical multiple regressions were performed on each motivation, with culture entered first, followed by a block composed of four types of self-construal: vertical collectivism, horizontal collectivism, horizontal individualism, and vertical individualism.

Leisure Motivation and Cross-culture

Individuals’ beliefs and attitudes partially rely on the social circumstances to which they belong. In individualistic cultures social behavior is primarily guided by personal goals, while in collectivistic cultures social behavior is primarily guided by the goals of the collective (Srite & Karahanna, 2006). Therefore, in the context of increasing economic globalization, cross-cultural research on this phenomenon (beyond the boundaries of single national backgrounds) is an important area for research. Individual cognitive mechanisms of knowledge-sharing (KS) motivation have been explored, with the intention of providing more effective measures for judging and influencing individuals’ inclinations toward KS in a cross-cultural context (Wei, Liu, & Francesco, 2010).

Although cross-cultural comparative research is rare in leisure studies, Walker and Wang (2008) examined Canadian and Mainland Chinese University students’ leisure motivations. Two different nationalities’ travel behaviors were also compared cross-culturally: Xu, Morgan, and Song (2009) found that undergraduate students from both the UK and China enjoyed beach holidays and placed importance on having fun and relaxing after completing their studies.

Concluding Remarks

By focusing on leisure motivation, researchers have learned much about the reasons why individuals participate in varied leisure activities and how leisure motivation relates to their culture. There are various theoretical perspectives on the issue, and leisure motivation researchers remain very active.

Several directions that could be pursued by future researchers have been revealed by this review. In closing, we present three important issues that need further study. First, although there are diverse theoretical models, there is a need for theoretical integration in the field, particularly with respect to models that employ cultural and cross-cultural constructs. Because an individual’s culture influences his or her leisure motivation, the society in which an individual lives influences the kinds of leisure activities he or she values. Individuals make their leisure choices within a social context, so the dominant values of the society will, to a large extent, determine what activity choices are available. It is difficult (if not impossible) to understand individual leisure motivation without understanding the social contexts the individual is experiencing. The complex relationships of race, ethnicity, and culture to leisure motivation need further investigation.

Second, the focus on intrinsic motivation and leisure constraints negotiation has led to important advances in the field of leisure motivation. Many researchers emphasize that studying the sources of intrinsic motivation (with a focus on causal mechanisms) is particularly relevant because it is important to know how to foster intrinsic motivation in applied settings (Keller & Bless, 2008). Research in which the relationship between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation is investigated, along with an examination of how those types of motivation are related to leisure experience, is needed.

Regarding leisure constraints negotiation, the principal components of the theory (the constructs of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural constraints) are appropriate and useful. The future research Godbey, Crawford, and Shen (2010) hope to see would: (a) reinforce the centrality of these components; (b) suggest other ways in which they may be related; and (c) uncover different measurable variables that represent them.

Finally, leisure motivation is not the only factor affecting participation; there are other factors such as leisure experiences, leisure needs, and the individual’s personality and attitude which also influence people to participate in certain leisure activities. Hence, leisure motivation and its relationship to other factors should be studied further.

Alexandris, K., Kouthouris, C., & Girgolas, G. (2007). Investigating the relationships among motivation, negotiation, and alpine skiing participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 39, 648-667.

Alexandris, K., Tsorbatzoudis, C., & Grouios, G. (2002). Perceived constraints on recreational sport participation: Investigating their relationship with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 233-252.

Baldwin, C. K., & Caldwell, L. L. (2003). Development of the free time motivation scale for adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 35, 129-151.

Beard, J. G., & Ragheb, M. G. (1983). Measuring leisure motivation. Journal of Leisure Research, 15, 219-228.

Crandall, R. (1980). Motivations for leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 12, 45-54.

Dacey, M., Baltzell, A., & Zaichkowsky, L. (2008). Older adults’ intrinsic and extrinsic motivation toward physical activity. American Journal of Health Behavior, 32, 570-582.

Godbey, G., Crawford, D. W., & Shen, X. S. (2010). Assessing hierarchical leisure constraints theory after two decades. Journal of Leisure Research, 42, 111-134.

