Journal of Leisun R a m h 2003, V i 35, No. 4, Pp. 372-395 Copyght 2003 National R r c m r t i a and Park Association The Structure of Recreation Behavior Thomas A. More USDA Forest Service James R. Averill Department of Psychology University of Massachusetts We present a meta-theoretical analysis of recreation concepts as an argument about organizing and explaining recreation behavior. Recreation activities are behavioral constructions that people build from both prototypic subsystems (those present in virtually all instances of the activity) and design subsystems (optional subsystems that adapt the activity to serve multiple goals). To explain the organizational structure of the behavior, we advocate a systems analysis that focuses on functions, mechanisms, and capacities, examined from biological, psychological and social perspectives. The resulting nine-cell matrix enables us to categorize common concepts in recreation research such as benefits, flow, and constraints in a way that is consistent with Aristotle's fourfold model of causation. A comprehensive explanation of an activity requires information about each of the matrix's cells, so that most of the commonly used concepts in recreation and leisure research provide complimentary rather than compet- ing explanations. KEYWORDS: Recreation behavior, exphnalion, function, mechanism, capacity, h e - fits, cmtmints. Introduction Over the past 40 years, explanations of recreation behavior have grown increasingly sophisticated, and technical literatures have developed on many subtopics within leisure research. Yet this increased specialization also con- tributes to fragmentation-analysis at the expense of synthesis. For example, Csikszentmihalyi's (1990) concept of flow has been widely accepted as an explanation of recreation behavior and has led to numerous studies (e.g., Jones, Hollenhorst, Perra & Selin, 2000). Analyzing activities in terms of benefits, motivations, and participant goals is similarly accepted, begging questions about the relationship between flow and benefit: Is flow simply one category of benefit? Does one concept subsume the other? Are they competing or complementary explanations of recreation behavior? How do both these theories relate to a physiologically based theory like Berelyne's Address correspondence to: Thomas A. More, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 968, Burlington, VT 05402; Ernail: trnore@fs.fed.us. Author Note: We thank John Daigle, Chad Pierskella, and Walter Kuentzel for their com- ments on previous drafts. STRUCTURE OF RECREATION BEHAVIOR 373 (1960) arousal theory? The fragmentation is compounded by our tendency to borrow theories from other disciplines to examine specific aspects of ac- tivities (flow, cognitive dissonance, role theory, arousal and identity theory are perennial favorites) (Searle 2000); when confronting a recreation re- search problem we have an often bewildering array of concepts and ap- proaches from which to choose. What would be needed to construct a more holistic, comprehensive, and better-integrated explanation of any particu- lar recreation activity? What kinds of information would be required? While the analytic mode has enhanced technical development and specialization, we also must think synthetically, raising questions about broad (or meta) interrelationships between areas of analysis. Understanding these meta- interrelationships can identify shortcomings in our knowledge of particular activities and promote systematic theory development, and may occasionally prevent us from talking at cross-purposes. Aristotle, in book two of the Physics, argued that a comprehensive ex- planation of something requires knowledge of four different kinds of causes: material, efficient, formal, and final (Robinson, 1985). Knowledge of one kind of cause does not substitute for another; each is necessary. Phrased differently, comprehensive explanation of a recreation activity requires sev- eral different kinds of information. In this paper, we develop these ideas further using modern systems theory rather than the Aristotelian terminol- ogy. By arguing that all recreation activities are actually systems of behavior best understood in the context of a goaldirected systems analysis, we con- struct an integrative framework for the analysis of recreation behavior that we term Recreation Systems Theory. Our focus is on the structure of recre- ation activities-the way the behavior itself is organized and the factors that account for recurrent participation patterns within a person's life. As such, our meta-theoretical analysis is primarily psychological although we also ex- plore biological and socio-cultural influences on individual behavior. Addi- tionally, our focus is on structure rather than experience (which we believe partially derives from structure); we defer the discussion of experience to a later paper. We close with some reservations about systems theory and a discussion of the implications of Recreation Systems Theory for further re- search. Recreation Activities as Behavioral Systems The most neglected part of recreation research may be the actual com- position of an activity. When studying a particular activity we tend to examine correlates: Who does it? How often? What outcomes are produced? et cetera, without giving much thought to what "it" is. Our initial premise, therefore, is that recreation activities are actuaIly behavioral constructions- organizations of more elemental actions, thoughts, and feelings-that par- ticipants create for themselves around goals of varying specificity. Put simply, we build recreation activities from smaller bits of behavior, and we may build 374 MORE AND AVERlLL them differently on different occasions. Such constructions are not random, however, but follow systems principles, so we refer to the paradigm we ad- vocate as Recreation Systems Theory, a specific case of the more general behavioral systems theory (Averill, 1992; Averill & More, 2000; Averill, Stanat & More, 1998). It may seem odd to speak of behavior as a system; after all, a system is an assemblage of parts (subsystems) designed to fulfill some function within a larger system (suprasystem or inclusive unit). But behavior can be treated similarly: small actions have meaning because they serve a purpose or pur- poses within a larger system. Consider tying up a boat after a day's sailing. Numerous small actions of the fingers, hands, and arms are-required; these actions are not random but are organized toward the god of tying the knot. . And the knot is just one component of the docking subsystem-the organ- ized set of behaviors necessary to dock the boat. This subsystem combines with others (casting off, tacking, planning, etc.) to create the actual activity of sailing. And the day's sailing has meaning only as part of a larger system- the conyext of the pekon's life as a whole. Two types of subsystems comprise an activity: prototypic and design. P r o totypic subsystems occur in virtually all instances of the activity and help define it. In sailing, these might include casting off, unfurling sails, tacking, and docking-the behaviors that are essential to almost all instances of sail- ing. By contrast, on a given sailing occasion, one might or might not eat lunch, might or might not swim from the boat, race, sunbathe, conclude a business deal, or host a birthday party. These design subsystems are optional, enabling the participant to design the activity to serve multiple goals. Put differently, prototypic subsystems are relatively invariant, while design s u b systems enable us to construct the activity in different ways at different times so that it can be adapted to the ongoing events of our lives. An initial im- portant point is that the analysis of any activity must focus on its prototypic subsystems; including optional design subsystems can confound an analysis because they vary across people. When a particular design subsystem recurs in a large proportion of the population (e.g. sailing to entertain business clients), it constitutes a market segment and requires separate analysis. How- ever, for accurate research, we must focus on prototypic subsystems so that we can directly compare results of studies conducted at different times and in different regions.