AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF THE

CHANGES IN BENEFITS SOUGHT DURING

AN OUTWARD BOUND EXPERIENCE

Steven W. Burr

Instructor, The Pennsylvania State University, Department ofLeisure Studies, 203S Henderson Human Development,University Park, PA 16802

Richard J. Gitelson

Associate Professor, The Pennsylvania State University,Department of Leisure Studies, 203S Henderson HumanDevelopment, University Park, PA 16802

Participants in an eight-day Outward Bound program were askedabout their motivations for participation before the experiencebegan and at the mid-point of the actual experience. Althoughmore anticipated differences were expected, based onmotivational theory, only one of the twelve motivationaldomains was significantly different at the .001 level.

IntroductionAs Clawson and Knetsch (1969) pointed out over two decadesago, the actual outdoor recreation activity on the site is not thetotal recreation experience. Instead, Clawson and Knetschidentified five distinctly different, major phases associated withan outdoor recreation experience. An outdoor recreationexperience begins with anticipation, including planning.Thinking and planning may be very brief and spontaneous, ormay range over several days, weeks or months. "Anticipationmay far outrun the later reality. Pleasurable anticipation isalmost a necessity. . .. But excessive optimism in theanticipatory stage may lead to later disappointment andfrustration" (Clawson and Knetsch, 1969:33) . Clawson andKnetsch stress that the outdoor recreationist's advance planningneeds to be based upon realistic factors . When anticipation andplanning lead to a positive decision, the outdoor recreationexperience progresses further. The second major phase is travelto the actual site. On-site experiences and activities are thethird major phase of the total recreation experience. These areactivities and experiences engaged in on-site and thesatisfactions derived from those activities and experiences.Travel back is the fourth phase. The fifth major phase of thetotal recreation experience is recollection. Clawson andKnetsch describe the recollection phase occurring after theexperience is over, when the person (or persons) concernedrecalls to memory one or more aspects of the total experience,and may share these recollections with friends, relatives, andassociates. "When the total recreation experience makes amajor impression the recollection will be strong and lasting. Ifthe experience is a brief and common one quickly followed by asimilar one, then each experience will make only a dimimpression (Clawson and Knetsch, 1969:35). Recollection ofan outdoor recreation experience can provide a starting point foranticipation of another. Over time, recollection of manyexperiences builds into knowledge, or assumed knowledge, thusproviding a foundation for choosing among different outdoorrecreation sites and activities . Clawson and Knetsch state, "Inmany ways, the whole outdoor recreation experience is a

15

package deal; all parts are necessary, and the sum ofsatisfactions and dissatisfactions from the whole must bebalanced against total costs. Pleasurable parts of the experiencemust more than balance the unpleasant parts, .if.any, if.the.sameexperience is to be repeated" (Clawson and Knetsch, 1969:35).

Manning points o~t ~at early ~~piric,:U res~arch in outdo~r..recreation was primarily descriptive, focusmg on the acnvinesand socio-economic and cultural characteristics of users, andtheir attitudes and preferences about management" (Manning,1986:79). Our understanding of outdoor recreation has evolvedfrom this early "activity approach" to a "behavioral approach"which examines why people participate in recreation activitiesand the experiences gained from such participation.Experiences derived from participation in recreati?n ~ctivities

have been prone to a variety of terms such as monvanons,satisfactions, benefits sought, psychological outcomes, andexperience expectations. The term "motiv.ations" will be us.edthroughout this paper for the sake of consistency. A behavioralapproach defmes recreation as "an experience that results fromrecreational engagements" (Driver and Tocher, 1970). Researchin recreation activity choice has been dominated by thisbehavioral approach which theorizes m~st h~an ~havior asgoal-directed, or aimed at some need satIsfa:tlon (~nver andTocher, 1970; Manning, 1986). Grounded m social­psychological expectancy value theory, a behavioral apJ?Toachsuggests that people engage ~n activities in sp~ific. settings torealize a group of psychological outcomes, motrvattons,satisfactions (Atkinson and Birch, 1972; Lawler, 1973;Fishbein and Azjen, 1974), or multiple satisfactions (Hendee,1974). Manning states, "Thus, people select an~ partici~ate inrecreation activities to meet certain goals or satisfy certainneeds and recreation activities are more a means to an end thanan end in themselves" (Manning, 1986:80). Motivations foroutdoor recreation are diverse and are related to the attitudes,preferences, and expectations of users.

