The conceptualization of leisure constraints is dependent on negotiating a
hierarchy of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural leisure constraints. It has
become a recognizable and distinct subfield within leisure studies. Research has
shown that the leisure constraints should not be necessarily viewed as
insurmountable obstacles. Individuals can negotiate constraints by applying an array
of coping mechanisms. Recently, Iwasaki and Schneider (2003) and Schneider and
Stanis (2007) proposed that constraints negotiation and coping with stress share
much in common. Leisure constraints are considered elements of stress, whereas
constraint negotiation appears to share commonalities with ways of coping with
stress. The distinction between negotiation and coping is that negotiation is
something people have engaged in prior to participating in the activity, whereas
coping involves strategies people more typically engage in during active
participation (in response to unwanted or unanticipated situations). Based on past
literature, I constructed a constraints-coping model to extend our understanding of constraints negotiation by integrating an understanding of coping mechanisms into
leisure constraints-negotiation models. In order to broaden the scope of a
constraints-coping framework, I integrated additional social indicators (e.g.,
commitment, motivation, place attachment, and frequency of participation) into my
hypothesized model.
First, my testing of the constraints-coping model provided empirical support
for Iwasaki and his colleagues' suggestion that coping strategies can be potentially
integrated into models of constraints-negotiation processes. Second, I confirmed that
the three types of onsite constraints continue to have relevance for active
participants. The three types of constraining factors directly influence subsequent
aspects of leisure engagement for recreationists already participating. Third, I
confirmed that recreationists are more likely to cope with constraints by employing
an array of problem-focused coping strategies, rather than to simply adjust
cognitively. However, my findings illustrate that recreationists' coping responses
vary in response to different types of constraints encountered (e.g., intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and structural). The experience of constraints did not universally
result in the increased use of coping. Fourth, my results confirm that motivation is
an immediate antecedent of constraints as well as a potential trigger for encouraging
more problem-focused coping strategies. Last, four selected key variables (e.g.,
place attachment, commitment motivation, and frequency of participation)
demonstrated different effects on influencing active participants' perceived
constraints and subsequent coping strategies. Future investigations of coping strategies should continue to explore how active participants cope with onsite
constraints based on a constraints-coping model in different settings.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:tamu.edu/oai:repository.tamu.edu:1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2009-08-3256 |
| Date | 14 January 2010 |
| Creators | Tseng, Yung-Ping |
| Contributors | Ditton, Robert B., Kyle, Gerard T. |
| Source Sets | Texas A and M University |
| Language | en_US |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Book, Thesis, Electronic Dissertation |
| Format | application/pdf |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds