18, 2012 Abstracts from the 2012 Leisure Research Symposium

304 Pages·2013·2.24 MB·English

by  Erin Jo Adair

2012 Congress & Exposition
Anaheim, California
October 16 --18, 2012

Abstracts from the
2012 Leisure Research Symposium

Copyright 2 012 NRPA
National Recreation a nd Park Association
22377 Belmont Ridge Road
Ashburn, Virginia 20148
PREFACE—2012 LEISURE RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM

We are pleased to present the abstracts for the 35th annual Leisure Research Symposium held in
conjunction with the National Recreation and Parks Association Congress in Anaheim,
California, October 16-18, 2012. This year we received 94 abstracts which included two panel
presentations for review. Of those, 48 oral paper presentations plus 2 panel sessions and 29
posters (26 will be presented) were accepted for inclusion in this year’s symposium. The oral
presentations and posters are blind peer reviewed in a process where the reviewers do not know if
the abstract is to be considered for a poster or an oral presentation. Dr. Sarah Agate, Southern
Illinois University, is coordinating the poster session. This year we have two panel sessions, a
new submission category introduced in 2009.

The 2012 LRS starts with the Butler Lecture in the afternoon on Tuesday October 16th addressing
the topic of “Social justice and leisure: The usefulness and uselessness of research.” Mr. Garcia,
the Executive Director and founder of The City Project, a non-profit legal and policy advocacy
organization based in Los Angeles, California, will deliver the main keynote speech. Following
Mr. Garcia’s remarks, there will be an opportunity for questions and discussion.

The LRS oral presentations will begin the next morning, Wednesday October 17th at 9am, with a
range of themed sessions. This year we continued using some of the new submission categories
developed for the 2009 symposium. At the end of the review process we grouped the papers by
theme and a focus on physical activity and health once again seems to predominate. This year we
also received a significant number of submissions related to leisure behavior, social justice and
diversity, and nature based recreation, broadly defined. We hope there are sessions of interest
for everyone. The moderators have been asked to facilitate discussions on a particular theme at
the end of each session, so please stay and engage in what we hope will be some lively debates.

As ever we could not have organized the LRS by ourselves. Our thanks go to the review
coordinators and reviewers whose dedication and willingness to serve are much appreciated. As
ever, we thank our NRPA staff liaison, Danielle Price, who has worked extremely hard once
again this year and Dr. Sarah Agate for coordinating the poster session. We also extend our
thanks to the presenters for sharing their work and the moderators for facilitating the sessions.
We are looking forward to seeing you all in Anaheim and sharing the 35th Leisure Research
Symposium with you.

Jason Bocarro and Monika Stodolska
2012 Leisure Research Symposium Co-Chairs
Reviewers for the 2012 Leisure Research Symposium

LRS Co-Chair: Monika Stodolska, University of Illinois
LRS Co-Chair: Jason Bocarro, North Carolina State University
Poster Coordinator: Sarah Agate, Southern Illinois University

Denise Anderson Gerard Kyle
Clemson University Texas A&M University

Brigitta Baker Stephen Lewis
Louisiana State University University of Wisconsin LaCrosse

Michael Bowker Elizabeth Orsega-Smith
University of Georgia University of Delaware

Ewei Dong Laura Payne
University of South Alabama University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Rudy Dunlap Mary Parr
Texas A&M University Kent State University

Gary Ellis Jennifer Piatt
Texas A&M University Indiana University

Myron Floyd Harrison Pinkney
North Carolina State University California University of Pennsylvania

Karen Fox Neelam Poudyal
University of Alberta University of Georgia

Gary Green John Spengler
University of Georgia University of Florida

Brian Greenwood Cheryl Stevens
California Poly, San Luis Obispo East Carolina University

Corey Johnson Gordon Walker
University of Georgia University of Alberta

Andrew Kaczynski Stephanie West
University of South Carolina Appalachian State University
NATURALLY AWESTRUCK: EXPLORING THE MECHANISMS OF AWE IN THE
OUTDOORS
Joel Agate, Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Dorothy Schmalz, Clemson University

Awe is one emotion that may have powerful implications for quality of life. Many leisure
researchers have identified the experience of awe in those engaged in outdoor and wilderness
experiences (Heintzman, 2006; Pohl, Borrie, & Patterson, 2000). Little work has been done,
however, to explain or describe this emotion, much less to understand the antecedents and the
consequences of this emotion. Scholarly writings on awe have also been largely conceptual or
philosophical, lacking in empirical support. In the current study, researchers used empirical
approaches to understand the functions of awe.
Background
Leisure scholars have identified feelings of awe in those participating in outdoor and
adventure recreation (Heintzman, 2006; Pohl, Borrie, & Patterson, 2000). Positive psychologists
have indicated that awe is most commonly felt in response to natural or wild environments
(Shiota, Keltner & Mossman, 2007). Recent work by Agate (2011) identified numerous
mechanisms that may contribute to feelings of awe in the outdoors. These mechanisms include
things one might see (e.g. natural phenomena, environmental characteristics, unexpected
encounters), things one might do (e.g. being in the right frame of mind, getting out into nature,
and putting in personal effort as one might do when summiting a mountain), and individual
characteristics (e.g. spirituality, curiosity).
Awe has been described as one emotion that may be felt when people are faced with stimuli
that are exceptionally beautiful or grand (Adler & Fagley, 2005) or that are vast and completely
new or unfamiliar (Keltner & Haidt, 2003). Awe may be felt toward a person’s virtue or great
ability, by that which is fearful or beautiful, or by that which is spiritual or supernatural (Keltner
& Haidt). Scholars have indicated that awe is a significant and powerful emotion (Keltner &
Haidt; Strümpfer, 2007) with numerous powerful consequences. Strümpfer suggested that it has
“sweeping effects” (2007, p. 502) on those who experience it. Furthermore, Keltner and Haidt
suggested that it may elicit significant and lasting change and indicated that experiences of awe
stand “in the upper reaches of pleasure” (p. 297). Consequences of experiencing awe include
emotional, psychological, and physical benefits (Curtain, 2005).
Awe has been identified as a source of strength in times of transition (Strümpfer, 2007), and
as a key aspect of appreciation (Adler & Fagley, 2005). Others have hypothesized that awe may
be important in moral, religious, or spiritual development (Halstead & Halstead, 2004), and some
have suggested that awe may strengthen a person’s relationship with that which elicits the
emotion (Dillon, 2002; Walter, 2004) or between those who experience the emotion together
(Keltner & Haidt, 1999). Finally, scholars have suggested that awe may be important in
enhancing learning (Ashley, 2006; Schneider, 2003). However, many of the benefits of awe as
suggested by researchers have been primarily described in conceptual or theoretical pieces. The
current study was designed to empirically explore the possible benefits of awe.
Methods
A collective case study approach was employed to investigate the functions of awe in the
outdoors because it affords exploration and explanation (Yin, 2003). Three cases were selected
for the current study: Boy Scout leaders from a troop housed in a religious organization, active
older adults enrolled in a lifelong learning class teaching outdoor skills, and college students
enrolled in a backpacking class. Cases were selected using a theoretical sampling method based
on research which indicates that those who (1) possess significant cognitive and psychological
resources (Sundararajan, 2009), (2) spend time in the outdoors (Shiota, Keltner & Mossman,
2007) and (3) are spiritually inclined (Halstead & Halstead, 2004) are likely to be prone to
experiences of awe. Selected cases met at least two of these three criteria. An initial sample of
five participants was drawn from each case, resulting in a total sample size of 15 participants.
Semi-structured interviews ranging in length from 44 to 83 minutes (average length = 61
minutes) were conducted to gain an understanding of how participants interpret awe and what
stimuli have contributed to experiences of awe in the outdoors. Interview questions were
strategically developed to examine the mechanisms of awe and were written with the assistance
of a panel of experts in leisure and positive psychology. Data were analyzed using inductive
analysis and a constant comparative method (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). A process of open coding
was employed to identify relevant topics within the data, after which axial coding was used to
structure emerging topics into main themes and sub-themes, which were then synthesized into an
overall theme (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). An external auditor reviewed relevant portions of the
data and assisted in the formulation and revision of topics and themes. The external auditor and
the use of member checks also helped to ensure the validity and reliability of findings. As per
Henderson (2006), additional measures were taken to strengthen the transferability and
trustworthiness of the findings.
Results
The following overall theme emerged from the data: experiences of awe in the outdoors
appear to offer a wide variety of social, emotional, and psychological benefits. Eight specific
outcomes were identified. Awe in the outdoors (1) motivates, inspires, and empowers people to
act, (2) provides an escape from everyday life, (3) makes one contemplate life and existence, (4)
strengthens relationships, (5) increases respect of nature, (6) facilitates learning, (7) creates
lasting, positive memories, and (8) draws one back to nature.
Discussion
As described above, scholars have hypothesized that awe may serve many important
functions. The current study offers eight categories of such functions, many of which support the
previous suggestions and hypotheses of scholars. While space limitations do not allow for
detailed discussion of each theme, a few themes call for additional attention. First, many of the
participants described an increased respect for nature that they experience after feeling awe in the
outdoors. One participant indicated that awe in the outdoors makes her “feel privileged to have
these opportunities close by and I always hope that they will stay unspoiled so that others can
enjoy them.” Another participant indicated that seeing the, “beauty that’s around you…it makes
you want to be able to preserve and keep that so that other people can experience it.” This focus
on preserving nature and ensuring access for others is particularly pertinent in today’s climate of
sustainability and environmental justice. This finding also supports previous works by Adler &
Fagley (2005) and Ashley (2006) who indicated that experiences of awe might enhance one’s
care for the natural world.
Several participants also described a felt desire to return to nature after experiencing awe in
the outdoors. One participant indicated that feeling awe in the outdoors, “just makes me want to
go out and see more. If I thought ‘that was a really incredible experience,’ I would go back or go
to another place and see what was out there.” This finding supports the findings of Shiota,
Keltner & Mossman (2007) who found that people who reflected on an experience of awe
frequently expressed an immediate desire to return to that place. This finding is particularly
relevant in considering the child/nature disconnect described by Louv (2005) and others (e.g.
Henderson & Bialeschki, 2010). If producing experiences of awe may increase in people the
desire to return to nature, it may be important for practitioners to consider ways to expose
children to awe in nature. Such experiences may then bridge the gap Louv described between
children and nature in modern society.
Scholars have suggested that awe may serve as a source of strength and encourage optimism.
This claim is supported by the current findings that awe encourages contemplation and motivates
people to act. Additional findings also support suggestions that awe may be important in
strengthening human relationships (Keltner & Haidt, 1999) and in driving learning and education
(Schneider, 2003).
Participants in the study described awe in the outdoors as a powerful escape from everyday
life that provides lasting positive memories, which tend to be associated with positive
experiences and positive emotions. Participants attributed specific positive emotions to their
experiences of awe in the outdoors, including but not limited to alive, lucky, happy, appreciative,
grateful, hopeful, joyful, and curious. Study participants described these positive emotions as
contributing to an enhanced life satisfaction and a higher quality of life.
The current study adds to the body of literature by offering empirical evidence for the
valuable role awe in the outdoors can play in people’s lives. As more is learned about the
functions of awe in the outdoors scholars and practitioners will be better able to build an
argument for facilitating such experiences through specific programming. As recreation service
providers learn more about how to facilitate experiences of awe, they may be able to provide
increasingly positive outdoor experiences. Agate (2011) described some mechanisms of awe, but
additional research is needed to develop further understanding of the mechanisms that lead to
awe in the outdoors.
While the best approach for answering the question of the current study was a qualitative
approach, such methods are limited in the ability to generalize findings. The rich understanding
of the human experience of awe in the outdoors that is offered in the current study, however,
helps to further develop the understanding of this emotion. This understanding should be used in
the future to develop a cohesive and parsimonious definition of awe that manages to capture the
complexity of the emotion. Quantitative methods must also be applied to the exploration of awe
through the development of a means to quantitatively measure the experience of awe and
consequently develop a deeper understanding of this emotion. Such an understanding will assist
recreation researchers and practitioners as they seek to facilitate positive recreation experiences.

Joel Agate, Department of Health Education and Recreation, Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, [phone]; [email protected]
Selected References

Adler, M., & Fagley, N. (2005). Appreciation: Individual differences in finding value and
meaning as a unique predictor of subjective wellbeing. Journal of Personality, 73(1), 79-114.
Agate, J. (2011). An exploration of the mechanisms of awe experienced in outdoor settings. A
paper presented at the Symposium on experiential education research, Jacksonville, FL.
Ashley, M. (2006). Finding the right kind of awe and wonder: The metaphysical potential of
religion to ground an environmental ethic. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education,
11, 88-99.
Curtin, S. (2005). Nature, wild animals and tourism: An experiential view. Journal of
Ecotourism, 4(1), 1-15.
Dillon, J. (2002). The role of the child in adult development. Journal of Adult Development, 9(4),
267-275.
Halstead, J., & Halstead, A. (2004). Awe, tragedy and the human condition. International
Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 9(2), 163-175.
Heintzman, P. (2006). Men‘s wilderness experience and spirituality: A qualitative study. A paper
presented at the Northeastern recreation research symposium.
Henderson, K. A. (2006). Dimensions of choice: Qualitative research approaches to parks,
recreation, tourism, sport, and leisure research (2nd ed.). State College, PA: Venture.
Henderson, K. A., & Bialeschki, M. D. (2010). People and nature-based recreation. Leisure
Sciences, 32(1), 1-2.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition
and Emotion, 13(5), 505-521.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual and aesthetic emotion.
Cognition and Emotion, 17(2), 297-314.
Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder.
Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
Pohl, S. L., Borrie, W. T., & Patterson, M. E. (2000). Women, wilderness, and everyday life: A
documentation of the connection between wilderness and women‘s everyday lives. Journal
of Leisure Research, 32(4), 415-434.
Schneider, K. (2003). The fluid center: An awe-based challenge to humanity. Journal of
Humanistic Psychology, 43(3), 133-145.
Shiota, M., Keltner, D., & Mossman, A. (2007). The nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals, and
effects on self-concept. Cognition and Emotion, 21(5), 944-963.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures
and techniques. London: Sage.
Strümpfer, D. J. W. (2007). What contributes to fortigenic appraisal of inordinate demands?
Everything!. South African Journal of Psychology, 37(3), 491-517.
Sundararajan, L. (2009). Awe. In S. Lopez (Ed.), The encyclopedia of positive psychology (pp.
86-93). Oxford, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.
Walter, T. (2004). Body worlds: Clinical detachment and anatomical awe. Sociology of Health &
Illness, 26(4), 464-488.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
STRENGTHENING OR DAMAGING: EFFECTS OF OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES ON
MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS
Sarah Taylor Agate, Southern Illinois University
Stacy Taniguchi, Brigham Young University