An expanded view of the behavioral app~oach acknowledgesfour levels of demand for outdoor recreation: Level 1 representsdemands for activities themselves; Level 2 demands representthe various settings in which activities take place; Level 3demands represent people's participation in activities indifferent settings to realize multiple experiences­satisfactions, motivations, or desired psychological outcomes;Level 4 demands represent the ultimate benefits which emanatefrom satisfying experiences derived from recreationalparticipation (Manning, 1986:80-81). Such benefits may beeither personal or societal, and are individua~ly defined. Assuch, these benefits are rather abstract and difficult to measure(Manning, 1986). Consequently, empirical study of thebehavioral approach to outdoor recreation has focused on Level3 demands-people's motivations for recreation participatio?Empirical tests of the behavioral a?pr~ach to outd?~r r~cre~tlon

indicate there are a variety of motivations for particrpatmg in

outdoor recreation, and these motivations can be empiricallyidentified (Manning, 1986). Potential recreation motivationsare often measured empirically by a series of scale items whichrepresent reasons for deciding to participate in ~ designatedrecreation activity (Driver, 1977). These scale Items are usuallythen reduced through cluster analysis to dimensions which canbe combined, because of a common underlying theme, torepresent domains of more generalized categori~s ~f

motivations. The goal-directed nature of behavior IS the centralconcept defining the recreation research understanding ofmotivation.

Kuentzel (1990) points out some of the drawbacks of a goal­oriented approach to outdoor recreation participation by citing

past empirical research. Kuentzel states that response to motivescales may be socialized expressions of popular ideology,rather than a purposeful and articulated calculation ofpreferences and option (Kuentzel, 1990:2). Kuentzel identifiesthe following potential problems in the empirical use motivescales: motive scales are insensitive to the measurement ofrelative motive intensity, the levels of specificity and thesemantic interpretation of motives between different people;motive measurement tools cannot reflect the complex nature ofa decision-making process; and motive scales cannot predictdifferences among participants in the same activity at distinctlydifferent settings. Additionally, Kuentzel suggests theexpectancy value approach may be deficient in explaining thecomplexities of motivated behavior in outdoor recreationsettings. Kuentzel's analysis suggests that "scaledmeasurements of motives using a goal-directed approach yield arather generic description of behavioral phenomena inrecreation participation. While these outcome measures canshow differences in value and preference, they are not exclusivedifferences, and do not extricate substantial differences betweenexperiences at different settings and among different activities"(Kuentzel, 1990:12-13).

According to Kuentzel, this motive uniformity conclusion callsfor a more detailed refmement of motivation research, with amore careful distinction between experience and outcome.Kuentzel calls for a "process-oriented" approach to recreationbehavior, an approach which treats the expressive doing of anactivity rather than "the cognitive calculations of benefitsversus cost as the motivator for participation" (Kuentzel,1990:13). While expectancy value theory provides anunderstanding of attitudes, a phenomenological, process­oriented approach provides an understanding of the expressiveaction characteristic of recreation participation.Phenomenology recognizes that people may have differentperceptions of the same event and essentially draws upon theexperiences of individuals as they perceive them, the meaningof these experiences to them and their resultant feelings(Hamilton-Smith, 1990). Utilizing such an approach, peopledynamically recreate the meaning of a motive in doing theactual recreational activity. "The motive takes on meaningonly as it unfolds within the context of the interaction with therecreation experience, not through retrospective evaluation andobjectification" (Kuentzel, 1990:16). Motives exist as entitiestied to phenomena external to the individual. An individualdraws on an external reality to explain or justify their behavior.A recreationist interactively recreates the meaning of a motiveor alters it according to the progressive path of interaction withthe recreation experience.

