the influence of various aspects of enjoyment on

The influence of various aspects of enjoyment onparticipation in leisure time physical activity

Author

Craike, MJ, Hibbins, R, Cuskelly, G

Published

2010

Journal Title

World Leisure Journal

Copyright Statement

© The Author(s) 2010. The attached file is posted here with permission of the copyrightowners for your personal use only. No further distribution permitted.For information about thisconference please refer to the publisher's website or contact the authors.

Downloaded from

http://hdl.handle.net/10072/35678

Link to published version

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/04419057.2010.9674619

Griffith Research Online

https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au

20

This study examines the direct and indirect influence of various aspects of enjoyment, includingactivity enjoyment, enjoyment conceptualised as physical/environmental, and enjoyment concep-tualised as social interaction, on regular participation in leisure-time physical activity (LTPA). Thestudy was cross-sectional and used self-report questionnaires to collect data from a random sam-ple of 250 people aged 19-87 years living in an Australian city. Questionnaires included demo-graphic items and scales to measure enjoyment of LTPA, prioritisation of LTPA and regularity ofparticipation in LTPA. The findings suggest that the influence of enjoyment on participation inLTPA is complex. Aspects of enjoyment have varying levels of influence on participation in LTPAand this influence is indirect through preference for LTPA, life priority of LTPA and making timefor LTPA. Policies, programs and strategies by government and practitioners that aim to increaseparticipation in LTPA should primarily aim to enhance activity enjoyment, rather than focusing onother aspects of participation. Theoretically, this study suggests that enjoyment is a multidimen-sional concept and that enjoyment is a part of a larger decision-making process influencing par-ticipation in LTPA.

Keywords: physical activity, exercise, enjoyment, preference, priority, barriers

Abstract

WORLD LEISURE No. 1/2010 © Copyright by the authors

The influence of various aspects ofenjoyment on participationin leisure time physical activityMELINDA J. CRAIKEDeakin University, Australia

RAYMOND HIBBINS, GRAHAM CUSKELLYGriffith University, Australia

Introduction

There is an extensive body of empiricalevidence which demonstrates the physicaland psychological health benefits of physicalactivity (e.g., Stephenson, Bauman, Armstrong,Smith, & Bellew, 2000; U.S. Department ofHealth & Human Services [USDHHS], 1996).Despite an awareness of these benefits, halfthe Australian adult population does not par-ticipate in sufficient levels of physical activity

✴ ✴ ✴

to achieve a health advantage (see, e.g.,Bauman, Ford & Armstrong, 2001). The el-evation of levels of physical activity is bestachieved through participation in leisure timephysical activity (LTPA). LTPA is easier topromote than other types of physical activityand people can modify their LTPA when theymay have less control over their levels of oc-cupational and domestic physical activity(Ainsworth, Bassett, Strath, Swatz, O’Brien,Thompson et al., 2000). Leisure-time physi-

21

because these aspects distract the individualfrom boredom or physical discomfort orbecause they add a pleasurable componentto the experience (Kendzierski & DeCarlo,1991).

A qualitative study by Gauvin (1990)found that people who participated in regularLTPA were drawn to the activity for the activ-ity itself, whereas those who had droppedout of participating as well as sedentary indi-viduals reported that they liked a wide varietyof aspects of participation in LTPA, includingsocial aspects and situational aspects, butoften excluding the activity itself (Gauvin,1990). Taken collectively, these findings indi-cate that it might be useful to examine theinfluence, not only enjoyment of LTPA itself,but also the influence of more specific typesof enjoyment, such as enjoyment of the socialinteraction and environments that accom-pany the physical activity.

There is limited research on the influenceof enjoyment when it is dependent on socialfactors and/or environments where it takesplace. From this perspective, the individual’senjoyment of LTPA is dependent on factorssuch as social interactions and physical sur-roundings. This ‘external’ enjoyment is dif-ferent to enjoyment that results from partici-pating in the activity itself.

External factors, such as environmentand social factors, may be used to ‘cope’with participation in LTPA. Thus, if people donot enjoy participating in LTPA, they mightrely on other types of enjoyment to enhancetheir overall perception of the experience.Social and environmental influences on par-ticipation in LTPA have been discussed andtheir positive influence has been identified(Gabriele, Walker, Gill, Harber, & Fisher,2005; Giles-Corti, & Donovan, 2003;McGinna, Evensonb, Herringc, Huston,2007). For example, McGinna et al (2007)showed that perceptions of the natural envi-ronment were associated with physical activ-ity and concluded that researchers shouldconsider perceptions of the natural environ-

THE INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS ASPECTS OF ENJOYMENT ON PARTICIPATION IN LEISURE TIME PHYSICAL ACTIVITY

cal activity refers to recreational and sportphysical activity, including a range of activi-ties conducted specifically for enjoyment,social, competitive or fitness purposes, per-formed in leisure or discretionary time(Armstrong, Bauman & Davies, 2000).Regularity of participation is required toachieve health benefits. Thus, acquisition ofbenefits through LTPA requires a significantleisure lifestyle modification (Tsai, 2002,2005). It is important to understand signifi-cant determinants of regular LTPA to developstrategies that will enhance people’s partici-pation (Ajzen, 1985).

Enjoyment of LTPAEnjoyment has been shown to be a strong

determinant of participation in, and adher-ence to, LTPA (Henderson, Glancy, & Little,1999; Kimiecik & Harris, 1996; Salmon,Owen, Crawford, Bauman, & Sallis, 2003;Wankel, 1985, 1993). There has, however,been little research that examines the processthrough which enjoyment influences partici-pation in LTPA. Most research has assumedthat the influence of enjoyment is direct butour understanding of the process throughwhich enjoyment predicts participation inLTPA is limited.

Enjoyment is generally conceptualised asa single dimensional construct. Some re-search, however, suggests that enjoymentmight be multidimensional in nature (e.g.,Gauvin, 1990; Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991).An external focus, such as focusing on theenvironment in which the activity occurs orlistening to music, can improve LTPA per-formance and, as part of multifaceted inter-vention, can enhance adherence (e.g., Mar-tin, Dubbert, Katell, Thompson, Raczynski,Lake et al., 1984; Masters & Lambert, 1989;Padgett & Hill, 1989; Pennebaker & Lightner,1980). Anecdotal evidence suggests thatpeople also use strategies such as listening tomusic while participating in LTPA to increasetheir level of enjoyment and improve theirperformance (Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991).Focusing on external aspects of the experi-ence may make LTPA more enjoyable either

22

ment when developing physical activity inter-ventions. Previous research has not, however,examined the influence of environmental in-fluences and social interaction when individu-als rely on these factors to make their experi-ence a more enjoyable one.

The distinction between enjoyment of theactivity itself and enjoyment that is depend-ent on factors external to the activity sharessimilarities with Deci and Ryan’s (1985,1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000) self-determinationtheory. According to this theory, motivationaltypes form a continuum ranging from intrin-sic motivation to extrinsic motivation (Deci &Ryan, 1985, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Ac-tivity enjoyment shares similarities with intrin-sic motivation. In fact, some previous workhas operationalised intrinsic motivation asenjoyment (e.g., Li, 1999; McAuley, Duncan,& Tammen, 1989; Mullan, Markland, &Ingledew, 1997).

A number of studies suggest that in thecontext of sport and organised physical activ-ity, intrinsic motivation and the more intrinsi-cally regulated forms of behaviour regulationtend to be associated with positive outcomessuch as effort, intentions and later stages ofchange (e.g., Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand,Tuson, Briere, & Blais, 1995; Wilson, Rogers,& Fraser, 2002a and b). In contrast, extrinsictypes of behaviour regulation tend to be as-sociated with more negative outcomes (e.g.,Pelletier et al., 1995; Thogersen-Ntoumani &Ntoumanis, 2006). Enjoyment dependent onsocial and environmental factors shares simi-larities with external forms of behaviour regu-lation. Thus, it could be expected that activityenjoyment will have a positive influence onparticipation in LTPA, while enjoyment char-acterised by social and environmental factorswill have a less positive, perhaps even nega-tive, influence on participation.

Knowledge of the influence of various as-pects of enjoyment has theoretical and prac-tical implications for the study of the determi-nants of regular participation in LTPA. Theo-retical implications include an understanding

of the nature of the concept of enjoymentand the process through which enjoymenthas an influence on behaviour. Practical im-plications include assisting in the design ofprograms and interventions to enhance fre-quency of participation in LTPA and helpingto focus strategies.

In summary, enjoyment has been shownto be an important determinant of participa-tion in leisure-time physical activity. Evidencesuggests that elements such as social factorsand environmental factors may influence theindividual’s perceptions of enjoyment. Thebehavioural outcomes of enjoyment thatarise when enjoyment is dependent on exter-nal sources compared to enjoyment of theactivity itself have not been examined. Theinteraction, and relative importance, of en-joyment compared to other determinants hasnot received a great deal of research atten-tion and there is little evidence of the ways inwhich enjoyment influences regularity of par-ticipation in LTPA.

One way that enjoyment might influenceparticipation in LTPA is through a decision-making process that includes the formationof preferences, prioritisation and time alloca-tion. Craike (2007) proposed that regularparticipation in LTPA is not characterised bya simple choice as it involves deciding be-tween a range of competing leisure behav-iours and life priorities. Craike found thatforming a preference for LTPA does not nec-essarily mean that the individual will engageregularly in the activity. People must alsoprioritise LTPA and have the skills to allocatetime to it if they are to become regular par-ticipants. From this perspective, individualsare seen as actively constructing their use ofleisure through a decision-making processthat involves the allocation of time to activi-ties that are of high life importance. Thepresent study seeks to extend work on the de-cision-making process involved in regularparticipation in LTPA work by testing theproposition that preference, priority and mak-ing time are proximal predictors of regularparticipation in LTPA that mediate the

MELINDA J. CRAIKE, RAYMOND HIBBINS, GRAHAM CUSKELLY

23

influence of enjoyment on regular participa-tion in LTPA.

Enjoyment of LTPA was conceptualised asbeing a multidimensional construct that is anaffective response to LTPA. The three dimen-sions are: (1) activity enjoyment; (2) enjoy-ment conceptualised as physical/environmen-tal; and (3) enjoyment conceptualised as so-cial interaction. Activity enjoyment is definedas feeling pleasure and happiness that arisesfrom participation in the actual leisure-timephysical activity. Enjoyment conceptualised asphysical/environmental describes enjoymentof LTPA that is dependent on the physical lo-cation and environment where it occurs. Thefocus here is on enjoyment of leisure-timephysical activity because of the location whereit takes place, rather than the activity itself.Enjoyment conceptualised as social interac-tion describes enjoyment derived from the so-cial interaction that occurs as a result of par-ticipation in leisure-time physical activity. Thefocus here is on enjoying the activity becauseit means being with other people; the sourceof enjoyment is not the activity itself.

This study broadens the concept of enjoy-ment of LTPA by examining the influence ofthree dimensions of enjoyment on participa-tion in LTPA. It was expected that the threeenjoyment dimensions would influence regu-lar participation in LTPA through their influ-ence on preference, priority and time. It wasalso expected that activity enjoyment wouldhave a stronger influence on preference thanenjoyment conceptualised as physical/envi-ronmental or enjoyment conceptualised associal interaction. It is possible, however, thatall the enjoyment dimensions influence regu-lar participation in LTPA directly and this ef-fect was also assessed (See Figure 1).

MethodParticipants and procedure

The population from which the samplewas selected consisted of individuals aged18 years or over living independently. A se-quential selection method was adopted toselect 729 potential participants from theState Electoral Division role of an Australiancity.

Figure 1. Proposed model: Relationship between enjoyment factors, preferences, life priority, making time andregularity of participation in LTPA


24

Three sets of the questionnaires weremailed to enhance the return rate from po-tential participants (Dillman, 2000). A coverletter explained the purpose and importanceof the research, the value and confidentialityof responses and the voluntary nature of par-ticipation. The cover letter also contained thecontact information of the researchers. Re-ply-paid envelopes were included. Two hun-dred and fifty valid questionnaires were re-turned, after accounting for 59 people whocould not be contacted, giving a responserate of 37.3%. Ethics approval for this re-search project was gained from Griffith Uni-versity prior to collecting data.

There were 132 females (53.2%) and116 males (46.8%) in the sample (n = 248).The age of participants ranged from 19 to87 years, with a mean age of 48 years(SD = 18). The highest level of educationachieved for almost half of participants(42.8%) was high school (7.6% indicated thatthey did not complete high school). Post sec-ondary qualifications included: TAFE (Techni-cal and Further Education)/Technical qualifi-cations (17.2%), bachelor degree (14.8%),postgraduate studies (11.6%), and associate/undergraduate diploma (6.0%). Over three-quarters of the sample were born in Australia(77.5%).

InstrumentsItems were developed for this study based

on previous studies and a qualitative studyconducted as the first stage of this research(Craike, 2005). Prior to the main study, a pi-lot study was conducted to refine the ques-tionnaire. Focus group discussions were heldwith a group of university students to assessthe ease of response, the clarity of the itemwording and instructions. As well as discus-sions with survey respondents, a small expertpanel of academics in the area of leisure re-search was asked to complete a survey andfeedback was sought. As a result of the pilotstudy, adjustments were made to some itemsand questionnaire instructions. For example,changes were made to the way in whichregular participation in leisure-time physical

activity was measured to address concernsabout the clarity of items. Meanings of termssuch as ‘physical activity’ and the length oftime that defines a physical activity ‘session’,were more clearly defined in the question-naire and the measure was reconstructed tomake recall of physical activity sessionseasier. Furthermore, perceptual indicatorswere included to supplement the behaviouralmeasure of participation in regular leisure-time physical activity. Changes to other sec-tions of the questionnaire included rewordingof some items and/or reduction in thenumber of items because many respondentsfelt the questionnaire was repetitive.

Enjoyment of LTPAEnjoyment of LTPA was measured as a

multidimensional construct. Four items meas-ured activity enjoyment including; ‘I enjoy be-ing physically active’, ‘Physical activity is bor-ing’ (negative), ‘Participating in physical activ-ity puts me in a good mood’ and ‘Physical ac-tivity is good fun’. Three items measured en-joyment conceptualised as physical/environ-mental, including; ‘I enjoy physical activitymore when it takes place in attractive loca-tions’, ‘The place where I participate in physi-cal activity generally influences how much Ienjoy it’ and ‘Nice surroundings help me toforget I’m being physically active’. Six itemsmeasured enjoyment dependent on social in-teraction, including; ‘Physical activity is morefun with lots of people’, ‘For me the social partof participation in physical activity is more en-joyable than the activity itself’, ‘Participatingwith other people makes physical activity moreof a social event and less like a chore’, ‘It iseasier to stick to physical activity when youhave someone to participate with’, ‘I usuallyparticipate in physical activity because itmeans I can be with friends’ and ‘I like partici-pating in physical activity by myself’ (nega-tive). All enjoyment items were measured on a5-point Liker-type scale ranging from ‘stronglyagree’ (5) to ‘strongly disagree’ (1).

Prioritisation of LTPAThis was considered a multidimensional

construct that included preference for LTPA,


25

LTPA as a life priority and making timefor LTPA1 . This section briefly outlines theconceptualisation and measurement ofprioritisation of LTPA. More detail about themeasurement can be found in Craike (2007).Four items measured preference for LTPA, in-cluding; ‘I get more pleasure out of doingother things in my spare time than physicalactivity’ (reverse coded), ‘I get satisfactionfrom participating in physical activity but I’drather be doing something else’(reversecoded), ‘During my spare time I like to relaxrather than exerting myself in physical activ-ity’ (reverse coded), and ‘If I have a couple ofspare hours I’d rather do some sort of physi-cal activity than other things’. Two itemsmeasured LTPA as a life priority, including;‘At this time in my life I am putting off becom-ing physically active’ (negative) and ‘Beingphysically active is not a high priority for meat the moment’ (negative). Three itemsmeasured making time for LTPA, including; ‘Ican always find time to be physically active’,‘I find that I haven’t got enough time in theday to fit in physical activity’ (negative), and ‘Idon’t have any free time to participate inphysical activity’ (negative).

All prioritisation items were measured ona 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from‘strongly agree’ (5) to ‘strongly disagree’ (1).Negative items were reverse coded to reflecta high prioritisation of LTPA.

Regular participation in LTPAParticipation in LTPA was measured using

one behavioural recall and two perceptualindicators. A mix of behavioural recall andperceptual indicators allowed for triangula-tion and provided a measure of regular par-ticipation in LTPA that was more robust thana behavioural measure alone. In this study,regular participation in LTPA refers to partici-

pation in at least three sessions of LTPAper week.

To measure the behavioural aspect ofregular participation in LTPA, this studyadapted a measure developed and used byTsai (2002, 2005). This measure assessedparticipation in leisure-time physical activitiesover the previous four weeks. First, respond-ents were asked, “In the past 4 weeks, haveyou participated in any physical activity thathas lasted for at least 20 minutes at a time?”Those who answered ‘yes’ to this questionwere asked to nominate up to three physicalactivities in which they had participated dur-ing the previous four weeks. For each of thethree activities they listed, participants wereasked to recall the number of sessions foreach activity.

This behavioural indicator of the regularityof participation in LTPA was calculated by as-sessing the number of weeks out of the previ-ous four that respondents had participated inLTPA for at least three sessions. Therefore,scores ranged from zero (indicating that therespondent had not been physically active forthree or more sessions over any of the pastfour weeks) to four (indicating that the re-spondent had been physically active for atleast three sessions per week in each of thepast four weeks).

Two indicators were used to measure theperceptual aspect of regular participation inLTPA. One perceptual indicator of regularityof participation in LTPA asked respondentsto rate – on a 5-point scale, ranging from‘not at all’ (1) to ‘very regularly’(5) – howregularly they had participated in physicalactivity over the past four weeks. The secondperceptual indicator measured respondents’perceptions of the regularity of their LTPAcompared to that of other people. Respond-ents were asked to rate (on a 5-point scaleranging from ‘much less regularly’ (1) to‘much more regularly’ (5)), how regularlythey had participated in physical activity overthe past four weeks, compared to other peo-ple of their age and sex.

1 For simplicity, the following abbreviations aresometimes used throughout the paper: ‘Preference forLTPA’ is replaced by ‘preference’; ‘making time forLTPA’ is replaced by ‘making time’, ‘LTPA as a life pri-ority’ is replaced by ‘life priority’, and ‘regular partici-pation in LTPA’ is replaced with ‘regularity of participa-tion’.


26

Statistical analysisInitial data treatment and screening proc-

esses adhered to the recommendations pro-vided by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). Afterundertaking preliminary analysis to ensurethat the values to be estimated were missingrandomly, missing data were replaced usingfull information maximum likelihood estima-tion (Arbuckle, 1996; Enders & Bandalos,2001). Although there was some non-nor-mality inherent in the data, maximum likeli-hood has been shown to be robust to moder-ate violation of the normality assumption(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Hu, Bentler, &Kano, 1992).

Structural equation modelling (SEM), us-ing AMOS version 4, was the main type ofdata analysis used in this study. A two-stageanalysis procedure was adopted whereby themeasurement instruments were tested andrefined prior to assessing the structural model(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Confirmatoryfactor analysis (CFA) was used to test the fac-torial composition and structure of the factorindicators in the measurement model.

Examination of the correlation betweenfactors in the models to determine whetherdiscriminant validity was adequate (<0.90),used standardised residuals, factor loadings,and modification indices to guide the modifi-cation of the measurement models. Theprocess of model refinement for the struc-tural model involved deleting all insignificantpaths sequentially until all insignificant pathshad been removed. After this, modificationindices were examined to assess if any addi-tional paths should be added to the modeland paths were only added if they could bejustified based on theory or evidence. Factorsthat did not retain an influence on regularparticipation in LTPA (either directly or indi-rectly) were removed from the model. Thisstep ensured the model was parsimonious.The level of significance adopted in this studywas p = <.01 (critical ratio =>3.29).

It is recommended that the evaluation ofmodel fit in SEM is based on multiple criteria(Bollen, 1990). Based on guidelines by Hu

and Bentler (1998, 1999) and Marsh, Ballaand McDonald (1988) the standardised rootmean square residual (SRMR), root meansquare error of approximation (RMSEA),Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and likelihood-ratiochi-square statistic (χ2/df) were used to assessmodel fit in the present study. As recom-mended by other researchers (e.g., Byrne,1998; Schumacker & Lomax, 1996), TLI val-ues greater than .90 were used to indicateacceptable model fit, values of up to .08were considered acceptable for SRMR andRMSEA, and 3 to 1 or less was adopted forthe likelihood-ratio chi-square statistic.

ResultsFactor structure of the measurement models

The three-factor enjoyment of leisure-timephysical activity measurement model, whichwas conceptualised as having the factorsactivity enjoyment, enjoyment conceptualisedas physical/environmental, and enjoymentconceptualised as social interaction, didnot fit the data (χ2 = 232.96; df = 62;χ2/df = 3.78; RMSEA = .105; SRMR = .111;TLI = .812).

Sequential deletion of problematic indica-tors and the addition of an error covarianceenhanced the fit of model. A modified three-factor model was tested after removing oneindicator of activity enjoyment, three indica-tors of enjoyment conceptualised as social in-teraction and an error covariance betweentwo of the enjoyment items (r = .36). Theseitems were ‘I enjoy being physically active’and ‘Physical activity is boring’ (negative). Itis possible that these items also measure thestimulating aspect of physical activity as anescape from boredom and this may explainthe correlation between error covariances.The final three-factor model with three indi-cators of activity enjoyment, and three indica-tors of enjoyment conceptualised as social in-teraction and three indicators of enjoymentconceptualised as physical/environmentalwas a good fit for the data (χ2 = 53.79;df = 23; χ2/df = 2.34 ; RMSEA = .073;SRMR = .067; TLI = .931).


27

The correlations between the factors inthis model were low to moderate (rangingfrom r = .26 to .56). These correlations indi-cated that the three factors measured some-what different aspects of enjoyment of lei-sure-time physical activity. The averages forthe enjoyment factors were: activity enjoy-ment (M = 3.76, SD. = 0.69, n = 250); en-joyment conceptualised as physical/environ-mental, (M = 3.35, SD. = 0.80, n = 250);and enjoyment conceptualised as social inter-action (M = 3.36, SD. = 0.77, n = 250).Generally, respondents reported a higherlevel of enjoyment of the physical activity it-self than enjoyment conceptualised as socialinteraction or enjoyment conceptualised asphysical/environmental.

Prioritisation of LTPA comprised threefactors – preference, life priority and makingtime. The original three-factor model didnot fit the data (χ2 = 107.20; df = 24;χ2/df = 4.47; RMSEA = .118; SRMR = .077;TLI = .854). Model modification includedthe deletion of one indicator from the makingtime factor that had a low factor loadingand the inclusion of two error covariances be-tween preference indicators. The first addederror covariance was between preferenceindicators one and two (r = .27) and the sec-ond was between indicators one and four(r = .32). Items one and two were ‘I get morepleasure out of doing other things in my sparetime than physical activity’ (reverse coded)and ‘I get satisfaction from participating inphysical activity but I’d rather be doing some-thing else’ (reverse coded), respectively. Theseindicators refer to ‘getting’ something fromparticipation in various types of leisure andtherefore may also be measuring perceivedbenefits of various types of leisure. Items oneand four were ‘I get more pleasure out of do-ing other things in my spare time than physicalactivity’ (reverse coded) and ‘If I have a coupleof spare hours I’d rather do some sort of physi-cal activity than other things’. Both refer topreference for ‘other things’ (rather than morespecific activities such as relaxation) and thusmay be measuring preference for a broaderrange of other leisure.

This modified three-factor measurementmodel was a reasonable-to-good fit (χ2,df = 37.46, 15; χ2/df = 2.50; RMSEA =.078; SRMR = .040; TLI = .941). The corre-lations between each of the three factorswere moderate to high. The highest correla-tion was between preference and level oflife priority (r = .86), followed by the correla-tion between making time and level of lifepriority (r = .77) and making time and pref-erence (r = .67).

The averages for the priority factorswere: preference (M = 3.13, SD. = 0.76,n = 249); life priority (M = 3.45, SD. = 0.98,n = 250); making time (M = 3.27, SD =0.85, n = 250). The average scores sug-gested that respondents felt that leisure-timephysical activity was a reasonably highpriority.

The measurement validity of the indica-tors of regular participation in LTPA was as-sessed in the structural model. The loadingsof the three indicators were very high (.791 to.893), indicating the convergent validity ofthe measurements of regular participation inLTPA. Over three quarters (77.2%, n = 250)of respondents indicated that they had par-ticipated in at least one session of LTPA thathad lasted for at least 20 minutes in the pre-vious four weeks. Just over half (52.8%) par-ticipated for at least three, 20-minute, ses-sions over the previous four weeks. On aver-age, respondents participated in at least three20-minute sessions in just over two of theprevious four weeks (M = 2.37, SD = 1.868,n = 250). On average, respondents felt thatthey had participated between slightly irregu-larly (3) and fairly regularly (4; M = 3.55,SD = 1.31, n = 249) in physical activity overthe past four weeks. Respondents felt thattheir regularity of participation in physicalactivity was between the same (3) and slightlymore regularly (4; M = 3.23, SD. = 1.29,n = 242) than other people of their age andsex. The mean scores and standard devia-tions for each of the individual items includedin the final measurement models can be seenin Tables 1, 2 and 3.


28

Structural modelIt was predicted that the enjoyment fac-

tors would influence regular participation inLTPA through preference, life priority andmaking time. It is possible, however, thatthese factors influence regular participationin LTPA directly. Therefore, in the initialmodel, paths were also specified between the

enjoyment factors and regular participationin LTPA (see Figure 1).

Although the original model was a goodfit for the data (χ2 = 323.91; df = 155;χ2/df = 2.09; RMSEA = .066; SRMR = .075;TLI = .905), insignificant paths weresequentially removed to make the modelmore parsimonious. Following the removal ofinsignificant paths, the fit of the model wassimilar (χ2 = 332.54; df = 160; χ2/df = 2.08;RMSEA = .066; SRMR = .077. TLI = .906,see Figure 2). The final model representeda moderate to good fit, as RMSEA, SRMR,and TLI were all within acceptable ranges.Furthermore, the upper and lower boundRMSEA estimates (lower bound = .056. andupper bound = .076) were close and withinacceptable ranges which gives further confi-dence in the fit of the model. The predictorvariables explained 62.0% of the variance inregularity of participation in LTPA.

To identify any potential under-estimationof standard errors from using the maximumlikelihood estimation method with items thatwere not normally distributed, robust statis-tics were employed using bootstrap estima-tion methods (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993). Theresults of the comparison between thebootstrapped estimates and the empirical es-timates showed that all significant paths(at the p = < .01 level) were still significantin the bootstrapping results and biases werevery small, ranging from no bias to a maxi-mum of 0.20% difference. These results dem-onstrated that the results from using maxi-mum likelihood estimation upon which themodels were interpreted, were robust. Thefindings of the structural testing support theproposition that enjoyment factors have vary-ing levels of influence on regular participa-tion in LTPA and influence regular participa-tion through their effect on preference, lifepriority and making time.

Conclusions and limitationsAll three types of enjoyment influenced

participation in LTPA indirectly through pref-


Table 2. Descriptive statistics for enjoyment of LTPA

Item n Min. Max Mean SD

Enjoy1 250 1 5 3.92 0.863Enjoy2^ 250 1 5 3.83 0.937Enjoy3 250 1 5 3.74 0.830Enjoy4 250 1 5 3.80 0.868Social1 250 1 5 3.77 0.915Social2 250 1 5 3.08 0.970Social6 250 1 5 3.23 1.015Surr1 250 1 5 3.38 0.971Surr2 250 1 5 3.41 0.944Surr3 250 1 5 3.27 0.963

^ = Item reverse coded

Table 3. Descriptive statistics for regular participa-tion in LTPA

Item n Min. Max. Mean SD

Reg1 250 1 4 2.27 1.87Reg 2 249 1 5 3.55 1.31Reg3 242 1 5 3.23 1.29

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for prioritisation ofLTPA

Item n Min. Max. Mean S.D

Preference1^ 250 1 5 3.06 0.947Preference2^ 250 1 5 3.35 0.967Preference3^ 250 1 5 3.11 1.020Preference4 249 1 5 3.00 0.969Priority1^ 249 1 5 3.54 1.074Priority2^ 249 1 5 3.37 1.092Time2 250 1 5 3.07 0.979Time3^ 250 1 5 3.60 0.974

^ = Item reverse coded

29

erence for leisure-time physical activity,rather than directly and there was diversity inthe strength of the contribution of each typeof enjoyment. Activity enjoyment influencedregular participation in leisure-time physicalactivity through its positive effect on prefer-ence. Thus, people who enjoyed leisure-timephysical activity tended to develop prefer-ences for it.

Enjoyment conceptualised as physical/en-vironmental predicted regular participation intwo ways. First, it had an indirect positive in-fluence through enjoyment dependent on so-cial interactions and consequently, activityenjoyment. That is, people who enjoyed par-ticipating in leisure-time physical activitywhen it took place in attractive environmentswere also those who were more likely to enjoyparticipating due to the social aspects of par-ticipation and consequently, enjoy the activitymore. Second, enjoyment conceptualised asphysical/environmental influenced leisure-

time physical activity indirectly through itsnegative influence on preference for leisure-time physical activity. That is, people whoenjoyed the surroundings where they werephysically active were those who expressed alower preference for LTPA.

Enjoyment conceptualised as social inter-action predicted preference for leisure-timephysical activity through its positive influenceon activity enjoyment and subsequently, pref-erence for leisure-time physical activity.Thus, people who enjoyed participating in lei-sure-time physical activity because of the so-cial interactions of the experience, tended toenjoy the activity more.

Enjoyment conceptualised as physical/en-vironmental positively, but indirectly, influ-enced activity enjoyment through enjoymentconceptualised as social interaction, which inturn positively influenced activity enjoyment.Thus, this study supports previous findings

Figure 2. Final model


30

that enjoyment of external factors can en-hance activity enjoyment. However, it shouldbe noted that the associations between theenjoyment factors were moderate to weak,suggesting that they differ conceptually. Peo-ple may use strategies such as concentratingon elements of the external environmentwhile participating, participating with friendsor listening to music, to cope with the boringnature of some LTPA and the physical dis-comfort that physical activity can cause.Also, previous research has shown that exter-nal elements such as the location of the ac-tivity, listening to music and social factorspositively influence enjoyment, endurance,participation and adherence (Bauman,Smith, Stoker, Bellow, & Booth, 1999;Kendzierski & DeCarlo, 1991; Martin et al.,1984; Masters & Lambert, 1989; Pennebaker& Lightner, 1980).

Somewhat paradoxically, this study foundthat despite its positive association with activ-ity enjoyment, enjoyment conceptualisedas physical/environmental had a direct nega-tive influence on preference for leisure-timephysical activity. Gauvin (1990) found a simi-lar negative association. In Gauvin’s study,people who participated regularly in leisure-time physical activity were drawn to physicalactivity for the activities themselves, whereasthose who had dropped out of participatingas well as sedentary individuals reported thatthey liked a wide variety of aspects of partici-pation in leisure-time physical activity includ-ing social situational aspects, but often ex-cluding physical activity per se.

These relationships are consistent with thepatterns found in studies that have used self-determination theory by demonstrating thepositive influence of activity enjoyment andthe less positive, and in some cases negative,influence of external forms of enjoyment(Pelletier et al., 1995; Thogersen-Ntoumani& Ntoumanis, 2006; Wilson et al., 2002aand b). These findings are logical, consider-ing that external regulation is somewhat simi-lar in nature to externally referenced enjoy-ment of surroundings, and intrinsic motiva-

tion is somewhat similar to internally refer-enced activity enjoyment.

The complex nature of the association be-tween the various types of enjoyment found inthis study and the potentially negative influ-ence of externally referenced enjoyment (suchas enjoyment conceptualised as physical/envi-ronmental) on preference and participation inleisure-time physical activity, requires furtherexploration. The relationship between the en-joyment factors and preference and participa-tion could be examined longitudinally to un-derstand the temporal relationship betweenenjoyment and participation. The cross-sec-tional nature of this study means that causal-ity cannot be established. It may be that therelationship between enjoyment and participa-tion in LTPA is cyclic, that is, enjoyment posi-tively influences participation and as a personparticipates more, so they tend to enjoy theirparticipation more.

The continuum of externally referenceand internal enjoyment might be consistentwith self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan,1985, 1991), whereby externally referencedenjoyment can become internalised and theindividual begins to enjoy the physical activityfor its own sake. This process may occur instages as some people might start participat-ing in LTPA and rely on the external factors(such as the physical environment or socialinteraction) to maintain an adequate levelof enjoyment. With continual participation,however, their enjoyment might becomemore internalised and more closely alignedwith the activity itself.

This study shows that enjoyment has anindirect, rather than a direct influence onLTPA, thus adding to theoretical understand-ing about the manner in which enjoyment in-fluences participation in LTPA. This studyalso supports Crake’s (2007) contention thatpreference, priority and making time are keyproximal determinants of LTPA, and otherfactors, such as enjoyment, influence regularparticipation in LTPA indirectly through thesefactors.


31

Prioritisation was thus a central determin-ing factor of regular participation in LTPA.People develop leisure preferences from arange of leisure choices, form life prioritiesand allocate time to participate. These fac-tors are part of a decision-making sequence.If people are to incorporate regular participa-tion in LTPA into their lifestyle, they must firstdevelop a preference for it, make it a priorityin their life, and make time to participate.

Enjoyment is important when examiningregular participation in LTPA because it islikely to be a significant link in the relation-ship between participation in LTPA and posi-tive outcomes such as positive mental healthand wellbeing (Wankel, 1993). Wankel (1993)suggested that an emphasis on enjoymentof LTPA may have significant positive out-comes in two ways. One is its importance toleisure-time physical activity adherence andthe second is through countering stress andfacilitating positive psychological health.Despite the general consensus that physicalactivity is associated with psychologicalbenefits (e.g., USDHHS, 1996), the underly-ing mechanisms that mediate the psychologi-cal benefits of activity have not been speci-fied. It is expected, however, that enjoymentof leisure-time physical activity plays an im-portant role in this relationship (Wankel,1993).

Practical implications of this research arethat policies, programs and strategies by gov-ernment and practitioners that aim to in-crease participation in LTPA should primarilyaim to enhance activity enjoyment, ratherthan focusing on other aspects of participa-tion. Research findings from a number of dif-ferent theoretical perspectives have demon-strated that testing one’s skills or competen-cies against relative task challenges influ-ences level of enjoyment in the activity(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990; Deci, 1975;Deci & Ryan, 1985; Iso-Ahola, 1980). Thishighlights the importance of leisure program-mers and leaders ensuring that they are ableto match the challenge of physical activitiesto the skill level of participants. Although it is

important to enhance enjoyment of the activ-ity experience, which includes settings andsocial interactions, it is vital that program-mers’ primary aim is to enhance enjoymentof the physical activity itself.

Craike (2007) suggested that due to theimportance of preference, prioritization andtime management, interventions to increaseLTPA should focus on the time in people’slives when leisure preferences are formedand encourage people to prioritise LTPA anddevelop time management skills.

Limitations of this research should betaken into consideration when interpretingthe findings of the study. These include thecross-sectional nature of the data, the use ofa 4-week assessment of LTPA, the use of aself-reported measure of LTPA and self-selec-tion bias. These limitations are inherent insurvey research which recruits voluntary re-spondents via informed consent (Sallis &Saelens, 2000).

The findings of this study indicate that it isimportant to examine enjoyment as a multidi-mensional construct and examine the predic-tors and outcomes of each component tomore fully understand the relationship be-tween enjoyment and regular participation inLTPA. Examination of the ways in which en-joyment might influence regularity of partici-pation is important considering that researchin this area is limited. This research repre-sents an initial attempt to conceptualise en-joyment of LTPA as a multidimensional con-struct and to explain the mechanismsthrough which enjoyment influences partici-pation in LTPA.

Ainsworth, A., Bassett, D., Strath, S., Swatz, A.,O’Brien, W., Thompson, R., et al. (2000). Compari-son of three methods of measuring the time spent inphysical activity. Medicine and Science in Sports andExercise, 32, S457-S464.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: Atheory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl, & J. Beckman


REFERENCES

32

(Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior(pp. 11-39). Heidelberg, Springer.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Struc-tural equation modelling in practice: A review andrecommended two-step approach. Psychological Bul-letin, 103, 411-423.

Arbuckle, J. L. (1996). Full information estimationin the presence of incomplete data. In G. A.Marcoulides, & R.E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advancedstructural equation modelling (pp. 243-277).Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Armstrong, T., Bauman, A., & Davies, J. (2000).Physical activity patterns of Australian adults. Resultsof the 1999 National Physical Activity Survey. Can-berra, Australia: Australian Institute of Health andWelfare.

Craike, M.J. (2005). An explorator y study of thesocial psychological determinants of regular partici-pation in leisure-time physical activity. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. Griffith University, Brisbane,Australia.

Craike, M.J. (2007). The influence of preference,level of priority and making time on regular participa-tion in leisure-time physical activity. Annals of LeisureResearch, 10, 122-145.

Bauman, A., Smith, B., Stoker, L., Bellow, B., &Booth, M. (1999). Geographical influences uponphysical activity participation: Evidence of a ‘coastaleffect’. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Pub-lic Health, 23, 322-324.

Bollen, K. A. (1990). Overall fit covariance struc-ture models: Two types of sample size effects. Psy-chological Bulletin, 107, 256-259.

Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation model-ling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic con-cepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah,New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredomand anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychol-ogy of optimal experience. New York: Harper Peren-nial.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic Motivation. New York:Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic moti-vation and self-determination in human behavior.New York: Plenum Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivationalapproach to self: Integration in personality. In R.Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation:Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237-288). Lincoln,NE: University of Nebraska.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys:The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York:John Wiley & Sons.

Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduc-tion to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hall.

Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The rela-tive performance of full information maximum esti-mation for missing data in structural equation mod-els. Structural Equation Modelling, 8, 430-457.

Gabriele, J.M., Walker, M.S., Gill, D.L., Harber,K.D., Fisher, E.B. (2005). Differentiated roles of so-cial encouragement and social constraint on physicalactivity behavior. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 29,210-215.

Gauvin, L. (1990). An experiential perspective onthe motivational features of exercise and lifestyle. Ca-nadian Journal of Sport Science, 15, 51-58.

Giles-Corti, B., & Donovan, R.J. (2003). Relativeinfluences of individual, social environmental, andphysical environmental correlates of walking. Ameri-can Journal of Public Health, 93, 1583-1589.

Henderson, K.A., Glancy, M., & Little, S. (1999).Putting the fun into physical activity. Journal of Physi-cal Education, Recreation & Dance, 70, 43-45.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indicesin covariance structure modelling: sensitivity tounderparameterized model misspecification. Psycho-logical Methods, 3, 424-453.

Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteriafor fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con-ventional criteria versus new alternatives. StructuralEquation Modelling, 6, 1-55.

Hu, L. T., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Cantest statistics in covariance structure analysis betrusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351-362.

Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1980). The social psychology ofleisure and recreation. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm C. BrownCompany.

Kendzierski, D., & DeCarlo, K. J. (1991). PhysicalActivity Enjoyment Scale: Two validation studies.Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 13, 50-64.

Kimiecik, J. C., & Harris, A. T. (1996). What is en-joyment? A conceptual/definitional analysis with im-plications for sport and exercise psychology. Journalof Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18, 247-263.

Li, F. (1999). The Exercise Motivation Scale: Itsmultifaceted structure and construct validity. Journalof Applied Sport Psychology, 11, 97-115.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Tammen, V. V.(1989). Psychometric properties of the Intrinsic Moti-vation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A con-firmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly forExercise and Sport, 60, 48-58.

McGinna, A.P., Evensonb, K.R., Herringc, A.H.,Huston, S.L. (2007). The relationship betweenleisure, walking, and transportation activity withthe natural environment. Health & Place, 13,588–602.

Marsh, H., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988).Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analy-sis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin,103, 391-410.


33

Martin, J. E., Dubbert, P. M., Katella, A. D.,Thompson, J. K., Raczynski, J. R., Lake, M., et al.(1984). Behavioral control of exercise in sedentaryadults: Studies 1 through 6. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 52, 795-811.

Masters, K. S., & Lambert, M. J. (1989). The re-lations between cognitive coping strategies, reasonsfor running, injury, and performance of marathonrunners. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,11, 161-170.

Mullan, E., Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K.(1997). A graded conceptualisation of self-determi-nation in the regulation of exercise behavior: Devel-opment of a measure using confirmatory factor ana-lytic procedures. Personal Individual Differences, 23,745-752.

Padgett, V. R., & Hill, A. K. (1989). Maximizingathletic performance in endurance events: A com-parison of cognitive strategies. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 19, 331-340.

Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M., Vallerand, R., Tucson,K., Briere, N., & Blais, M. R. (1995). Toward a newmeasure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation,and amotivation in sports: The Sport MotivationScale (SMS). Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychol-ogy, 17, 35-53.

Pennebaker, J. W., & Lightner, J. M. (1980). Com-petition of internal and external information in anexercise setting. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 39,

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic andextrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new di-rections. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25,54-67.

Sallis, J. F., & Saelens, B. E. (2000). Assessmentof physical activity by self-report: Status, limitations,and future directions. Research Quarterly for Exer-cise and Sport, 71, 1-14.

Salmon, J., Owen, N., Crawford, D., Bauman, A.,& Sallis, J. F. (2003). Physical activity and sedentar ybehavior: A population-based study of barriers,enjoyment, and preference. Health Psychology, 22,178-188.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A be-ginner’s guide to structural equation modelling.Mahwah, N.J: L.Erlbaum Associates.

Stephenson, J., Bauman, A., Armstrong, T.,Smith, B., & Bellew, B. (2000). The costs of illness at-tributable to physical inactivity. Canberra: Common-wealth Department of Health and Aged Care.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Usingmultivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, Mass: Allynand Bacon.

Thogersen-Ntoumani, C., & Ntoumanis, N. (2006).The role of self-determined motivation in the under-standing of exercise-related behaviours, cognitions

MELINDA J. CRAIKE, PhDDeakin University, Australia

RAYMOND HIBBINS, PhDGriffith University, Australia

GRAHAM CUSKELLY, PhDGold Coast Campus, Griffith University,

Australia

Address for correspondence:MELINDA J. CRAIKE, PhD

Deakin University221 Burwood Hwy

Burwood, Vic, 3125, AustraliaPhone: +61 3 9895 4034

Fax: +61 3 9895 3575Email Address:

[email protected]

✴ ✴ ✴


and physical self-evaluations. Journal of Sports Sci-ences, 24, 393-404.

Tsai, E. H. (2002). A cross-cultural study of psy-chosocial determinants of sedentary and active lei-sure behaviours: Australia and Hong Kong. Unpub-lished Doctor of Philosophy, Griffith University, Bris-bane.

Tsai, E. H. (2005). A cross-cultural study of the in-fluence of perceived positive outcomes on participa-tion in regular active recreation: Hong Kong andAustralian University students. Leisure Sciences, 27,385-404.

U.S Department of Health and Human Services(1996). Physical activity and health: A report of thesurgeon general. Boston: Jones and Bartlett.

Wankel, L.M. (1985). Personal and situationalfactors affecting exercise involvement: The impor-tance of enjoyment. Research Quarterly for Exerciseand Sport, 56, 275-282.

Wankel, L. M. (1993). The importance of enjoy-ment to adherence and psychological benefits fromphysical activity. International Journal of Sport Psy-chology, 24, 151-169.

Wilson, P. M., Rogers, W. M., & Fraser, S. N.(2002a). Cross-validation of the revised motivation forphysical activity measure in active women. ResearchQuarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73, 471-477.

Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., & Fraser, S. N.(2002b). Examining the psychometric properties ofthe Behavioral Regulation in Exercise Questionnaire.Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Sci-ence, 6, 1-21.

the influence of various aspects of enjoyment on

Documents