Hayenga, A. O., & Corpus, J. H. (2010). Profiles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: A person- centered approach to motivation and achievement in middle school. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 371-383. http://doi.org/gsp

Hubbard, J., & Mannell, R. C. (2001). Testing competing models of the leisure constraint negotiation process in a corporate employee recreation setting. Leisure Sciences, 23, 145-163. http://doi.org/gsq

Iwasaki, Y., & Mannell, R. C. (1999). Situational and personality influences on intrinsically motivated leisure behavior: Interaction effects and cognitive processes. Leisure Sciences, 21, 287-306. http://doi.org/gst

Jackson, E. L. (1990). Variations in the desire to begin a leisure activity: Evidence of antecedent constraints? Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 55-70.

Jackson, E. L. (2000). Will research on leisure constraints still be relevant in the twenty-first century? Journal of Leisure Research, 32, 62-68.

Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2008). Flow and regulatory compatibility: An experimental approach to the flow model of intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 196-209. http://doi.org/gsw

Kelly, J. R., & Freysinger, V. J. (2000). 21st century leisure: Current issues. Needham Heights, MA: Burns.

Lee, S., & Scott, D. (2009). The process of celebrity fan’s constraint negotiation. Journal of Leisure Research, 41, 137-156.

Little, D. E. (2002). Women and adventure recreation: Reconstructing leisure constraints and adventure experiences to negotiate continuing participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 157-177.

Livengood, J. S., & Stodolska, M. (2004). The effects of discrimination and constraints negotiation on leisure behavior of American Muslims in the post-September 11 America. Journal of Leisure Research, 36, 183-208.

Lloyd, C., King, R., McCarthy, M., & Scanlan, M. (2007). The association between leisure motivation and recovery: A pilot study. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 54, 33-41. http://doi.org/gtf

Lounsbury, J., & Polik, J. (1992). Leisure needs and vacation satisfaction. Leisure Sciences, 14, 105-119. http://doi.org/gth

Mannell, R. C. (2005). Evolution of cross-cultural analysis in the study of leisure: Commentary on “Culture, self-construal, and leisure theory and practice”. Journal of Leisure Research, 37, 100-105.

Ryan, C., & Glendon, I. (1998). Application of leisure motivation scale to tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 25, 169-184. http://doi.org/gtn

Son, J., Mowen, A., & Kerstetter, D. (2008). Testing alternative leisure constraint negotiation models: An extension of Hubbard and Mannell’s study. Leisure Sciences, 30, 198-216. http://doi.org/gtp

Srite, M., & Karahanna, E. (2006). The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 30, 679-704.

Starzyk, K. B., Reddon, J. R., & Friel, J. P. (2000). Need structure, leisure motivation, and psychosocial adjustment among young offenders and high school students. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31, 163-174. http://doi.org/bckdkb

Walker, G. J. (2008). The effects of ethnicity and gender on facilitating intrinsic motivation during leisure with a close friend. Journal of Leisure Research, 40, 290-311.

Walker, G. J. (2009). Culture, self-construal, and leisure motivations. Leisure Sciences, 31, 347-363. http://doi.org/g2b

Walker, G. J., Deng, J., & Dieser, R. B. (2005). Culture, self-construal, and leisure theory and practice. Journal of Leisure Research, 37, 77-99.

Walker, G. J., & Wang, X. (2008). A cross-cultural comparison of Canadian and Mainland Chinese university students’ leisure motivations. Leisure Sciences, 30, 179-197. http://doi.org/g2c

Waterman, A. S. (2005). When effort is enjoyed: Two studies of intrinsic motivation for personally salient activities. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 165-188. http://doi.org/g2d

Wei, J., Liu, L., & Francesco, C. A. (2010). A cognitive model of intra-organizational knowledge- sharing motivations in the view of cross-culture. International Journal of Information Management, 30, 220-230. http://doi.org/g2f

Weissinger, E., & Bandalos, D. L. (1995). Development, reliability and validity of a scale to measure intrinsic motivation in leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 27, 379-400.

White, D. D. (2008). A structural model of leisure constraints negotiation in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences, 30, 342-359. http://doi.org/g2g

Xu, F., Morgan, M., & Song, P. (2009). Students’ travel behaviour: A cross-cultural comparison of UK and China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 255-268. http://doi.org/g2h

Xuequan Pang, Asia Pacific Center for the Study and Training of Leisure, Zhejiang University, Xixi Campus, #2063, Hangzhou 310028, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]