Purpose of StudyTaking this phenomenological, process-oriented approach intoconsideration, one might expect motivations to change, to bealtered through participant interaction, over the course of arecreational experience, especially one that occurs over anextended period of time. The notion of time along with locationat which motivations are measured are additionalmethodological issues as identified by Manning (1986). Thus,the purpose of this exploratory study was to measuremotivational changes over the course of a recreationalexperience lasting over an extended period of time.

Methodology and Research DesignAs part of a larger study, 35 college students, participating in an8-day Rio Grande Outward Bound program involving a variety ofoutdoor activities such as whitewater canoeing, hiking, rockclimbing, camping and outdoor living skills, were asked to ratethe relative importance of 40 potential reasons or motivations

16

for participation. The students were asked to complete themotivation questionnaire twice; the first time approximatelytwo and a half weeks prior to the actual on-site experience, andthe-second time, four days into the actual 8-day experience.

Survey DesignDriver and associates (1977 and 1983) developed a highlycomprehensive list of potential recreation motivations, orreasons for deciding to participate in a designated activity,measured empirically by a series of scale items. This item poolfor Recreation Experience Preference (REP) scales is designed toquantify the psychological outcomes desired and expected fromrecreation participation. Respondents are asked to rate therelative importance of each scale item representing a potentialmotivation for participating in a designated activity. Aspreviously discussed, these scale items are usually then reducedthrough cluster analysis to dimensions which can be combined,because of a common underlying theme, to represent domains ofmore generalized categor ies of motivations. For the purpose ofthis study, 11 of Driver's REP domains were included whichseemed most appropriate for this particular outdoor recreationexperience, along with a twelfth domain which we entitled Fun.Altogether, 40 statements, or scale items, were included in thequestionnaires to measure the 12 REP domains.

There are two approaches to utilizing these REP dimensions:1) each dimension in a preference domain can be used separatelyto examine specific aspects of the central theme of the prefer­ence domain. Driver calls this a molecular approach to domaininquiry, i.e, within the Achievement-Stimulation Domain wecould look at the specific dimension of Reinforcing Self-Image,Social Recognition, Skill Development, Competence Testing,or Seeking Stimulation; 2) one could take representative itemsfrom each component dimension, i.e. Reinforcing Self-Image,Social Recognition, Skill Development, Competence Testing,and Seeking Stimulation, and combine them to define a singledimension representing the entire central domain theme-Le.,in this case, Achievement-Stimulation . Driver calls this amolar approach to domain inquiry and this second approach isutilized here in this study. Table 1 (see next page) shows the 40statements , or scale items, representing certain underlyingmotivation al dimensions, which are then combined to reflectdomains of more general ized categories of motivations.

Data CollectionDuring the Anticipation Phase of the Outward Bound courseexperience, each student completed a questionnaire which askedthem to rate the relative importance of the 40 statements relatedto potential reasons for participation by completing thefollowing sentence, ''I'm participating in this Outward Boundprogram because I want to . . . ." The relative importance ofeach statement was indicated by each student utilizing a 5-pointLikert Scale where I=Not At All Important to 5=ExtremelyImportant. During the Experience Phase, a second questionnairewas administered which asked each student to indicate howimportant each of the potential reasons for participation was forthe rest of the experience by completing the followingsentence, "For the rest of my Outward Bound program I wantto..." Once again, the relative importance of each statementwas indicated by each student utilizing the same 5-point LikertScale.

Treatment of DataUtilizing data generated from the two questionnaires, andapplying the molar approach to domain inquiry as discussedabove, reliability levels (Cronbach alpha) were computed forthe REP domains. Table I shows the reliability coefficient for

Table 1. Reliability coefficients for 12 recreation experience preference domains.

Anticipation Experience

Phase Phase

RECREATIONEXPERIENCE

PREFERENCE DOMAINDimension

scale item/statement

ACIDEVEMENf-STIMUlATION .57Reinforcing Self-Image

show myself that I can do itSocial Recognition

show others that I can do itSkill Development

develop new skillsimprove my skills

Competence Testinglearn what I'm capable of

Seeking Stimulation .experience excitement

LEADERSIDP/AuroNOMY .83Independence

feel my independence and be on my ownAutonomy

be free to make my own choicesControl-Power

be in control of things that happenhave others direct me/be in charge

RISK TAKING .71take riskstake chances in dangerous situationsexperience uncertainty of not knowing what will happen

lEARNING-DISCOVERY .65General Learning

learn about and get to know a new areaExploration

experience new and different thingsRELATIONSHIPSWITH NATURE .86

Sceneryview the scenic beauty

General Nature Appreciationget a feeling of harmony with naturegain a better appreciation of nature

REFlECf ON PERSONALVALVES .55Spiritual

think about my personal valuesIntrospection

learn more about myselfPHYSICAL FITNESS-EXERCISE .57

improve my physical healthbe physically active

ESCAPE PERSONAL-SOCIAL PRESSURE .54Tension Release

be able to release built-up tensionsSlow Down Mentally

recover from my usual hectic paceEscape Role Overloads

get away from the usual demands of lifeEscape Daily Routine

do something different

.86

.73

.90

.78

.86

.89

.83

.78

Range of EstimatedCronbach alpha forAll Items in Dimension'[ _

.94 - .96

.88 - ~90

.70 - .81

.88 - .91

.92 - .95

.88 - .91

.86 - .93

.91 - .93

a From: Driver, B.L. 1977. Item Pool for Scales Designed to Quantify the Psychological Outcomes Desired and Expected fromRecreation Participation. Range of Cronbach alpha from past empirical studies.

17

Table 1 (Continued). Reliability coefficients for 12 recreation experience preference domains.

Anticipation Experience

Phase Phase

RECREAnON EXPERIENCE

PRFFERENCEDOMAINDimension

scale item/statement

ESCAPEPHYSICALPRESSURES~~~~~~~~~Tranquility

experience solitudeexperience peace and calm

Privacybe aloneget away from certain people

Escape Crowdsexperience open spaceget away from civilization for awhile

Escape Physical Stressorsget away from my current routine

ESCAPEFAMILYIFRIENDS~~~~~~........,~~~~be away from my family/friends for awhile

RISK REDUCTIONRisk Moderat~io~n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

be near others who could help if I need themknow others are nearby

Risk Avoidancebe sure of what will happen to me

enjoy myselfhave a good timehave fun

.73

singleitem.76

.89

.85

singleitem.81

.95

Range of EstimatedCronbach alpha forAll Items in Dimension'[ _

.94 - .96

.65 - .78

(not available)b

(not available)?

a From: Driver, B.L. 1977. Item Pool for Scales Designed to Quantify the Psychological Outcomes Desired and Expected fromRecreation Participation. Range of Cronbach alpha from past empirical studies.

b From: Driver, B.L. 1983. Master List of Items for Recreation Experience Preference Scales and Domains.c Twelfth domain added in this study.

each domain during each phase of the study and the range ofreliability coefficients from past empirical studies. Reliabilitylevels were found to be satisfactory, although the Cronbachalpha coefficients for Achievement-Stimulation, Reflect onPersonal Values, Physical Fitness-Exercise, and EscapePersonal-Social Pressure were found to be low for theAnticipation Phase. We do not have an explanation for theselow reliability coefficients during anticipation.

Analysis and FindingsMeans were computed for both the Anticipation Phase andExperience Phase. Statistical analysis involved performing t­tests on the paired data for the difference of means between thesetwo phases, with regard to the 12 Recreation ExperiencePreference domains. No statistically significant differenceswere found for 11 of the 12 Recreation Experience Preferencedomains (See Table 2, next page).

One domain, Escape Family-Friends, represented by thestatement "get away from my family/friends for awhile"approached significance at the .05 level (p=.054). The domainof Risk Reduction was found to be significantly different for theAnticipation and Experience Phases (p=.OOO). This domain wasrepresented by the dimension of Risk Moderation, whichincluded the scale item statements of "be near others who couldhelp if I need them" and "know others are nearby" and by thedimension of Risk Avoidance, which included the scale itemstatement of "be sure of what will happen to me." It appearsthat the students participating in the Outward Bound program

18

considered the domains of Escape Family-Friends and RiskReduction to be significantly more important during theExperience Phase than during the Anticipation Phase.

