Annals o/Tourism Research, Vol. 14, pp. 314 - 331.

1987
Printed in tile [JSA. All rights reserved.

U 1 6 0 - 7 3 8 3 / 8 7 $3,00 + .00
~) 1987 l'ergamorl Journals Lid ~t~d J. Jatilli

P S Y C H O L O G I C A L N A T U R E OF
LEISURE AND TOURISM
EXPERIENCE
Roger C. Mannell
University of Waterloo, Canada
Seppo E. Iso-Ahola
University of Maryland, USA
Abstract: This paper examines the leisure and tourist experience from three
perspectives. While leisure researchers have identified the major ingredients of
subjective definitions of leisure, little research has been done on tourism from
the "definitional" perspective. From the "post-hoc satisfaction" standpoint,
theory and research suggest that psychological benefits of leisure and tourist
experience emanate from the interplay of two motivational forces: to escape
from routine and stressful environments a n d to seek recreational opportunities. T h e "immediate conscious experience" approach is committed to the
value of monitoring the actual, on-site, real-time nature of the experience itself.
Although scholars have analyzed the anatomy of the leisure experience, immediate conscious tourist experiences have not been subjected to scientific analysis. Thus, it is not possible to conclude when and under what conditions tourist
experience becomes leisure experience. Keywords: leisure-touristic experience, motives, satisfaction, subjective definitions, phenomenology.
R 6 s u m ~ : La nature psychologique de I'exp6rience du tourisme et des loisirs. Le
pr6sent article examine I'expbrience du loisir et du tourisme de trois perspectives. Bien que les chercheurs en loisir aient identifi6 les 616ments majeurs des
d6finitions subjectives du loisir, on a fait peu de recherches sur le tourisme du
point de vue des dbfinitions. D'une perspective de "satisfaction post hoc", la
th6orie et la recherche sugg~rent que les b6n6fices psychologiques de l'exp6rience du tourisme et du loisir proviennent de l'effet r6ciproque de deux forces
de motivation: s'6chapper au milieu quotidien et stress6 et chercher des occasions de r6cr6ation. L'approche "exp6rience consciente imm6diate" tient ~t la
valeur de contr61er la nature concrete, pr6sente et r6elle-temporelle de l'exp6rience m~me. Bien que les savants aient d6j~t analys~ l'anatomie de l'exp6rience
des loisirs, on n'a pas encore expos6 des exp6riences imm6diates et conscientes
du tourisme 5. I'analyse scientifique. Ainsi, il n'est pas possible de trancher
quand et sous quelles circonstances une experience de tourisme devient une
exp6rience de loisir. Mots clef: exp6rience de loisir-tourisme, motivations,
satisfaction, d6finitions subjectives, ph6nom6nologie.

Roger M a n n e l l is Associate Professor in the Department of Recreation and Leisure

Studies at the University of Waterloo. (Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1, Canada). Seppo IsoAhola is Professor in the Department of Recreation at the University of Maryland. Their
research interests focus on social psychological aspects of leisure experience and behavior.
314

MANNELLAND 1SO-AHOLA

315

INTRODUCTION
In a combination theme park and shopping mall in Niagara Falls stands a
machine looking not unlike a flight simulator. Periodically it turns, spins,
bumps, and twists. When it stops, a person or two emerge, usually with
something akin to a smile on their faces. They have just had a "simulated
leisure e x p e r i e n c e " - - w i t h accompanying kinesthetic, auditory, and visual sensory input. The experience is advertised to be a duplicate of an
actual ride on the world's largest roller coaster located five or six hundred
miles distant from this site.
While perhaps a rather trivial leisure episode, this feat of "leisure experience engineering," and its obvious synthetic nature, allows the illustration of a number of concerns that surface when jointly considering the
experiential nature of leisure and tourism phenomena. Is this leisure experience also a tourist experience - - leisure for city residents and tourism for
visitors? Are tourist experiences just a subset of leisure experiences, subject to the same explanatory and descriptive models? What needs are
satisfied by this experience? Are different needs satisfied by tourist involvements compared to other leisure involvements? What is the nature of
the resulting experience, that is, what were people feeling and thinking
during the episode, how will it be remembered upon future recall, how will
it contribute to overall satisfaction of the total activity or trip? Given the
episode's "synthetic" nature, is the experience judged inauthentic and
does this judgement affect the quality and meaning of the experience?
These are only a few of the possible questions that can be asked.
One of the driving forces behind an emerging social psychology of
leisure has been the notion that leisure is best conceptualized as "an experience or state of mind, is uniquely individual and that the quality rather
than the quantity of leisure in our lives deserves attention" (Mannell
1984:1B). While research and theory in tourism have not had the same
pre-occupation with the experiential nature of tourism phenomena, speculations and discussions stressing its importance have surfaced. The
present paper will provide a brief review and analysis of the theory and
research in both the general leisure literature and the tourism literature
that is concerned with the experiential aspects of these phenomena.
During the last decade there has been a steady growth in the amount of
psychologically oriented leisure research reported (c.f. Iso-Ahola 1980;
Iso-Ahola and Mannell 1985; Neulinger 1974) and a similar trend seems
to be emerging in tourism studies (Fridgen 1984; Pearce 1982; Stringer
and Pearce 1984). Social psychologies of leisure and tourism have been
developing relatively independently of each other. Two recent textbooks
dealing with the social psychology of leisure (Iso-Ahola 1980) and tourism
(Pearce 1989) provide little reference to travel and tourist behavior and
general leisure behavior, respectively. A few writers have suggested,
though, that tourism may share or be subject to the same theories and
concerns that characterize leisure (e.g., Fridgen 1984; Iso-Ahola 1982,
1983; Meyersohn 1981; Pearce 1982).
Leisure researchers, those who typically publish in leisure research
journals as opposed to tourism research journals, have generally not been
interested in any particular leisure or recreational activity in and of itself,
but rather overall patterns of free time usage and the antecedents and

316

LEISURE AND TOURISM EXPERIENCE

consequences of this usage. There are a few notable exceptions, tor exampie, the detailed study of chess, rock climbing, and dancing reported by
Csikszentmihalyi (1975), amateur science as serious leisure by Stebbins
(1981), and participation in the adult baseball camp as fimtasy leisure by
Brandmeyer and Alexander(1986). However, underlying the more usual
practice of not focusing on specific activities is the assumption that factors
such as the range of activities, the frequency of participation, and the
quality of involvement are more important to understanding the impact of
leisure on people than the specific activities in which they engage. As well,
there is an assumption that the range of needs and motivations people seek
to satisfy during their free time can be flllfilled by a large number of
different combinations and types of activities, making no one type of
leisure activity unique or singular in importance. Also there has been a
growing tendency among leisure researchers to see that the greatest portion of leisure time and activity is embedded within the everyday activities
that make up the lives of people (Graef, Csikszentmihalyi, and McManama
Gianinno 1983). Most leisure for most people is sandwiched between the
many and varied obligatory activities of daily life in the form of interstitial
play (Csikszentmihalyi 1975) or brief leisure interludes (Kleiber and
Fiscella 1981). Tourist activities, on the other hand, may have been seen
by leisure researchers as relatively rare and infrequent leisure episodes in
the lives of people. However, social scientists studying tourism often describe tourism experiences as distinct, important, and exceptional in their
function as suggested by the view that tourist activity can be a religious-like
experience and a source of personal development (Cohen 1979b; MacCannell 1976), a more effective means of escape from everyday stressors
(Iso-Ahola 1982), and a setting par excellence for reestablishing intimate
interpersonal relationships (Redfoote 1984).

Engineering Leisure and Tourism Experiences?

The basic position of this paper is that conscious, immediate experiences, as well as the re-experience of these through recall from memory,
are the important and primary outcomes of leisure and tourist behavior.
Writers of speculative fiction have envisioned a day when technology will
allow the high fidelity simulation of any human experience conceivable
within the confines of the individual's own home. Present day board and
computer games based on sports and travel themes are first and second
generation simulations, respectively, of leisure and tourism experiences.
However, one does not have to advocate these kinds of developments to
agree with the importance of understanding the experiential nature of
leisure and tourism. Recent research approaches to understanding consumer behavior, even in the nonleisure and nontourism areas, have focused increasingly on the more symbolic, emotive, and esthetic side of this
behavior. For example, Hirschman and Holbrook (1982) have suggested
that consumer experiences should be examined in their own right, apart
from whatever direct connection they may have with purchasing decisions, since consumers do more than simply process information to make
buying choices. They also engage in imaginative, emotional, and appreciative consumption experiences (Woods 1981). This trend is reminiscent
of Toffier's (1970:209) prediction that " . . . no important service will
be offered to the consumer before it has been analyzed by teams of behav-

MANNELLAND ISO-AHOLA

317

ioral engineers to improve its psychic loading." Of course, this notion of

"experience" engineering smacks of manipulation and the creation of
inauthentic or "staged" experiences - - a significant concern among some
tourism theorists (Cohen 1979b; MacCannell 1976; Redfoote 1984).
Staged events or events in any way simulated have been called "pseudoevents" by some (Fussell 1979; Boorstin 1964).
Many leisure service providers, particularly those in the private sector,
have already through trial and error developed "theories" or rules of
thumb to enhance the experiences of their customers, and insure a clientele willing to return again and again. Cameron and Bordessa (1981) in
their study of Canada's largest theme park, Wonderland, suggest that the
formula for the success of such a venture is known and applied in designing
and operating this type of leisure business. The success is certainly based
on structuring the leisure environment in such a way as to create or encourage a predictably satisfying experience. This calls for a social psychology of both leisure and tourism to systematically examine the antecedents
and consequences of leisure and tourist experiences. Resultant theories, if
developed, could be used to understand the problems people encounter in
attempting to enjoy their leisure and travel, as well as encourage individuals through an increased awareness of relevant factors to extend more
control over their lives and better enjoy their own leisure and travel (Mannell 1984). Such research is needed despite (or because) "the most elusive
area in tourism, as in other leisure activities, is the experience itself"
(Meyersohn 1981:1).
"True" Leisure and "Authentic" Tourist Experiences
It is quite evident from both the leisure and tourism literature that
leisure and tourist experiences are often viewed as quite unique or special.
When "touristic" or "leisure" experiences are discussed, frequently more
is being suggested than simply the experience accompanying the engagement or episode. In both areas, the notion of experience carries a great
deal of "ideological baggage." When leisure states or experiences are
discussed, voices usually drop to a reverent whisper and a certain mystic is
invoked. When theorists (e.g., Kelly 1983; Neulinger 1974) conceptualize
the existence of "unconditional" and " p u r e " leisure, it is all but too easy to
get the feeling of walking on hallowed ground when beginning to study
these phenomena. To qualify as a legitimate experience, the fact that it is
derived from a leisure activity is not sufficient. Rather, certain qualifying
or normative criteria are applied before the experience can be properly
viewed a leisure experience. The best example of this approach among
analysts of leisure phenomena is proposed by de Grazia (1962). He suggests that equating the possession of free time, or the engagement in
recreational activity, is no guarantee that one will experience leisure.
Leisure and free time live in two different worlds. Anybody can have free
time. Not everybody can have leisure. Leisure refers to a state of being, a
condition of man, which few desire and fewer achieve (de Grazia 1962:5)
True tourist experiences have also been seen to have some special quality, that is, to be more than simply an experience accompanying travel or
tourist behavior. The ultimate travel experience, itself, has been corn-