- Four additional points about the structure of recreation activities war- rant explanation. First, the elements or subsystems that comprise a recreation activity are systematically ordered; one could not reasonably expect to shuffle the subsystems and have a coherent activity emerge. For example, you cannot dock before casting off; in bridge, dealing precedes bidding. Second, recreation activities valy in complexity. A simple recreation sys- tem ( e x . , sunbathing) contains fewer elements and subsystems than a corn- - " plex system (e.g., te6hnical rock climbing). Third, recreation activities vary in degree of structure (i.e., the degree to which their prototpic subsystems are invariantly organized) and, hence, STRUCTURE OF RECREATION BEHAVIOR 375 in the degree to which they can be altered by personal choice. For example, an aerobics class might be highly structured while a family camping trip might be relatively unstructured; that is, participants can more freely design some activities than others-including or excluding specific design subsys- tems. Fourth, the subsystems that constitute an activity are organized hierar- chically. ?fing a knot combines with other subsys terns at the same level (stow- ing gear, holding the boat steady) to yield the higher level docking subsys- tem. Docking combines with other subsystems to yield the day's sailing, and SO on. When a lower order action (tying a knot) is accomplished to complete a higher order action (docking), the higher order action can be termed a "motive" for the lower order action. Such organization continues, with in- dividual activities forming patterns within a person's life, in service of attain- ing broad higher order goals such as health and happiness. As we ascend the hierarchy, the goals grow increasingly broad and the contribution of specific actions is less certain. In sailing, we do not argue about the motive for tying a knot because its role in the docking subsystem is clear-there is no uncertainty about what we are doing or why so no explanation is required. However, the contribution of a day's sailing to broad goals as health, virtue, or self-actualization is much less clear so it provokes much greater debate. The point to emphasize is that the form of the explanation of the day's sailing should be the same as that of tying the knot. Many people may not be fully conscious of broad, long-term goals such as health (in the sense of optimal functioning), virtue, or self-actualization (see Kuentzel's (2000) criticism of rational actor theories in recreation), but these goals ultimately drive rec- reation behavior. Five Systems Concepts From both systems biology and general systems theory, we can abstract three key characteristics shared by all systems: functions, mechanisms, and capacities (Averill, 1992). All systems have a function or set of functions that they fulfill within a larger system. Systems without functions are vestigial and can be ignored.' Mechanisms are the internal workings-the substructures and processes within a system-that enable the functions to be fulfilled. Ca- pacities are system limits assessed independently of both function and mech- anism. These three concepts can describe any complex system. For example, a computer may serve multiple functions such as word processing, scheduling activities, and computing payroll. Mechanisms include software and hard- ware, gates, chips, and programs-the inner workings that allow it to fulfill its functions. Speed and memory are capacities. 'Early theorists often argued that both play and aesthetics were fonns of behavior that lack& explicit functions (see Berelyne, 1968). Such claims are no longer widely advancrd-naturnl selection is too economical to allow large categories of functionless behavior. < (I . . .-..-. .;L.,; ..:; ..--;.;>; -. ; ; -- . . , . . - .. . .. . .: . . .. . . " .. . - ..-...,-._-_....i:~i; -.-. ;:; :..:.:2L.-2: A,..-....- :~.::s'-< ....&. i;LL:jjz<2 . . - - - -- . - . '. - - . . . I .-.- i . .. . 376 MORE AND AVERILL i mUCTURE OF RECREATION BEHAVIOR .: . i 3'77 Behavior can be similarly described, so, for any particular recreation activity the key questions to ask are: (1) What function or purpose does it serve within the broader context of a person's life as a whole (the suprasystem in systems terms)-what does sailing do for those who participate? (2) What mechanisms enable the behavior (activity)-how does it operate? (3) What capacities (time, skill, intelligence, endurance, etc.) must a person have to pa^rticipate? It also is useful to distinguish three analytic modes: biological, psycho- logical, and social. All behavior represents some amalgam of these factors. For example, jogging may be primarily a biologically based activity, but it certainly has social and psychological dimensions. In other words, when we ask what functions an activity serves, it helps to inquire separately about biological, social, and psychological functions; we behave as a member of a species, a member of a culture, and as an idiosyncratic individual with a unique history and pattern of learning. Biological factors are those under genetic control. Social factors reflect social rules, norms, and resources as embodied in symbols and other cultural artifacts. Psychological factors in- clude cognitive schemas, plans, or scripts laid down in memory. If we afray the three systems variables against the three analytic modes, the resulting cross-classification indicates the important factors in analyzing recreation activities (Table 1)-these are the factors that account for the recurring patterns of recreation behavior in a person's life. The factors are actually semi-independent ways of looking at the same thing; your choice depends on your needs and interests. For example, with a computer, a busi- ness executive would be interested in functions (payroll, scheduling), an engineer would be interested in mechanisms (gates, chips), and a salesper- son in capacities (speed, memory). In recreation, a policy analyst or decision- maker would be interested in functions, a site manager would be concerned with mechanisms, while an activist might want to know about capacities (con- straints). This perspective enables us to classify the recreation literature. As we shall argue, theories emphasizing benefits (e.g., Driver, Brown & Peter- son, 1991) or motivations (e.g., Tinsley & Tinsley, 1986) are primarily func- tionalist theories; flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990) or arousal (Berelyne, 1960) theories yield mechanistic explanations, while constraints (e.g., Jackson & Scott, 1999) concern people's capacities to participate in recreation. Thus, rather than competing as explanations of recreation behavior, these theories are windows on different facets of the same phenomenon and all are nec- . - - essary for comprehensive explanation. The Functions of Recreation Activities If any stn~ctural variable takes precedence, it is function. We could an- alyze any system (an automobile, for example) in terms of its mechanisms (sparkplugs, coolants, etc.), but recreation activities, like automobiles, are important because of what they do. Consequently, we begin by asking: What function(s) does recreation behavior (or activity participation) serve within the context of a person's life as a whole? This perspective is similar to rec- reation benefits (e.g., Driver et al., 1991), motivations (e.g., Tinsley & Tinsley, 1986), or multiple satisfactions (e.g., Decker, Brown, & Gutierrez, 1980; Hau- toluma & Brown, 19'78). We prefer the term function for three reasons (see More, 2002): (1) we prefer to avoid the value judgment implied by the term benefit; function implies a more analytic understanding; (2) motivations as typically understood in the recreation research literature are closely linked to personality traits, which we believe are better treated as capacities; (3) function keeps our conception consis tent with the terminology of sys terns theory and biology. Nevertheless, these conceptions are close; all seek to identify the purposes that recreation activities serve in people's lives. The question they ask is uWhy?", and in a systems context "whyn can only be understood by examining the effects the system produces on the broader suprasystem. Thus, we must begin with an analysis of the effects of recreation participation within the context of a person's life as a whole. Since functionalist explanations address phenomena in terms of their consequences for the rest of the system (Abraharnson, 1978). we must be explicit about the hierarchical organization of recreation behavior. Above, we illustrated how a small action-tying a knot-acquired importance be- cause it fulfilled a function within a larger system-docking the boat. So, too, the functions of a day's sailing must be understood in terms of the changes produced in other, larger systems. In psychology, the highest (most inclusive) is the self, the importance of which has been amply documented in leisure research (Scott & Godbey 1994; Shamir 1992; Shaw, Kleiber & Caldwell 1995). Typically the self is presented as a single, psychological con- cept (as in self-image, self identity. et cetera). However, we see the self not as a uniform entity but as a tri-faceted organization of biological, social, and psychological components corresponding to the analytic modes in Table 1. Each aspect of the self is comprised of behavioral subsystems which interact to yield an organization that is both hierarchical 'and heterarchical (Figure 1 ) Pa-.-A --..- t n . . - TABLE I o~ruccumr ractms that Determine Behawiar at the BioZogica& So&& and Psychological h e h of Analysis Structud Variable Analytic Mode Functions Mechanisms Capacities Biological "Instincts" Organ systems Temperament Social Institutions Organizations Ethos (e.g., power, status, .- . Psychological Life st c ~ p o (long-mnge 'Faculties" (e.g., memory, Tnih/capacities motives) perception) 378 MORE AND AVERILL STRUCX'URE OF RECREATION BEHAVIOR 379 The Biological Self Modern Homo sapiens and their behavior are the product of several mil- lion years of hominid evolution. Most personality theories assume we have a human nature simpIy as a member of a biological species: We are considered an aggressive species, a social species, a species that rears its young to ma- turity. Though actual behavior is modified by social and psychological factors, such instincts form its biological substrate. The biological self represents the incorporation of species concerns within the individual. From a species perspective, the greatest good is species survival, accomplished by the maturation of healthy adults capable of con- tributing to the gene pool. The corresponding concern within the individual is long-term health, where health is defined broadly as the optimal function- ing.of the various biological systems. The major biological systems of behav- ior ("instinctsn like attachment, sex, and aggression) contribute more or less directly to species survival. Leisure activities vary in their level of biological involvement: Some-jogging, aerobics-have an obvious biological basis, but many others have biologicalIy based components that must be incorporated into a comprehensive explanation. For example, activities that center on dating-going to parties, movies-all may have a biological foundation in the attachment/mating behavioral subsystem. The same is true with nurtur- ance and aggression. A comprehensive explanation of an activity cannot ig- nore its biological substrates. At the lowest level, elementary responses contributing to survival are typically experienced as pleasurable-the sweet taste of ripe fruit or'the plea- sure of sexual activity. Thus, the "pleasures" are intimately related to our biological functioning and form a basic part of the happiness or satisfaction associated with many recreation activities, including aesthetics (Averill, Stanat & More, 1998). Qualities like the smell of a wildflower, pure air, or the coldness and clarity of a mountain stream can, when accumulated, be significant determinants of the quality of outdoor recreation experiences (cf. Mendee, Catton, Marlow, & Brockman, 1968; Peterson, 19'74). These biolog- ically based pleasures form one cornerstone of the intrinsic rewards associ- ated with recreation and leisure and provide a link between the organiza- tional structure of the behavior and the nature of the associated experience. There is no definitive list of biological systems of behavior. Over the years, many theorists have proposed lists of instincts, needs and drives that are presumably central to human survival. While the number of systems rec- ognized depends upon factors like the complexity level at which one enters the hierarchy, the criteria used, and the purposes of the classification, most theorists agree that mating (sex), aggression (power and dominance), harm avoidance (flight to safety), attachment to others (including both nurturance and distress at loss), exploration (curiosity), and foraging (search for food and drink) are among the major biological systems of behavior (Averill, Stanat, & More, 1998). Recreation research has explored some of these sys- tems more thoroughly than, others, but all are likely to play a role in ex- plaining particular activities. The Social Self Just as the biological self incorporates species concerns, the social self represents the (imperfect) incorporation of societal goals and cultural val- ues, particularly moral values, within the individual. From a functionalist perspective, societies, like species, strive for preservation. They define be- haviors vital to their survival as virtuous and condemn as vices those that are detrimental. The well-socialized individual has internalized the culture's goals and values as a set of moral precepts that are at the heart of the social self. Consequently, many classical philosophers equated a good life with a virtuous one, and moral values (which are largely culturally determined) are to the social self what health is to the biological self. Within the individual, the social self is an amalgam of both social struc- tural influences (race., gender, class, etc.) and cultural factors. Social s w c - turd influences are patterned interrelationships between individual and or- ganizational statuses, while cultural factors are historically determined belieh about what is, what should be, and how things should be done (Schooler, 1996). Both social structures and culture are major determinants of individ- ual behavior, so much so that many social theorists (e.g., Parsons, Merton, Schooler) separate them and might well have included a fourth, cultural hierarchy in the present paper. While we believe such separation to be le- gitimate, we present them as unified here both for the sake of expedience and to vreserve a "social self" that corresponds directly to the biological and I psychological selves. Developed societies are articulated into various social systems-adaptive patterns that contribute more or less directly to the survival of the society. Our values are organized around these systems; that is, through socialization we come to understand what constitutes proper behavior in a variety of social systems and settings. Table 2 lists one potential categorization of social sys- tems and their related functions. It is worth noting how much leisure re- T A B U 2 E x a m p h of Social Systems with Related Functionsa System Function Education Socialization Economic Production/distribution of goods and services Medical Healthcare Political Production of collectively binding decisions Legal Maintenance of, and adherence to decisions Scientific Production of new knowledge Religious Articulation of meanings and values Military Protection/conquest 'The list is not exhaustive, and many functions overlap, e.g., military spending has economic consequences. search has concentrated on the relationship between recreation and the economic system (e.g., D u e D e n o , 1997; Fix & Loomis, 1997), the familial system (e.g., Baldwin, Ellis, & Baldwin, 1999; Freysinger, 1994), and, to a lesser extent, the medical system (e.g., Godbey 1997; Paffenbarger, Hyde, & I Dow, 1991; Ulrich, 1984). Relationships between recreation and other social systems may prove to be fruitful areas for investigation. For example, parks may play a significant role in the religious or educational life of a community. Each social system is comprised of organizations-both formal (banks, clubs) and informal (family, friends). These combinations of social roles r e p resent the environment through which the social self moves; they are the internalized representations of social structures. Still lower is the multiplicity of social roles occupied by the individual, while at the lowest level are typi- fications-routinized social responses performed nearly automatically, e-g., shaking hands upon greeting. Organizationally, the social self parallels the biological self. As noted, classical philosophers often argued that the highest social goal (within the individual) is to live a good (virtuous) life. and many serious leisure pursuits (Stebbins, 1982, 1999) contribute to this goal directly, particularly those con- cerned with participation in civic or communal organizations. However, vir- tuous behavior is possible throughout the hierarchy and in a variety of ac- tivities and settings: Helping a friend or picking up litter are examples of virtuous ace that provide pleasure. Doing good for the sake of doing good is pleasurable and recreation activities offer numerous opportunities to ex- ercise this enjoyment. Like the biological "pleasures," acts of virtue whether small (helping a friend) or large (a long-term commitment to volunteering) represent another of the emotional Cornerstones upon which the recreation experience is built. The Psychological Self The psychological self is a set of propositions or concepts about who we are as individuals and how we relate to the world. To many theorists in psychology's humanist tradition (e.g., Rogers, Maslow, Jung), actualization of the psychological self (i-e., preservation and enhancement of a sense of self) is a major, if not the major, motivation behind most human behavior. As a goal, self-actualization is comparable to health and virtue in the biolog- ical and social systems, so that elementary behaviors that enhance a person's sense of self also will be experienced as pleasurable. The psychological systems supporting the self can be divided into long- term plans or scripts that specify goals within broad domains of a person's life. A person's motives, emotions, attitudes, and beliefs are organized around these plans o r scripts and are supported, in turn, by specific actions that occur at the lowest level of the hierarchy. Part of a person's selfconcept might be that he/she is a sailor. He or she may have long-term goals related to sailing: owning a larger boat, winning a particular race, or retiring near a major lake. The experience of individual sailing occasions will be impacted 382 MORE AND AVERILL by these plans: Is it your first time?, h regular activity, or "old hat." Each individual experience will be one of a series of experiences, and its emotional quality may be at least partially determined by where it lies in the series. Finally, any sailing experience will be composed of numerous specific actions related to sailing-the actual behaviors of sailing. These specific actions de- rive meaning from the plans, scripts, and emotions that lie above them in the hierarchy, but they also provide important inputs upwards in the system. So, if the person's hand grow arthritic, making it more difficult to perform a specific action, he or she may have to change long-term plans as they relate to sailing. In a systems context, processing goes both up and down the hi- erarchy. In sum, a functional analysis of a recreation activity examines the effects of participation on the biological, social, and psychological selves. Generally, we believe that theories of recreation benefits (e.g., Driver & Bruns, 1999) or motivations (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1986) are within the functionalist tmdi- tion. While current versions of such theories may be problematic (see More, 2002), they represent one kind of knowledge necessary for comprehensive explanation. Enabling Mechanisms While a functional analysis concerns the origins and purposes of rec- reation behavior, a mechanistic analysis explores the internal workings that fi~lfill those functions; the central question is how rather than why. In the sailing example, a functional analysis tells us why we tie the knot, it does not tell us how the knot is tied. As with functions, enabling mechanisms can be analyzed from biological, social, and psychological perspectives. Biologit(~l Enahling Mechanism Biologically, enabling mechanisms are best represented by organ systems and the various physiological structures they comprise. Recreation activities obviously differ in the extent to which they involve the different organ sys- tems: swimming uses the muscular, cardiovascular, and pulmonary systems extensively, while picnicking or dining out involves the digestive system. In- volven~ent also can vary in intensity: jogging may involve some organ systems intensely, while watching television may maintain most systems at low acti- vation. Over the years, physiological explanations of recreation behavior have been popular, ranging from eye-pupillary measures of aesthetic responses (Wenger & Videbeck, 1969) to the effects of natural environments on patient recovery (Ulrich, 1984), to the influence of outdoor adventure tasks on the neurocndrocine system (Bunting, Tolson, Kuhn, Suarez, & Williams, 2000). Particularly important physiological mechanisms in recreation include, among other things, pleasure centers in the brain, specialized circuitry in the left frontal lobes (which appear to be involved in positive emotional STRUCTURE OF RECREATION BEHAVIOR 383 experiences) ,and endorphins and other naturally occurring opoids (Averill & More, 2000). Perhaps the most comprehensive physiological explanation of recreation is Berelyne's (1960,1968) arousal theory. In this theory, arousal (in the form of 'arousal jags") is a major motivational factor in exploratory and play behavior, as well as in forms of adult recreation behavior as diverse as riding roller coasters and attending performances of tragic drama (Ber- elyne, 1960). Arousal also has been linked to theories of laughter, humor, and aesthetics (Berelyne, 1968, 1972) and used to explain emotional reac- tions to such diverse environments as suburban parks (Hull & Harvey, 1989) and wilderness areas (Scherl, 1987). Technically Berelyne's theory represents the interaction of a major physiological enabling mechanism (arousal) with elements of psychological mechanisms (novelty, complexity, etc.); mecha- nisms interact at all levels and are separable only in theory. Physiological research is undoubtedly important in explaining recrea- tion behavior, but brings with it all the temptations of reductionism-the belief that truth is to be found at this level where we can make exact mea- surements in millimeters and milliliters. Unfortunately, such thinking is often illusory. To borrow Daniel Robinson's (1997) example, if we ask why some- one got angry, and repeated observations show that their blood temperature increased lo, we might conclude that they got angry because their "blood boiled." Yet such a conclusion would clearly be false, despite systematic and reliable measurement. The reason they got angry might have much more to do with someone else cheating at cards, making a cutting remark, etc.-the "blood boiling" is an effect, not a cause. Clearly, there are instances where physiological processes can be causal factors in recreation, as when a' chem ical imbalance creates depression, but we need to place this research in per- spective: It is important and necessary, but comprehensive explanation re- quires more than just physiology. Social Enabling Mechanism Social enabling mechanisms are the organizations and related individ- uals that support specific recreation activities. These organizations provide the inner workings of the various social systems described above. They can be either formal (businesses, agencies, institutions) or informal (groups of friends, family). For example, a social analysis of hunting mechanisms would identify the nature of hunting opportunities, the rules and regulations of the providing organizations, the clubs, stores and cafes, and gasoline stations that significantly enable a person's participation. It also would be necessary to know about support or opposition from family, friends, and coworkers- a person's social network of interested others. The most significant social mechanisms are the small groups that form around the family, neighborhood, and workplace (Murray, 1988). Ample ev- idence attests that recreation is profoundly social; it often occurs in just these small groups of family, fiends, and co-workers, and many activities actually depend on group participation. Even such solitary activities as trapping may 384 MORE AND AVERILL depend on maintaining a supportive social network (Glass, More, Siemer, Brown, Batchelder, & DiStefano, 1991). The catch, at least according to Mur- ray (1988), is that to fulfill functions (and, therefore, to lead to long-term happiness) these small groups must afford their members challenges that are meaningful, require effort, and for which group members can feel re- sponsible for their own successes or failures (Murray, 1988)-traits typically associated with intrinsically rewarding recreation activities (Iso Ahola, 1999). Murray argues that social policy should promote and nurture such groups, which suggests that recreation managers should preserve a range of oppor- tunities of varying challenges; providing too much assistance or comfort in the name of enhancing satisfaction risks robbing activities of their intrinsic rewards-people need to "earnw their enjoyment. . Psychological Enabling Mechanisms Psychological enabling mechanisms comprise what early psychology texts used to call "faculties": memory, attention, perception, judgment, the will, and imagination (e.g., William James' Principles of Psychology (1892, 1961)). Today we discuss these faculties at a more molecular level: For ex- ample, Berelyne (1960) divided attention into issues of novelty, stimulus com- plexity, amount of surprising; any of the major faculties can be broken down similarly. Ultimately, psychological enabling mechanisms serve the psychological self, the most inclusive unit of the psychological hierarchy. Three of the most important are setting realistic but challenging goals, a belief in one's ability to attain the goal, and adequate feedback about progress toward attaining the goal. Goals must be realistic and attainable. People who lack confidence sel- dom undertake challenging activities, so that belief in personal control over outcomes and the degree of perceived choice in one's l i e are positively related to happiness (e.g., Abbey & Andrews, 1986; Deci & Ryan, 1985). Leisure counseling can assist people in setting attainable goals. Feedback, the other goal-related mechanism, is essential to positive emo- tion (Carver & Scheier, 1990). Most intrinsically rewarding recreation activ- ities are patterned around long-term scripts, not random samplings of plea- sure or individual occasions of satisfactions. Any individual experience is part of a series and the quality of that experience-an extremely important form of feedback to the person-is as much determined by where it stands within the series as by the kinds of setting attributes ordinarily studied by recreation research. "Is it still fun?" is a crucial question asked by participants. When an activity is no longer pleasurable, the person may progress to a new level of specialization as in fishing (Bryan, 19'79) or hunting (Jackson et al., 1979; More, 1984). Scott and Shafer (2001) provide an excellent analysis of the mechanisms involved in specialization. They suggest that specialization in- volves focusing behavior such that an individual participates in an activity at the expense of other activities, the acquisition of associated skills and knowl- edge, and commitment such that the activity becomes a central life interest. These processes are instigated by 'career contingencies"-interpersonal or structural events that affect the trajectory of a person's leisure career through facilitation or constraint (Stebbins 1992). Thus career contingencies can lead some people toward increased specialization, while others will follow a more casual trajectory, perhaps becoming committed to particular groups or lo- cations. Feedback is essential throughout this process. As a mechanism, feedback invites evaluation: comparing where one is with where one feels one ought to be. In psychology, such judgments are known as gap, congruence, or discrepancy theories (Michalos, 1980, 1985; Parducci, 1968; W~lls, 1981). Such theories have been applied extensively in leisure research to understanding the quality of individual experiences. Thus, the satisfaction derived from camping is considered a function of the degree of congruence between aspiration and the reality of the experience (Bultena & Klessig, 1969), while the quality of a wilderness experience de- rives from the relationship between a penon's expectations and the per- ceived reality of the experience (Peterson, 19'74). Flow is one of the most significant current theories involving gap mech- anisms (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Flow is a characteristic of experience, so we will not treat it here, but experiencing flow depends on the gap between challenges and skill-structural characteristics. If this gap is too large, bore- dom or anxiety results (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Finally, importance/per- formance analysis (e.g., Havitr, Twynam & DeLorenzo, 1991; Richardson, 1987), which identifies gaps in the performance of specific attributes relative to preferred performance levels, and normative theories of encounters (e.g., Heywood, 1996) also have their intellectual foundation in gap theory. Other psychological mechanisms could be discussed (e.g., Berelyne's, 1960, analysis of orienting responses, novelty, and exploratory responses). But the key point should be clear: mechanistic analyses are concerned with how recreation activities work-their processes and substructures-and yield a different explanation from a functional analysis that asks why. The Capacity for Recreation Activities Capacity is the third focus for a systems analysis of recreation behavior; the fundamental question here is: "What's possible? (i.e., What are the sys- tem's limitations?)" Contemporary recreation research has tended to ap- proach this as a question of constraint; research on constraints has grown so rapidly in recent years that it has become a distinctive sub-field of leisure research (Jackson, 1991). In fact, some theorists believe that constraints research has shaped the very way we conceive participation (Samdahl & Jekubovich, 1997; Raymore, 2002). Perhaps the dominant model of constraint is that proposed by Crawford, Jackson, & Godbey (1991). This model suggests that people negotiate three types of barriers to participate in an activity: structural barriers (time, money, etc.) intervene between preference and participation, interpersonal barriers MORE AND A . R I L L (e,g., lack of companions) involve social interaction, and intra~ersonal bar- and body ever be significantly narrowed (except, perhaps someday, ,, include psychologica~ states or individual attributes- Recent research through genetic engineering). (p. 279) has questioned this model on various pOint.5, however- For e x m ~ l e , Samdahl if Harris is Correct, in some recreation activities sex creates major and ~ ~ k ~ b ~ ~ i ~ h (1997) argue that people are more active in shaping and in (we reserve the term 'lgendern for socio-cultural dif- adapting their participation than the model implies, that pfior research find- ferences)* Sometimes we resolve sex differences with separate competitions. ings about c o n s u a i n ~ may have been an artifact of the research methods# In Other activities it is possible to neutralize sex differences through rule and hat the cons wain^ model still fails to e~plain participation (i.e.* it modifications* as with differential tees in golf that enable and men strives to explain why people do not participate rather than they do). play togetheL And, most probably for the m t majority of recreation ac- we mke a slightly different tack, arguing that people differ in their tivities-going to the movies, playing bridge, camping-biologically-baJed pacities to participate in activities. There are, in fact, a mriad Of individual sex differences have no effect on capacity whaaoever, The point is that we differences bemeen people that influence recreation behavior. We are short need think through these differences in capacity for explanatory purposes or mil, female or male, well-coordinated or clumsy, wealthy Or poor* etc. (and without due judgment+ Our biological capacities change kfi age, clearly, these differences are important in explaining recreation behavior. through matuntion, then through aging. For example, young We b a t they represent people's capacities. with function, a focus can be injured by being p ~ h e d beyond their biological capacity, while ar- on capacity rather than on constraint keeps our teminolof3' consistent with an injury) may diminish an older penon's =-paciq for an activity, theory, ~t also enables US to discuss the effeco Of potential changes nece*ritating a change in long-term plans and perhap even in selfsoncept in capacity, such those h a t might come from aerobic exercise Or aging Often, goals within the functional systems may concern building or main- (in the biolo@cal sytem), education or a change in income (in the taining biological capacity; aerobic exercise is an example. Ttem), or counseling (in the psychological ~ystem). The elements Of 'On- temporary c o n s ~ i n ~ theo1-y are present, but slightly refocused. '' with S o c i ~ ~ Z t ~ r a Z Capacities functions and mechanisms, capacities need to be examined biolo@cal. socioIultural, and psychological penpecfves. However, since re- S"cio-cultural fapacifies reflect a society's ethos (noms, &aracter) and of fie constmints literamre are available k g . , Jackso* & Scott lgg9)9 on individual behavior. For example, societies can be cornpet- our discussion is illustrative rather than comprehensive* Or status conscious or egalitarian, coIlectivist or individu- alistic# et ==tera, and these characterizations are reflected in meir popula- 'On'. Individual1~ there are a host Of socio-cultural differences bemeen Biological Gzfiacitie~ pe0plcin aMilable leisure, Class Status, income and education, srage ~ i ~ l ~ ~ i ~ ~ l capacities include species attributes (at the population level) in life etc. Gender, with its trained incapacities, expectations of