Introduction and Literature Review
The quality of one’s marriage influences many aspects of his or her life, including economic
wellbeing, cardiovascular health, and mental and emotional health (Holt-Lunstad, Birmingham,
& Jones, 2008; Wood, Goesling, & Avellar, 2007). Couples marrying today have a 40 to 50%
chance of getting divorced (Stanley, 2007) and face numerous stressors and challenges in
marriage that span a range of issues and situations (Story & Bradbury, 2004; Weber, 2011). With
such a large number of marriage relationships being troubled and the consequent effects on
individuals’ physical and emotional wellbeing, many researchers, as well as individuals, are
looking for ways to strengthen marriages. One avenue many couples may choose to strengthen
their relationships is recreation activities.
One of the most common conceptualizations of couple recreation was developed by Orthner
(1975). He described three patterns of couple leisure involvement: joint, parallel, and individual.
Joint activities are where the couple directly interacts with one another. Parallel activities are
those where the couple is together but not interacting. Individual activities are those where each
individual in the partnership does his or her own activity and are not participating together.
Numerous researchers have reported couples who participated in joint activities had higher
marital satisfaction than couples that did not (e.g., Holman & Jaquart, 1988; Miller, 1976;
Orthner, 1975; Smith, Snyder, & Monsma, 1988). Johnson, Zabriskie, and Hill (2006) suggested
even more salient to a couples’ satisfaction with their marriage than participation in activities
together is how satisfied they are with that participation. Other outcomes of couple activities that
have been reported include a positive relationship between participation in joint activities and the
level of marital communication (Orthner, 1976), and a negative relationship between time spent
together and marital stability (Portman, 2005).
One context in which couples will jointly participate in activities is challenging outdoor
recreation. A study examining couples in this setting, conducted by Taniguchi, Freeman, Taylor,
and Malcarne (2006), explored marital satisfaction and conflict processing in outdoor winter
recreational settings. Because of the outdoor settings where these conflicts took place, many of
the conflict processes were easily observed due to the lack of privacy in those settings. Taniguchi
et al. noted the conflicts do not appear to continue due to the temporary circumstances that have
created the conflicts.
Previous research has indicated participation in activities together influences marital
relationships, but little research has examined how these activities influence couples. What
processes are occurring and are all of the outcomes of participation positive or are some
negative? For example, Orthner (1976) found an increase in communication between couples
when they recreate together, but an increase in communication can also lead to marital conflict if
that communication is negative (Burleson & Denton, 1997). While various benefits to couples’
recreation have been identified, no research has examined the potential negative outcomes of
these activities. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore how participation in
challenging outdoor activities influences marital relationships.
Methods
The sample consisted of six married couples (N= 12), all who were married for less than four
years. The participants’ mean age was 23.6 years ( = 2.8). None of the couples had any children
at the time of the study. Study participants attended five outdoor recreation activities facilitated
by the researchers. The activities ranged in the amount of challenge and included a basic cross-
country skiing lesson, a cross-country skiing activity, snowshoeing, cooking dinner in the snow,
and two cross-country skiing and backpacking trips. On the first trip, the couples built and slept
in snow caves overnight. The second trip was a three-day winter campout and required a six-mile
cross-country ski in the mountains of Northern Utah. Before the activities, participants were
instructed in proper winter camping protocols, avalanche awareness, proper use of camping
equipment and layering of clothing, and health issues related to cold conditions. Immediately
following each activity, a focus group was conducted with all of the participants. Within one
week following each activity the participants wrote a journal entry about their experience.
Individual interviews were conducted by the primary researcher with all participants after the
final activity.
Audio recordings from the interviews and focus groups were transcribed. A qualitative
content analysis was performed with participants’ journals. Three analytical procedures
suggested by Mayring (2002) were completed: summary, explication, and structuring. Data from
the interviews, focus groups, and journals were analyzed using inductive analysis and constant
comparison (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). The researchers followed the three stages of constant
comparison (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) as described by Henderson (2006). First, data were coded
into categories and topics that were identified. Second, the categories were integrated and themes
and sub-themes were formulated. Third, categories were delimited and reduced; main themes
were refined and a model was developed. Rigor in data collection and data validity, reliability,
and trustworthiness were achieved through several steps taken by the researchers. Researchers
used guiding research questions and kept an audit trail (Henderson) of all data gathered and
documents formulated as data were collected, analyzed, and conclusions were developed. An
external auditor was used during data analysis to guarantee the analysis captured the meaning
and essence of the data and to establish trustworthiness of coding. Trustworthiness was also
achieved by obtaining multiple perspectives (Denzin & Lincoln).
Results and Discussion
Analysis of the data indicated there are three main themes of what was experienced during the
challenging outdoor recreation activities: (a) challenge, (b) time together, and (c) conflict.
Consequently, either positive or negative communication between the spouses occurred, and
finally the marital relationship was either strengthened or damaged. Sub-themes indicated
specific aspects of each main theme, and a model was developed from synthesizing the themes
(see Figure 1). Supporting quotes from participants were found to illustrate each theme. Sub-
themes and quotes will not be presented in this abstract due to space limitations.
Findings from this study indicate there are two general outcomes to participation in
challenging outdoor activities for couples, either strengthening their relationship or damaging it.
Due to the challenge and time together experienced during the activities (and conflict for some
couples), there was an increase in communication between spouses. Some of that communication
was positive but some were also negative. Most couples in the study appeared to strengthen their
relationship through participation in the activities and the increase in positive communication.
The only couples who seemed to experience detrimental effects to their relationships were those
who dealt negatively with the conflict and engaged in negative communication patterns with
each other.
The current study adds to previous literature by pointing to a variety of positive outcomes for
couples that come from participating in challenging outdoor activities together, as well as
highlighting that there can also be negative outcomes to these activities. These findings also add
to previous literature by addressing the role that the increase in communication, whether it is
positive or negative, plays in strengthening or damaging relationships in these settings.
These findings have important implications for professionals who work with couples to
strengthen their marriages, as well as researchers who study both recreation and families. In an
attempt to strengthen a relationship, a couple or someone working with them should not suppose
or suggest that simply participating in an activity together will strengthen the relationship. A
couple’s communication and their conflict resolution patterns should be examined and improved
if needed before such participation. As indicated by Taniguchi, et al. (2006), marital satisfaction
is related to the ability to resolve conflict. If a couple is prone to communicate negatively and
they engage in negative conflict resolution processes, their relationship may be damaged by
participating in a challenging activity together. However, if they have positive communication
patterns and know how to resolve conflict in a positive way, challenging outdoor activities can
be used to strengthen their relationship.
Future research should quantitatively test and explore this model, as well as assess before
participation in the challenging activities couples’ communication styles and conflict resolution
processes. A more longitudinal approach to this research would also be useful to examine what
happens to couples after they experience detrimental effects to their relationships from
challenging outdoor activities. These findings can help professionals who work with couples, and
those who facilitate and study recreation identify certain areas that may be particularly important
to focus on and explore further.
Figure 1.

Sarah Agate, Southern Illinois University, 618-713-6773; [email protected].