318

LEISURE AND TOURISM EXPERIENCE

pared to a religious experience (Cohen 1979b) and to be the result of

pilgrimage, where the tourist searches for something less tangible than the
trip and more rewarding than just being there (Vallee 1987). The search
for this ultimate tourist experience has been described as a quest. MacCannell (1976) refers to it as a quest for authenticity; Cohen (1979a) calls it
a quest for center; Meyersohn (1981) suggests it is a quest for meaning;
and, Pvzeclawski (1985) considers it a quest for values. Not unlike de
Grazia, Cohen (1979b: 194) suggests that these more profound modes of
experience are hard to realize for all but a select few. These types of
normative definitions or views of leisure and tourism experiences have
inhibited systematic study.
STUDYING LEISURE AND T O U R I S T
EXPERIENTIAL PHENOMENA
Leisure theorists and researchers have given much more theoretical and
empirical consideration to the nature of leisure experiences and states
than tourism scholars have the phenomenology of tourism. Yet, it would
also be fair to say that the attention in the literature given to arguing that
leisure is most profitably considered experience, far out-weighs the actual
amount of empirical research reported that operationalizes leisure as experience. However, some interesting attempts have been initiated. Examination of the actual psychological research reported on leisure as experience suggests that three approaches can be distinguished. They are here
called definitional, post-hoc satisfaction, and immediate conscious experience approaches.
The three approaches are similar in that leisure is viewed to be most
profitably understood from the subjective perspective of the participant,
yet they differ in how they treat or conceptualize this "subjectivity." The
definitional approach focuses on the perceived situational determinants
leading to the perception of leisure, without explicitly identifying the
typography of the experience of itselE The post-hoc satisfaction approach
has focused on the perceived motivations, outcomes, and satisfactions
associated with the experience. The immediate conscious experience approach is committed to the value of monitoring the actual, on-site, realtime nature of the experience itself. The following discussion will overview
these approaches, their successes and short-comings, and identify where
tourism research and theory have taken a similar direction.

Definitional Approach
The "definitional" approach is characterized by theory and research
which attempt to identify the factors which influence people to perceive
and label their engagements and resulting experiences as leisure or nonleisure. Here the research question can be characterized as:
What are the factors that cause the stream of conscious experience to be
broken into "chunks" and in turn, labeled leisure and nonleisure by the
individual?
Neulinger's work (1974) is an example of a well-known and frequentlycited psychological model that identifies the conditions necessary for an

MANNELL AND ISO-AHOLA

319

engagement and experience to be defined as leisure by an individual. By

focusing on the experience or state of mind of the individual, the idea of
leisure is seen to be freed from and no longer anchored to specific so-called
recreational activities or time periods. Rather, the experience's occurrence can be seen to be a function of the situation in which an activity and
its accompanying experience occur. Neulinger (1974) has identified two
major factors as important attributes of settings and activities that influence the type of leisure state achieved. These are the degree of freedom or
choice perceived in choosing the activity, and the extent to which the
activity is engaged in as an end in itself, that it, intrinsically motivated. On
this basis, Neulinger has suggested that the experiential state can range
from "pure leisure" to "pure work." The critical feature of Neulinger's
paradigm is that it is not the "objective" presence of these factors in the
setting that is important in determining whether an activity is leisure, but
rather their presence as "perceived" by the participant. Other sociological
and social psychological models have been developed incorporating these
and other factors into various leisure state/experience typologies (cf.
Kelly 1983).
It was not until Iso-Ahola's (1979a, 1979b) research that the first real
test of Neulinger's model was attempted. His subjects rated scales indicating whether they "would" be likely to experience leisure in a variety of
hypothetical or "imagined" situations which varied systematically according to the dimensions suggested by Neulinger's paradigm. The results
strongly supported the hypotheses and perceived freedom was found to be
"the critical regulator of what becomes leisure in people's minds and what
does not" (Iso-Ahola 1979a:313). Situations and activities characterized
as intrinsically motivating as opposed to extrinsically motivating were also
found to be influential in leading respondents to define the situation as
leisure. Iso-Ahola's research, however, leaves unclear several important
concerns. Like other psychological research in which respondents are
asked to imagine themselves in various life situations, and then report their
psychological reactions (Endler and Magnusson 1976; Magnusson and
Endler 1977), the situations evoked in the laboratory were imaginary and
not necessarily typical of those encountered in real life.
More recently Shaw (1984, 1985a) has reported several studies in which
a modified time-budget research approach has been used to examine the
factors that determine whether individuals define a given situation as
leisure or nonleisure during the course of their daily lives. Time-budget
research has typically estimated the time spent by people in different
activities (e.g., Robinson 1977; Zuzanek 1980). Some of these studies have
also tried to evaluate the psychological states associated with these different activities. Sorokin and Berger (1939), for example, asked their respondents why they did each of the fifty-five most frequent activities they
reported. Shaw (1984) followed a similar procedure. Her subjects kept a
diary on a typical week and weekend day. After the completion of the
time-budget diaries, during a follow-up interview, the subjects were asked
to classify all the activities listed in their diaries as "work," "leisure," "a
mixture of work and leisure," or "neither work nor leisure." All diary
events were then coded according to the international time-budget activity
coding scheme (cf. Szalai 1972), which provides a way of categorizing
activities as leisure, work, etc. When the ratings of the respondents were

320

LEISURE AND TOURISM EXPERIENCE

compared to the international coding scheme, there was a substantial

degree of agreement.
However, it was also evident that there were important and significant
differences. Shaw found that some activities, such as cooking, home
chores, shopping, child care, and travel were more frequently defined as
leisure by males than by females. She also found individuals defined the
same activity differently at different times. For example, of those people in
her sample who reported engaging in cooking activity more than once
during the study, sixty-nine percent of the time it was defined as leisure on
one occasion and as work on the second. Shaw interviewed her subjects
and asked them to explain why they labeled their activities as they did.
Consistent with Iso-Ahola's findings and Neulinger's paradigm, activities
labeled as "leisure" were characterized by involvement in an activity that
was both freely chosen and intrinsically motivated. In addition, she found
that leisure was characterized as a situation which was lacking in evaluation
or j u d g e m e n t by other people, and found to be enjoyable and relaxing.
What is the utility of these definitional leisure models and accompanying
research? Are they merely interesting scholarly exercises, characteristic of
science's penchant for creating typologies and classifying phenomena? In
answer, it can be argued that any attempt to systematically examine the
impact of leisure on the quality of life of individuals or society as a whole,
might be more successful if researchers were able to quantify the actual
a m o u n t o f " p e r c e i v e d " leisure as opposed to "objective" leisure present in
the lives of people. Shaw (1985b) provides an interesting example of such a
use. She was interested in examining and explaining gender differences in
the a m o u n t of leisure possessed by married men and women. When objective measures were used, no gender differences appeared, which was consistent with previous research. However, when she used the subjective
definitional approach, gender differences did emerge and were consistent
with theoretically predicted patterns. Since the quality of life as measured
by social scientists is usually a subjective measure, it seems useful to also
have a subjective or experiential definition of leisure. What remains to be
done is to examine the predictive differences of subjectively and objectively derived measures of leisure.
A few tourism scholars have also been interested in the role of tourist
experiences in self-development or the development of self-actualization,
and to some extent in the quality of life. While little research has been
reported on tourist experiences and how the tourist labels and organizes
h i s / h e r travel experiences, several typologies of tourist experiences have
been suggested. As with the leisure models, the actual nature and content
of the on-site experiences have been generally ignored. T h e major dimension or factor used to distinguish between types of tourist experience has
been the notion of "authenticity." " A u t h e n t i c " tourist experiences are
seen as the ultimate goal of the tourist as is the " t r u e " or "unconditional"
leisure experience for the recreationist. MacCannell (1976) is considered
to have recognized the importance of the authenticity concept for tourist
analyses. He describes these experiences as the worthwhile and spontaneous experience of travel and they have the elements of spontaneity, worth,
and genuineness (Pearce and Moscordo 1986). Like recreational or leisure behavior which can range from completely freely chosen a n d / o r
intrinsically motivated to completely obligated a n d / o r extrinsically moti-

MANNEI.L AND ISO-AHOLA

321

rated, tourist behavior is seen to range from the inauthentic to the authentic. For leisure, the resulting states range from "pure" leisure to "pure"
work (Neulinger 1974), and for tourism from the "recreational mode" to
the "existential mode" (Cohen 1979b).
Based upon the assumption that tourists perceive accurately, MacCannell developed a typology of six tourist environmental settings varying in
authenticity, and which lead to different experience outcomes. Cohen
(1979a) simplified this typology and introduced a "perceptual" or "subjective" element, using an argument similar to Neulinger's for perceived
freedom, that the staged or real nature of the tourist environment has to
be perceived to have an impact on the tourist's experiential state. More
recently Pearce and Moscardo (1986) have further elaborated the model
to make a distinction between the social and physical authenticity of the
tourist setting. Redfoote (1984) has developed a typology which divides
the experiences sought into four types, not only based on the degree of
authenticity in the tourist setting, but on the anxiety experienced by the
tourist to have an authentic experience.
Interestingly, one of Cohen's types is the "recreational mode" of experience. He infers that experiences derived fi'om the sphere of leisure, "mere
pleasure," and the quest for "meaning and authenticity" through tourism
are at opposite ends of the continuum (Cohen 1979b:193). Redfoote
(1984) has criticized this tendency to view leisure as only diversionary,
entertainment, or restoration. Certainly, as conceptualized by leisure
theorists, leisure has the greatest potential for allowing personal growth
and self-development, and is not the private reserve of any one type of
activity engaged in during free time.
The development of typologies for both leisure and tourist experience
has led to little empirical work. This is particularly true on the tourism
side. Little or no systematic research has been done to determine the
factors in the setting that influence perceptions of authenticity and the
resulting quality of the experience. Neither area of inquiry has conceptualized or studied the ongoing thoughts and feelings, that is, the actual
real and direct experiences that occur during these "special" states. One
can also ask if authentic experiences are true leisure experiences, are there
psychological states in common? Is authenticity truly an important dimension of a good quality tourist experience or is it overrated? Can the authenticity notion be usefully applied to other types of leisure behavior and
experience?

Post-Hoc Satisfaction Approach

The "post-hoc satisfaction" approach equates leisure experience with
the satisfactions derived from a recreation engagement. The notion of
satisfaction has been subject to a variety of terminology including "motivations," "preferences," "psychological outcomes," and "experience expectations" (Manning 1986:80). The approach assumes that people are
aware of their leisure needs or motivations, the kinds of experiences that
will satisfy these needs, and that they can make accurate judgements about
when these are met (satisfactions, psychological outcomes achieved). Since
these satisfactions and the psychological processes which lead to their

322

I,EISt!RI+~AND T()t!RISM EXI'I~]RIENCI.]