and related temperamenhl Characteristics at the individual level (suength' emotionalih/ and fie like, is a central factor (Hendenon & ~ l l ~ ~ , energy level, sociability, etc.) to the extent that these are under genetic 'On- 1991)9 as is race with its accompanying prejudices (Phillip, 1999). ~ ~ d i v i d ~ ~ ~ trol. ~h~~~ me actually a host of biological differences bemeen people that differences in s " c i w i u l t ~ d factors can create differences in the capad ty may (or may not) play an important role in recreation behavior- An obvious " participate in different recreational activities. Their obvious innuence ha example is that we are born female Or male. According to Harris made them h e most studied of the capaciv facton. M~~ are 11.6 centimeten (4.6 inches) taller than Women on average psu.hobgica~ Capacities have lighter bones and . . . weigh leSS for their height are about two- thirds to threquartem as strong as men, depending on the group Of Psychologicall~ individual differences are manifested in traits that can testedd. ~h~ biggest differences are ~ 0 n c e n m ~ ~ ~ in the be 'Onsidered measures of our psychologicaI capacities to attain specific and shoulders. There is no mystery, therefore, about men outperform a long history in recreation research (eWg., M ~ ~ , shackelford, in e i a n d d f i e l d athletic contests. In archerg, for example* the woman*s & 1967)~ the link between personality traits and recreation behavior hand bow record for distance is 15 percent leu the male record In 'Om- not been thoroughlJC Human tmig are of three kinds: trails of pound bow the gap is 90 percent In javelin hurling* it is 20 per- abi1it3 Of temperament (or disposition), and mils of motivation, Traiu cent, ~ d d to these differences a 10 percent gap in various kinds Of 'prints and Of intelligence.' speed, artistic ability, endurance, agilig, and intermediate and long distance races. As 1 mentioned earlier, lhere is a per- cent gap in The same for lMkneter dashes, but larger, about l2 perccnr. for intermediate distances. While athletic mining PrOgnms and psy- 'It ' impormt note that intelligence is both genetically and environmenr.lly chological incentives improve women's track-and-field performance* there is jut as there is lome biological basis for culture. ?he extent of biologiul inrnolnmenr is little prospect that the gap that now exists in Sports based on ~usCU1ar strength "bject Of debate, and is well beyond he xopc of papr- 388 MORE AND AVERIU gracefulness. We know of no specific studies that link these traits to recrea- tion behavior (doubtless there are some), but the relationships seem obvious. Intelligence may be a key factor in the enjoyment of complex games like chess, or in solving mathematical or linguistic puzzles; agility and graceful- ness can influence success with activities like dancing or figure skating; man- ual dexterity or fine motor coordination may be needed for activities like needlework or playing the piano. When someone excels at a particular ac- tivity we tend to say he or she has a gift or talent for i t Such talents often reflect underlying differences in ability traits that affect the capacity to pur- sue particular recreational goals. Traits of temperament and motivation have received more attention in leisure research than have ability traits. Traits of temperament are based on the notion that we can describe people meaningfully with words like confi- dent, shy, aggressive, energetic, and sympathetic. Traits of motivation include needs for achievement, power, autonomy, and affiliation. Current research (Digman, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1991) suggests that most traits of temper- ament and motivation can be subsumed under five broad dimensions: intro- version-extroversion, neuroticism (or negative Sectivity), openness to ex- perience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, each of which can be related to recreation participation. Introversion and extroversion represent capaci- ties for different kinds of experience, and may influence people's responses to particular recreation settings or sites. For example, both introverts and extroverts attend parties and other social functions, but introverts do so at a considerably greater cost In contrast, introverts have a greater capacity for solitude and many prefer activities and/or sites that provide it.' Likewise, the degree to which a person is open to new experiences is a capacity that is important in recreation preferences; some people prefer the familiar while others are more adventurous. Many personality factors that have been studied in recreation research can be linked to the "big five* dimensions. Thus, achievement is a compo- nent of conscientiousness, while affiliation is associated with extroversion. We suggest that these traits are better treated as capacities for different kinds of experiences rather than as needs, and that such capacities are manifested in both patterns of participation and in preferences for various site/activity . . . . attributes. In sum, people differ in their capacities to participate in specific leisure activities and such individual differences are significant factors in explaining leisure behavior. This slightly different focus helps avoid at least one of the problems Samdahl and Jekubovich (1997) raise about constraints: the prob- lem that they fail to explain participation directly, Having the capacity to play chess does not necessarily imply that someone will choose to play chess. 'Note the subtle value judgments involved: We often try to "cure" introverts without acknowl- edging that introversion may have strengths of irs own. Could Emily Dickenson have written her poems had she been extraverted and gregarious? STRUCTURE OF RECREATION BEHAVIOR 389 To understand that choice, we need information on function(s) and mech- anism(~). It is clear, however, that having the capacity to play chess is an essential element of that choice. Conclusion In this paper we presented a meta-theoretical analysis of leisure concepts in the form of a systems analysis of recreation behavior. Our primary concern was to analyze how the different concepts-benefits, arousal, constraints, and the like-fit together. These concepts represent different types of knowledge and all are necessary for a comprehensive explanation of leisure behavior. With any phenomenon, the great questions remain: What? Why? How? and What's needed? To answer the 'whatn question, we focused on how an ac- tivity was constructed using both prototypic and design subsystems. The con- struction (or structure) of individual recreation activities deserves closer scru- tiny in recreation research, and we believe it is basic to any attempt at comprehensive explanation. It is what Aristotle might have equated with the material cause-the 'stuff' of which the activity is made. The three remaining questions-why? how? and what's possible?-we equated with function, mechanism, and capacity, respectively. Functions are discerned by examining the effects of recreation. From a systems perspective, they are equivalent to Aristotle's final causes and are represented in the literature by the concepts of benefits, motivations, and satisfactions. Mecha- nisms are concerned w i t h how the system operates (Aristotle's efficient cause) and are represented in the literature by concepts like arousal, nor- mative theories, social network analysis, and various gap theories. Capacities refer to the "what's needed?" question. In systems terms they represent the system's operating limitations in a way that is equivalent to Aristotle's formal cause. While they are most closely represented by the concept of constraints, we believe this slight refocusing offers a difTerent form of insight that avoids some of the intellectual difficulties that occur with current conceptions of constraint Table 3 synthesizes some familiar leisure research traditions within this framework, but is by no means exhaustive. We also examined each concept-function, mechanism, and capacity- from a biological, social, and psychological perspective. We suggest that the resulting Scelled matrix provides a good gauge to assess our knowledge of any particular recreation or leisure activity. If we could somehow partition our knowledge of a particular activity across these cells, we believe it would identify clearly the strengths and weaknesses in current research knowledge about it. Two important caveats must be noted. First, the analysis as we have pre- sented it is primarily suited to western cultures in that it is focused on the individual. We argue that the long-term goals that actuate most recreation behavior are health in the biological mode, the desire for a virtuous life in the social mode, and the enhancement of a sense of self (self-actualization) in the psychological mode. Each of these broad goals concerns individual 390 MORE AND AVERILL TABLE 3 A Synthesis of S o m Lcirun Research Raditimu Undar o h a t w n System Theory FramOrtta Systems Category Analytic Mode Function Mechanism Capacity B i l g Health/well-being, Plych~phy~io1ogic.l Genetically based individd instincts. survival/ research, a r o d dit'ferences (e.g., evolutionary theories, temperment, height, aesthetics, intrinsic etc), sex differences, rewards, benefits, aging motivation, satisfaction Social Social structure, Social network, Class analysis, gender, life culture, economic, organizations, course, consmints family and group small groups, benefits, family, roles socialization. volunteerism Psychological Self-actualinlion, self- Place attachment. P e w n d i t p traits (e.