Discussion and ConclusionThe one significant difference found could be expected, givensome of the objectives of an Outward Bound program-stressingthe importance of developing each individual's ability tocooperate with others in the group, learning and applying theconcepts of teamwork in decision-making and problem-solvingsituations, building group interdependence, and increasing anindividual's awareness of others-all of which contribute to riskreduction in an Outward Bound experience. The increasedimportance of escaping family/friends back at home or schoolduring the Experience Phase also could be expected given theOutward Bound objectives stated above. For practitioners, inthis case Outward Bound instructors, it appears it is possible to"manage the experience" in such a way that the "group"becomes more important for individuals as the experienceevolves over an extended period of time.

However, based on the work of Manning (1986), Kuentzel(1990), and others, more statistically significant differences inthe Recreation Experience Preference domains between theAnticipation Phase and the Experience Phase had been expectedin this study. As motivational theory regarding recreationalexperience evolves, it may well be that motivations are notonly constant across certain activities, but that motivesactually remain relatively stable across the various phases ofthese outdoor recreation experiences.

This study examined one Outward Bound program, an 8-dayexperience in which 35 college students participated in variousrecreational activities, and thus, it will take further efforts inthis area to determine whether the study results can be

generalized to other activities, and to even similar experiencesunder different situations, of varying intensity and of variousduration.

Table 2. T-tests for the difference between anticipation and experience phases with regard to12 recreation experience preference domains.

Mean MeanRecreation Experience Anticipation ExperiencePreference Domain Phase'' Phaseb t-value p-value

Achievement-Stimulation 3.97 3.92 .31 .761

Leadership/Autonomy 3.21 3.31 - .84 .409

Risk Taking 3.37 3.54 -1.23 .228

Learning-Discovery 4.33 4.23 .63 .536

Relationships with Nature 4.19 4.08 .81 .424

Reflect on Personal Values 3.97 3 .73 1.15 .259

Physical Fitness-Exercise 3.74 3.73 .08 .934

Escape Personal-Social Pressure 3.55 3.61 -.42 .680

Escape Physical Pressures 3.44 3.40 .32 .748

Escape Family/Friends 2 .06 2.57 -2.00 .054

Risk Reduction 2 .28 3.08 -4.67 .000

Fun 4.47 4.44 . 16 .876

a Computed means based on a five-point Likert Scale where I=Not At All Important, 2=SomewhatImportant, 3=Moderately Important, 4=Very Important, 5=Extremely Important.

b Computed means based on same five-point Likert Scale as above.

Literature CitedAtkinson, J.W.; Birch, D. 1972. Motivation: The Dynamicsof Action. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Clawson, M.; Knetsch, lL. 1969. Economics of OutdoorRecreation. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

Driver, B.L. 1977. Item pool scales designed to quantify thepsychological outcomes desired and expected from recreationparticipation. Unpublished manuscript, Rocky MountainForest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Ft.Collins, CO.

Driver, B.L. 1983. Master list of items for recreationexperience preference scales and domains. Unpublishedmanuscript, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range ExperimentStation, USDA Forest Service, Ft. Collins, CO.

Driver, B.L.; Tocher, R.C. 1970. Toward a behavioralinterpretation of recreational engagements, with implicationsfor planning. In B.L. Driver (Ed.) Elements in OutdoorRecreation Planning. Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress: 9-31.

19

Fishbein, M.; Azjen, 1. 1974. Attitudes toward objects aspredictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria.Psychological Review. 81(1): 59-74.

Hamilton-Smith, E. 1990. Phenomenology and recreationactivities. In: Proceedings, 1990 Research Symposium of theRecreation Resource Centre of Nova Scotia.

Hendee, J.e. 1974. A multiple satisfaction approach to gamemanagement. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 2: 104-113.

Kuentzel, W.F. 1990. Motive uniformity across recreationalactivities and settings: a synthesis of research. Paper presentedat the National Recreation and Parks Association ResearchSymposium, Phoenix, AZ.

Lawler, E.E. 1973. Motivations in Work Organizations.Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Manning, R.E. 1986. Studies in Outdoor Recreation.Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.