formulation are t e p r e s e u t e d in the consciousness o f the participant, they

can be considered leisure experiences. T h e approach is primarily func'tional in its orientation, in that the individual is viewed to pursue recrealional activities and involvements to satisfy+tmmet needs. T h e s e preferences for certain kinds of e x p e r i e n c e and the satisfactions derived from
recreational engagements are based on the existence o f a variety o f biologically and socially learned leisure needs (Iso-Ahola 1980).
Tl'lis approach is similar to the concern shown in general psychology for
the impact o f everyday situations on psychological states. T h e approach
consists o f asking respondents to rate their "satisfaction" or "happiness"
with some specific domain o f life like work, marriage, or n e i g h b o r h o o d .
Initially these types o f studies tocused on pathology and coping (Gurin,
Veroff, and Feld 1960) but later the issue became psychological well-being
( B r a d b u r n 1969), or the quality o f life as a whole (Campbell, Converse,
and Rodgers 1976).
A large n u m b e r o f studies (e.g., L o n d o n , Crandall, and Fitzgibbons
1977; Tinsley, Barrett, and Kass 1977) have been r e p o r t e d which have
a t t e m p t e d to identify the types and range o f leisure needs and motives that
underlie people's leisure choices and participation. A relatively small and
c o m p r e h e n s i v e list o f general leisure motives has also been developed (cf.
Crandall 1980; Manning 1986). H e r e the research question is,
In retrospect, what needs were met and consequently how satisfying was
the recreational engagement?
Based upon this research question, one would assume that researchers
would have measured subjects' leisure needs b e f o r e their leisure experiences and t b u n d out w h e t h e r or not the needs were met and then related
such nmasurements to leisure satisfaction. Such studies, however, are nonexistent. What researchers have done, instead, is to present subjects with
various reasons and ask them to rate how important each o f them is to their
leisure participation (e.g., Beard and Ragheb 1983; Tinsley et al 1977;
Tinsley and Kass 1978). Subjects have made these ratings not in relation to
a particular leisure e x p e r i e n c e but as statements about their perceived
reasons for leisure participation in general. Invariably in these studies, the
data have been analyzed by factor analysis, typically resulting in four to
five " n e e d dimensions" o1 "motivation factors." It is then assumed that
such factors explain most people's leisure motivation and satisfaction for
ntost o f the time. While such studies are interesting and useful in their own
right, they ignore the dynamic nature o f leisure motivation.
It has been empirically d e m o n s t r a t e d (Iso-Ahola and Allen 1982) that if
leisure motives or needs are measured before a given leisure experience,
they are very different from the same measurements taken after the leisure experience. Motives, by their definition, occur before a leisure experience and satisfaction after it; the two cannot simply be equated. In a
similar vein, leisure satisfaction has been f o u n d to be principally influenced by the leisure e x p e r i e n c e itself and some o f the characteristics
(e.g., outcome) o f this experience; n o n e x p e r i e n c e - r e l a t e d factors (e.g.,
demographics) do not seem to be significant determinants o f leisure satisfaction (Iso-Ahola, Allen, and Buttimer 1982). Vacation satisfaction also
appears to be p r e d o m i n a n t l y a function o f vacation activities and experi-

MANNELL AND ISO-AHOLA

323

ences (Lounsbury and Hoopes 1985). Though general satisfaction certainly constitutes one important experiential component, the stream of
associations that occur during an episode (imaging, daydreams, emotions)
are equally important experiential aspects of leisure and tourist behavior.
Such aspects need to be studied to better understand the nature of the
leisure and tourist experience and their relationship to motivation and
satisfaction.
All of this suggests that the typical factor analytic approach does not take
one very far in understanding leisure motivation and satisfaction. Unfortunately, the same research approach appears to dominate studies on tourism motivation (e.g., Crompton 1979). In part because of this approach,
many important research questions have not been answered: How variable
are tourist motives and to what extent are they prompted by different
types of tourist experiences? What is the relationship between tourist
motives and tourist satisfaction? What factors give rise to tourist motives?
A new theoretical framework has recently been proposed to explain
both leisure and tourism motivation (Iso-Ahola 1982, 1984). According to
this two-dimensional theory of leisure motivation, two motivational forces
simultaneously influence the individual's leisure behavior. On the one
hand, leisure activities are sought because they provide change or novelty
to daily routine; engagement in leisure activities allows one to leave the
everyday environment behind. As shown in Figure 1, by escaping the
everyday environment, a person can leave behind the personal a n d / o r
interpersonal world. H e / s h e can escape personal problems, troubles, difficulties, failures, or the daily interpersonal world (e.g., roomates, friends,
family members); or h e / s h e can escape both worlds.
The other motivational force is the individual tendency to seek psychological (intrinsic) rewards from participation in leisure activities (see Figure 1). The intrinsic rewards that the individual pursues through leisure

Seeking
personalrewards

Escaping ~

interpersonal
environments

l
I

Seeking
interpersonal
rewards

Escaping

personal
environments

Figure 1. The Escaping and Seeking Dimensions o f Leisure Motivation

(Source: Iso-Ahola 1984:111).

324

LEISURE AND TOURISM EXPERIENCE

participation can be divided into personal and interpersonal. The personal

rewards consist mainly of self-determination (one's ability to exercise fieedora in choosing a leisure activity), sense of competence or mastery, challenge, learning, exploration, and relaxation. The seeking of interpersonal
rewards means that in one form or the other, social interaction is the main
intrinsic reward to be achieved. Translated into tourism, this theory
means that the psychological benefits of recreational travel emanate from
the interplay of two forces: escaping of routine and stressful environments
and seeking of recreational opportunities for certain psychological rewards (Iso-Ahola 1983:55).
It should be emphasized that any leisure activity (e.g., tourism behavior)
has these two motivational forces. Thus, it is not a question of " e i t h e r or" of these forces but, rather, one of seeking and escaping. Whether one
of them is more central than the other for a certain group of individuals,
under certain conditions, and for certain activities is an empirical question. It has been theorized that tourism, because of its unique characteristics, represents more of an escape-oriented than seeking-oriented activity
for most people under most conditions (Iso-Ahola 1982). Especially, this is
likely to be true of "escape and long-weekend vacations."
A recent trend is toward more frequent, but shorter, vacations. The
Wall Street Journal's special report on the business of leisure (1986) indicated that 57~ of the people surveyed preferred shorter, getaway-type
vacations to longer trips and that 40% of vacations in the US are taken
during the three summer months, a decrease from the 50% to 60% o f t e n
years ago. In comparison, the two-week family summer vacation is often
seen as "a dinosaur," an exhausting experience. Not surprisingly, the
travel industry has capitalized on the trend by promoting the need for
escape and the getaway vacations. As a consequence, people learn to desire
vacations (especially shorter ones) for escape purposes and come to think
of such vacations as essential for their psychological well-being (Iso-Ahola
1980:198).
The escape motivated vacation or tourism implies that people take vacations (especially shorter ones) to avoid their overstimulating life situations.
But it is also possible that people escape their understimulating personal
a n d / o r interpersonal world. Thus, the construct optimal arousal is important for understanding travel and tourism motivation (lso-Ahola
1983). A recent study supports this theorizing. Wahlers and Etzel (1985)
found that vacation preferences depend on the difference between the
individual's optimal or ideal level of stimulation (a personality trait) and
actual lifestyle stimulation experiences. Specifically, they reported that
persons experiencing less stimulation in their lives than they desire expressed a preference for greater novelty and stimulation on the ideal
vacation. On the other hand, individuals experiencing more stimulation
than they desired preferred a more tranquil and structured ideal vacation.
Thus, it appears that people Use vacation travel and tourist experiences for
stimulation seeking and reduction in efforts to achieve the individual
optimal level of arousal. It is hypothesized that those who take vacations to
escape overstimulation participate in fewer leisure activities and are less
likely to seek personal or interpersonal rewards from leisure participation
during the vacation than those who use vacations to increase the level of
stimulation in their lives.

MANNELL AND ISO-AHOLA

325

Immediate ConsciousExperienceApproach
The third approach to be examined here treats leisure as "immediate
conscious experience." As has been hinted at above, the previous approaches have not directly examined or determined the nature of leisure
and tourist experiences. There is a need to examine the characteristics and
properties of the actual experiences accompanying recreation activities.
What is the phenomenology of these experiences that people define as
leisure? The study of the immediate phenomenological leisure experience
for its own sake has been rare in social science approaches to leisure
(Harper 1981). While researchers have actually begun to see the value of
asking people if they are experiencing leisure in a given context, and if
they are satisfied with their experiences, the anatomy of the experience, its
intensity, duration, memorability, and meaning, go for the most part,
unexamined (Mannell 1980). The focus of the question at the center of
this approach is:
What is the actual content of the experiences accompanying leisure behavior and what are the factors within the individual and the immediate
environment that influence these?
Conscious experience is the experience of the present moment. The
metaphor "stream of consciousness" used by James (1890) probably best
describes mental experience and suggests that conscious states are perceived as continuous and constantly changing. The stream of consciousness is described by Pope and Singer (1978:1) as "that flow of perceptions,
purposeful thoughts, fragmentary images, distant recollections, bodily
sensations, emotions, plans, wishes and impossible fantasies-- [it] is our
experience of life, our own personal life, from its beginning to its end."
As with the definitional approach discussed above, there has been a
tendency to consider as leisure only those conscious experiences that meet
certain special criteria. The nature of leisure experiences is conceived as
similar to a variety of highly involving psychological states, for example,
peak, mystical, flow, sport experiences (Kleiber and Dirkin 1985; Mannell
1980). Masiow's ( 1968) notion of peak experience and Csikszentmihalyi's
(1975) concept of "flow" have been particularly attractive conceptualizations for leisure researchers, since they itemize a variety of characteristics
of phenomenological experiences derived from a wide range of engagements. Maslow (1968:73) describes peak experiences as "moments of
highest happiness and fulfillment" often achieved through the nature
experience, aesthetic perception, creative movement, intellectual insight,
organismic experience, athletic pursuit, and the like.
Flow for Csikszentmihalyi (1975) appears to be the phenomenological
experience resulting from man at play. The central elements of peak-flow
experiences include the following seven aspects: a centering of attention;
transitoriness; richer perception; forgetting oneself and becoming totally
involved in the activity at hand; disorientation in time and space; enjoyment; and momentary loss of anxiety and constraint. Csikszentmihalyi's
flow notion is, however, more useful in that it recognizes that the experience need not be an "all-or-none" experience and that the degree of flow
can vary from modest involvement (micro flow) to intense peak-like involvement. Similarly, the flow model gives one a much clearer idea of the

326

I,EISURE AND TOURISM EXPERIEN('E

thctors, parlicularly the e n v i r o n m e n t a l and personal factors that combine

to c o n t r i b u t e to the achievement o f this state.
However, the restriction o f the term leisure e x p e r i e n c e to the positive ol" u p - b e a t " side o f these experiences tends to divert one's attention away
from ["actors that may inhibit the achievement o f meaningful states. A
m o r e useful approach would be to not equate leisure experiences with
m o r e psychologically involving experiences, but to examine what it is
a b o u t leisure activities that seems to make them m o r e likely to p r o d u c e
these meaningfid experiences, than o t h e r activities or engagements, if in
fact they do. O n e way o f considering or defining leisure e x p e r i e n c e or
tourist experience, then, is imply as the contents o f the stream o f consciousness that accompanies a leisure or travel episode.
T h e notion o f episode or activity could be based on the consensus or
norms o f a social g r o u p or culture, or on the personal definition o f the
participant as discussed earlier u n d e r definitional approaches. This approach leaves the way open to discuss and examine leisure experiences that
are, a m o n g o t h e r things, positive and negative, involving and uninvolving,
p r o f o u n d and not p r o f o u n d . This approach differs from the typical approach to talking about and conceptualizing leisure, in which, as n o t e d
earlier, theorists only apply the term leisure to a special subset o f those
experiences that accompany leisure, recreation, travel, and cultural activities or engagements.
T h e experiential nature o f both the daily routine events o f life, as well as
special and rare episodes, are b e c o m i n g o f g r e a t e r interest to social scientists. In personality and social psychological research, t h e r e appears to be a
substantial increase o f interest in data that will allow psychologists to investigate the meaningful aspects o f people's lives and experiences. O n e finds
increasing use o f case studies, psycho-history, logs, diaries, and the experience sampling m e t h o d (Pervin 1985). T h e s e methods are being used to
u n c o v e r the regularities in how people e x p e r i e n c e the stream o f consciousness in the form o f such states as h e i g h t e n e d happiness or self-awareness
and e x t r e m e concentration e x p e r i e n c e d at work or d u r i n g leisure engagements. T h e goal is to develop a "systematic p h e n o m e n o l o g y , " to " c a r r y
out a science o f internal e x p e r i e n c e " (Csikszentmihalyi and Larson 1985).
Applied to the study o f leisure and perhaps tourist behavior, it can be
a r g u e d that:
The attempt to operationalize and measure characteristics of leisure experiences, which allows the identification and monitoring of these experiences, will hopefully lend itself to a systematic effort to discover those
features of situations, activities, and persons which inhibit or enhance the
experience of leisure. The impact on the leisure experience frequently
assumed for such factors as freedom of choice, intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations, work and leisure attitudes, personality, and man-made and
natural environments could be tested . . . . (Mannell 1980:84)
A few studies have been r e p o r t e d which examine and m o n i t o r leisure
experiences. O f course, Csikszentmihalyi's (1975) now classic studies o f
flow experiences a m o n g rock climbers, chess players, rock dancers, and
surgeons (based on observation and interviews) are an excellent example.
G u n t e r (1979) had his subjects write essays about the most m e m o r a b l e
leisure e x p e r i e n c e they could recollect. H e analyzed the reports o f his

M A N N E L L AND ISO-AHOLA

327

subjects and identified a variety of properties or characteristics that

seemed to be common to leisure experiences. Mannell (1979) and Mannell
and Bradley (1986) have reported research using Csikszentmihalyi's flow
construct to operationalize leisure experiences. This research has examined situational (e.g., freedom of choice, competition, setting structure)
and personality (locus of control) influences on the intensity of experience
during a simulated leisure interlude or period of time in a laboratory
setting.
A new research methodology called the "Experiential Sampling
Method" has been recently used to explore immediate conscious experiences during leisure episodes. Respondents carry electronic pagers with
them during the course of their daily activity, and are randomly signaled.
Each time the pager emits a signal, the respondent fills out a brief questionnaire indicating the activity engaged in, information about the social
and physical setting, and subjective states (Larson and Csikszentmihalyi
1983). Graef et al (1983) have examined daily leisure activities compared
to obligatory and work activities for the pleasure, sense of freedom and
intrinsic/rewarding feelings they generate. Csikszentmihalyi and Larson
(1984) found that experiences during leisure were the most positive experiences among adolescents. Chalip et al (1984) found that the structure of
sport s e t t i n g s - their formality and the expectations for achievement-had strong influences on the experiences reported by adolescents. Larson,
Mannell, and Zuzanek (1986) discovered that the more positive and intense experiences of older adults with friends versus spouses were due to
both the types of leisure activities typically engaged in, and the unique
qualities of the interpersonal interactions during these episodes.
The only research in the tourism area comparable to this ongoing monitoring of experiences is the work of Pearce (1982). His respondents carried diaries and periodically reported their activities, the settings they
encountered, and their moods. He was able to relate the quality of tourist
experiences to the nature of the activities they engaged in and the stage
they were at in their holiday. Pearce was able to make some recommendations to the operators of the tourist enterprise on the basis of his experiential analysis.
CONCLUSION
The literature review reveals that leisure theorists and researchers have
given much more theoretical and empirical consideration to the nature of
leisure experiences than tourism scholars have to the phenomenology of
tourism. From the "definitional" standpoint, much is known about the
factors that influence people's perceptions and labeling of their engagements and the resulting experiences as leisure or nonleisure. Based upon
well-developed theoretical frameworks, leisure researchers have been able
not only to identify the major ingredients of subjective definitions of
leisure (sense of freedom, intrinisic motivation, enjoyment, relaxation)
but also some of the conditions which influence the importance of these
factors. On the other hand, little research has been done on tourism from
the "definitional" perspective. Theorists have suggested that the search
for the ultimate tourist experience is a quest (for example, authenticity,
center, meaning, and values). But no theory or research has been reported