~.. identity memory and introversion) attention, cognitive schemes, scrip& and plans, feedback, goal setting and attainment, specialization, -gapw theories, Kow . 'These categories are not mutually exclusive and may overlap. welfare. In collectivist cultures such as Japan, by contrast, individuals are expected to subordinate their own welfare to that of the group. Such an emphasis clearly would lead to differences in the functional hierarchy we propose. A second, and perhaps more serious, concern lies in the questions that have been raised about systems analysis in general, and functional analysis in particular. While systems thinking pervades many fields, it has been e s pecially controversial in sociology. By the mid-20' century, American soci- ology was dominated by the systems analyses of Talcott Parsons, so much so that a reaction was probably inevitable (Abrahamson, 1978). As Walter Kuentzel (University of Vermont, personal communication, January, 2002) puts it: .. Parsons' structural functionalism. has endured intense scrutiny and criticism . . over the yean and. hold, much less c u m n q with sociologisu these d a ~ . S T R U C T U ~ ~ OF RECREATION BEHAVIOR 391 What are some of the recent alternatives? There are still the neo-Marxist hold- overs who leveled the most brutal criticisms of Parsons. But, more so today are the theories of modernity, which describe contemporary behavior with words like fragmentation, anxiety, uncertainty, and ambivalence. These theories chal- lenge the myth that individuals can easily know and assess what is in their best interests and then act accordingly to achieve some degree of self-actualization or individual progress. Instead, individuals are more frequently confronted with confusing signals, uncertain options and outcomes, risk and its accompanying anxiety, and a general ambivalence about what to do next and what the future holds. We agree, in part, with Kuentzel. We noted above that people may not be fully conscious of such broad goals as health, virtue, or self-actualization, and this lack of full understanding creates the uncertainty, anxiety, and am- bivalence Kuentzel mentions. It is often difficult to decide between activi- ties-should you go bowling? play cards?, or just nap? But, once that choice has been made, a variety of behaviors--our prototypic and design subsys- tems-must be undertaken, participation will have various effects (conse- quences, outcomes), and the individual will have various strengths/talents she/he will bring to the activity, etc. In short, while the decision of which functions to pursue may be difficult, once that decision has been made, a systems analysis may be both appropriate and revealing. More generally, sys- tems analysis, while it no longer has the dominance it had in the mid-20th century, remains a significant tradition within sociology, and even Parsons has enjoyed a minor revival (Jary & Jary, 1991). Functionalist analyses of society also have been criticized as being a static and inherently conservative view perhaps because of their emphasis on the stability of social structure rather than on change. Indeed, a basic (and flawed) assumption of structural functionalism is that if a social structure or practice exists, then it must serve a function,. and that function must be important to the maintenance of society. Yet societies, social structures, and cultures clearly evolve. Sometimes social structures force cultural progress, as when the U.S. Supreme Court declared segregated schools to be illegal in a reluctant culture. At other times, culture leads social structure as when popular resistance to the Vietnam War led to changing structures. Thus, while functionalism can yield important insights and serve as a framework for the general analysis of the social dimensions of recreation behavior, it also can yield illogical results if adhered to in an extreme form. Moderation is crucial for successful systems analysis. In sum, we believe that Recreation Systems Theory with its differentia- tion of functions, mechanisms and capacities offers useful guidelines for the systematic analysis of any recreation activity. The initial step in such an anal- ysis is to identify the prototypic subsystems that constitute the central "core" of the activity. The identification of functions should focus on this core. If enough people add a particular design subsystem, it will constitute a "market segment." Such market segments must be analyzed separately, however, to avoid confounding errors. In bowling, for example, prototypic subsystems might include setting up (unpacking gear, putting on shoes, etc.), the phys- 392 MORE AND AVERILL ical actions of rolling the ball down the alley and scoring. During bowling, some, but not all, participants consume alcohol-a design subsystem. Alco- hol taken in moderate amounts can increase sociability and decrease per- formance. Consequently, it is desirable to separate these effects from a con- sideration of the prototypic functions of bowling. Second, we need to identify the mechanisms that support an activity, and those mechanisms must be linked subsequently to the functions. The current generation of functional research (e.g., benefits, motivations, satis- factions) has been criticized as being too "black boxyn (More, 2002). That is, we ask people about the benefits they hope to obtain, but we seldom link those benefits with their supporting mechanisms. The next generation of research must reveal the underlying processes-we must show how the ben- efits of hiking, for example, are produced by putting one foot in front of another on a specific trail. That is, we must understand the processes by which benefits are created. Lastly, we should consider the capacities required by particular activities. These are not absolute, of course-people have a range of abilities that they bring to an activity. Yet even so simple an activity as picnicking may require some level of organizational skills. A carehl analysis of capacity also must include an analysis of traditional constraints to ensure barrier-free access, etc. In the final analysis, we believe that Recreation Systems Theory offers a logical way to think through the analysis of any particular leisure activity. And, when it has been thought through, we believe that such analyses, care- fully done, can significantly enhance senice delivery by keeping our atten- I tion focused on the core structure of the activity with its attendant functions, mechanisms and required capacities. I References Abbey, A, & Andrews, F. (1986). Modeling the psychological determinants of life quality. In F. Andrews (Ed.), Rcseanh on the qua& of lifc (pp. 851 16). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Mich- igan, Institute for Social Research. Abraharnson, M. (1978). Functionalism Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Atkinson, J. (1964). An introduction to motivation. New York: Van Nostrand. ! Averill, J. (1992). The structural bases of emotional behavior: A metatheoretical analysis. In M.S. Clark (Ed.), Reuinu of PmonaliQ amd Saial Psychology, 13, (pp. 1-24). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Averill, J., & More, T. (2000). Happiness. In M. Lavis, & T. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of Emotions (2& ed., pp. 663-676). New York Guilford Press. Averill, J., Stanat, P., & More, T. (1998). Aesthetics and the environment. Revim of General Psy- dolog), !2, 153-174. Baldwin, J., Ellis, D., & Baldwin, B. (1999). Marital satistution: An examination of its relationship to spouse support and congruence of commitment among runners. Leisun Scimcw. 21,117- 132. Berelyne, D. (1960). Conjict, annual, and nrmsily. New York: McGraw Hill. Berelyne, D. (1968). Laughter, humor, and play. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.). Handbobk o f Social Psyckologp, 2, 795852. Boston: Addison-Wesley. STRUCTURE OF RECREATION BEHAVIOR 393 Berelyne, D. (1972). Aesthetics and psycho6iology. New York: Appleton, Centry, & Crofts. Bryan, H. (1979). Conflict in fhe great outdoon. (Sociological studies No. 4). Tuxlloosa, AL: Uni- versity of Alabama, Bureau of Public Administration. Bultena, G.. & L Nessig (1969). Satisfaction in camping: A conceptualization and guide to social research. Journal ofLeisure Research, I. 348354. Bunting, C, Tolson, H., Kuhn, C., Suarez, E., & W11liam.s. R. (2000). Physiological stress response of the neuroendocrine system during outdoor adventure tasks. Journal o f L L u n Research, 32, 191-207. Carver, C., k Scheier, M. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control- process view. Psychology him, 97, 19-35. Csikszenunihalyi, M. (1996). 2 ' 7 ~ psychofom of Optimal experience. New York Harper. Ded, E. I,., & Ryan, R M. (1985). Infnfnnsic mtivaiim and say-determination. New York: Plenum Press. Decker, D., Brown, T., k Gutierrez, R (1980). Further insights into the multiple satisfaction approach for hunter management. Wildlife Society BuUctin, 8, 323331. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-hctor model. Annual h i m of Psycho@, 41.417440. Driver, B.. Brown. P., k Peterson, G. (1991). n i e benq'its of kisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing. I Driver, B., & ~ r u n s , D. (1999). Concepts and use of the benefits approach to leisure. In T. Burton, k E. Jackson (Eds.), Leism Studies at the Millennium (pp. 349-370). S a t e College, PA: Venture Publishing. Inc. -. W D e n o , R (1997). The effect of state parks on the county economics of the west. Jmmal cf Leisun Resemh, 29. 201-224. I Fix, P.. k Loomis, T. (1997). The economic benefits of mountain biking at one of its meccas: An application of the travel cost method to mountain biking in Moab, Utah. jarmnl o/Lcisun Research, 29. 342-352. Preysinger, V (1994). Leisure with children and parental satisfaction: Further evidence of a sex dirtmnce in the experience of adult roles and leisure. Journal ofldnure Research, 26, 212- 226. Glass, R, More, T.. Seimer, W., Brown, T., Batchelder, G., & DiStefano, J. (1991). Trappers in NewYork and Vermont: Comparisons of social characteristics and motivations. In G. Vander Stoep, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1991 NortfzeasImr Renatwn RdJeanh Symposium (pp. 134138). Radnor, PA: USDA Forest Service General Technical Report NE-160. Godbey, G. (1997). Leisum and hhn sciences in the 21' century. State College, PA: Venture P u b lishing. Hams, M. (1989). Our kind New York: Harper Collins. Heywood, J. (1996). Convention, emerging norms, and norms in outdoor recreation. h i s u n Sciences, 18,555363. Hautoluma, J., & Brown, P. (1978). Attributes of the deer hunting experience. Journal of Leisun Resemh, 10, 271-287. Haviu, M., Twynam, G., k Dehrenzo, J. (1991). Importance-performance analysis as a staff evaluation tool. journal of Park and RGcmrfwn Administration, 9(1), 43-54. Hendee, J., Catton, W., Marlow, L., k B m c h n , F. (1968). Wl&waess uses in the Paci~5c Nmihwest: Their chmactenkriGj, values, and managsnnt p n f w (Res. Pap. PNW-6). Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 92 p. Henderson, R A. & Allen, K. R. (1991). The ethic of care: Leisure possibilities and constraints for women. Society and M u m + 14.97-113. Hull, B., & Harvey, A (1989). Explaining the emotion people experience in suburban parks. Environment and Behaviot; 21,325-345. . . 394 MORE AND AVERILL Iso-Ahola, S. (1999). Motivational foundations of Leisure. In E. Jackson, & T. Burton, T. (Eds.), k u n studics: puspects for Ihc twentyfirst m u r ~ (pp. 35-51). State College, PA: Venture Pub- lishing. Jackson, E., & Scott, D. (1999). Constraints to leisure. In E. Jackson, & T. Burton, T. (Eds.), Leisun s l d i e s : h s p for the h e n p - r s t m t u ~ (pp. 299-321). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Jackson, E. (1991). Leisure constmints/constrained leisure [Special issue introduction].Joumal of Leisun Rcscanh, 23, 279-285. Jackson, R., Norton, R, & Anderson, R. (1979). Improving ethical behavior in hunters. Tranr- mtionr Norih Amtican WildliJc and Natural Rsourccs Confmce, 44, 306318. James, W. ( 1961 ). Psychology: The bricfw course (C. Allport, Ed.). New York Harper and Row. Jary, D., &Jary, J. (1991). 77w H a w Collins dictionary of sociololgp. New York: Harper. Collins. Jones, C., Hollenhorst, S., Perm, F., & Selin, S. (2000). Validation of the flow theory in an on- site whitewater kayaking setting. Journal of L h u n Research, 32, 191-207. Kuentzel, W. (2000). Self-identity, modernity, and the rational actor model in leisure research. Journal of Leisun Rcseanh, 3287-92. McCrae, R R, & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1991). Adding Liebe und Arbeit. The full five-factor model and well-being. Pmonatit~ a d Social Psycho& Bulktin, 17, 427-232. Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social Indicators Research, 16, 347-413. Michalos, A. C., (1980). Satisfaction and happiness. Soeial Indicatws Research, 8, 385422. More, T. (1984). Hunting: A theoretical explanation with management implications. WrMlife Sociefy Bulletin, 12, 338344. More, (2002). The marginal user as the justification for public recreation: A rejoinder to Crompton. Driver, and Dustin. Journal 4 L k s u n Rucad, 34, 105118. Moss, W., Shackleford, L., & Stokes, G. (1967). Recreation and personality. joumal ofFmtry, 67, 182-184. Murray, C. 1988. In pursuit of happiness and good pmmL New York: Simon and Schuster. PaFfenbarger, E., Hyde, R., & Dow, A. (1991). Health benefits of physical activity. In B. Driver, P. Brown & C. Peterson (Eds.). Thc bm$k of .!&un. (pp. 49-58). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Parducci, A. (1968). The relativism of absolute judgments. Scimt@cAnuriurn, 219, 8490. Peterson. G. (1974). Evaluating the quality of the wildernew environment: Congruence between perception and aspiration. Environment and Behavior, 6, 169-193. Phillip. S. (1999). Are we welcome? African American racial acceptance in leisure activities and importance given to children's leisure. Journal of M u m h r c h , 31, 385-403. Raymore, L. (2002). Facilitators to leisure. Journal of Lcism Ruemh, 34, 87-51. Richardson, S. (198'7). An importance-performance approach to evaluating communication ef- fectiveness. Journal of P d and RGnalion Adminktmlwn, 5, 71-83. Robinson, D. (1997). The p a t fwimipIrs ofpsychoIagl. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company. Robinson, D. (1985). The PhilOsOphy ofps~~hobgy. New York: Columbia University Press. Samdahl, D., & Jekubovich, N. (1997). A critique of leisure constraints. journal ofhnRGSeunh, 29,430452. Scherl. L. (1987). The wild.emess eqkrimce: A psychologiml ~aluution of its mmponmts and dynamics. Paper presented at the 4 I h World Wildernem Congress, Colorado Springs. GO. Schooler. C. (1996). Cultural and social-structural explanations of cross-national psychological differences. A n n d Review of Sociology, 22, 325349. Scott, D., & Godbey, G. (1994). Recreation specialization in the social world of contract bridge. journal of lcisurc Raeazh, 26, 875295. Scott, D., & Shafer, C. 2001. Recreation specialization: A critical look at the const~ctJournalof I h u n Rr~eanh, 33, 319-343. STRUCTURE OF RECREATION BEHAVIOR 395 Searle, M. (2000). Is leisure theory needed for leisure studies? Journal ofLeisunIlrrch, 32, 158- 142. Shamir. B. (1992). Some correlates of leisure identity salience: Three exploratoly studies. journal of Leisure Reseanh, 24, 301-323. Shaw, S., Kleiber, D.. k Caldwell, L. (1995). Leisure and identity formation in male and female adolescents: A preliminary examination. Journal o f f i u r e Research, 27, 245263. Stebbins, R (1982). Serious leisure: A conceptua1 statement. Pm@c Sociological Review, 25, 251- 272. Stebbins, R. A. (1992). Amteun, @fessionals, and uriovr leisuw. Montreal: McGilI-Queenb Uni- versity Press. Stebbins. R. (1999). Serious leisure. In E. Jackson, T. Burton, (Eds.), b k u m studies: Prospects for ~ e n ~ f i n t rnhy (pp. 69-79). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Tinsley, H., & Tinsley, D. (1986). A theory of attributes benefits and causes of leisure experience. b n Sciences, 8, 1-45, Ulrich, R. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science, 244, 420-421. Wenger, W., & Videbeck. R 11969 . - - --I). Eye pupillary measurement of aesthetic response to forest scenes. Journal of h u m f i - r ~ n ~ h 1 263.180. Jn principles in social psychology. P~chdo&aZ Bulktin,