328

LEISURE A N D ' F ( ) U R I S M EXPERIENCE

which has identified the basic dimensions or defining criteria o f authentic

meaningful tourism episodes. What factors lead people to describe an
activity or a set o f activities as authentic tourism or touristic experiences?
Are these personal definitions similar to those o f tourist operators or
researchers? Are authentic touristic experiences, leisure experiences? Are
there o t h e r meaningful dimensions by which tourists label and define their
experiences?
As for the "post-hoc satisfaction" approach, both leisure and tourist
researchers have followed the same route. In the factor analytic studies,
subjects have been p r e s e n t e d with a large n u m b e r o f reasons and then
asked to rate the importance o f each reason for their leisure or tourist
participation. T h e s e ratings, however, have been d o n e as general statements r a t h e r than in relation to specific upcoming leisure/touristic experiences. T h e same strategy has been used in the case o f satisfaction measures. As a result, many i m p o r t a n t research questions remain unanswered.
A new theoretical f r a m e w o r k has recently been developed to explain both
leisure ad tourism motivation. According to this two-dimension theory,
two motivational forces simultaneously influence the individual's leisure
or tourist behavior. T h a t is, psychological benefits o f leisure travel experiences emanate from the interplay o f two forces: escaping o f routine and
stressful e n v i r o n m e n t s and seeking recreational opportunities for certain
intrinsic rewards. A recent t r e n d toward m o r e frequent, but shorter,
vacations suggests that the escape dimension is a m o r e important motivational fbrce than the seeking dimension for tourism. At the same time,
research indicates people escape both over- and under-stimulating life
situations t h r o u g h vacations in efforts to achieve and maintain their optimal level o f arousal. But if they escape over-stimulation, they participate in
fewer leisure activities d u r i n g a vacation and the seeking o f intrinsic rewards becomes less i m p o r t a n t for them than for those who escape understimulation. It is concluded that while this basic motivational mechanism is
the same fbr tourism and o t h e r leisure behaviors, tourism is m o r e likely to
be triggered by the escape motive because o f the travel industry's constant
p r o m o t i o n o f the need to escape over- or under-stimulating everyday
ellvirouluents.

From the standpoint o f " i m m e d i a t e conscious e x p e r i e n c e , " leisure research has given this issue greater attention than tourism research. According to this approach, the anatomy o f the experience, its intensity,
duration, memorability, and meaning are subjected to scientific analysis.
Researchers have discovered that "flow" is the core o f leisure experience
and have identified the central elements o f flow experiences (e.g., centering o f attention and becoming totally involved in the activity at hand).
While a variety o f methods has been used to uncover the regularities in
how people e x p e r i e n c e the stream o f consciousness, the "Experiential
Sampling M e t h o d " is the reason for the recent flurry o f studies focusing on
the on-site content o f leisure experience. Respondents carry electronic
pagers with them d u r i n g the course o f their daily activity, and upon randora signaling, fill out a b r i e f questionnaire. This b e e p e r m e t h o d o l o g y has
p r o d u c e d many informative and insightful studies on various aspects o f
leisure experience, but unfortunately, has not been applied to analyzing
tourist experiences; even the use o f the diary m e t h o d has been rare. All o f
this leaves the information about the relationship between leisure experi-

MANNELL AND 1SO-AHOLA

329

ence and tourist experience inconclusive. In spite of some intuitively obvio u s s i m i l a r i t i e s b e t w e e n t h e t w o , a t p r e s e n t , it is n o t p o s s i b l e t o c o n c l u d e

when and under what conditions tourist experience becomes leisure exper i e n c e . [] []

REFERENCES
Beard, J., and M. Ragheb
1983 Measuring Leisure Motivation. Journal of Leisure Research 15:219 - 228.
Boorstin, D.J.
1964 T h e Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York:Harper & Row.
Bradburn, N.
1969 T h e Structure of Psychological Well-Being. Chicago:AIdine.
Brandmeyer, G. A., and L. K. Alexander
1986 "I Caught the Dream": T h e Adult Baseball Camp as Fantasy Leisure. Journal of
Leisure Research 18:26 - 39.
Cameron, J. M., and R. Bordessa
1981 Wonderland through the Looking Glass. Maple, Ontario: Belstein.
Campbell, A., P. Converse, and W. Rodgers
1976 T h e Quality of American Life. New York:Russel Sage.
Chalip, L., M. Csikszentmihalyi, D. Kleiber, and R. Larson
1984 Variations of Experience in Formal and Informal Sport. Research Quarterly for
Exercise and Sport 5 5 : 1 0 9 - 116.
Cohen, E.
1979a Rethinking the Sociology of Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 6:18 - 35.
1979b A Phenomenology of Tourist Experiences. Sociology 13:179 - 201.
Crandall, R.
1980 Motivations for Leisure. Journal of Leisure Research 12:45 - 54.
Crompton, J.
i 979 Motivations for Pleasure Vacation. Annals of Tourism Research 6 : 4 0 8 - 4 2 4 .
Csikszentmihalyi, M.
1975 Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., and R. Larson
1984 Being Adolescent. New York: Basic Books.
1985 T h e Experience Sampling Method: Towards a Systematic Phenomenology. University of Chicago: Research Grant from PHS, NIMH and the Spencer Foundations.
Endler, N. S., and D. Magnusson, eds.
1976 lnteractional Psychology and Personality. New York: Wiley.
Fridgen, J.
1984 Environmental Psychology and Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research 11 : 19 - 39.
Fussell, P.
1979 T h e Stationary Tourist. Harper's April:31-38.
de Grazia, S.
1962 O f Work, Time and Leisure. New York: T h e Twentieth Fund.
Graef, R., M. Csikszentmihalyi, and S. McManama Gianinno
1983 Measuring Intrinsic Motivation in Everyday Life. Leisure Studies 2:155 - 168.
Gunter, B. G.
1979 Properties of the Leisure Experience. In Leisure: A Psychological Approach, H.
lbrahim and R. Crandall eds. Los Alamitos, CA: Hwong.
Gurin, G., J. Veroff, and S. Feld
1960 Americans View their Mental. New York: Basic Books.
Harper, W.
1981 T h e Experience of Leisure. Leisure Sciences 4:113 - 126.
Hirschman, E. C., and M. B. Holbrook
1982 Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions.Journal of
Marketing 4 6 : 9 2 - 101.
Iso-Ahola, S. E.
1979a Basic Dimensions of DefinitionsofLeisure.Journal of Leisure Research 11:28-39.
1979b Some Social Psychological Determinants of Perceptions of Leisure: Preliminary
Evidence. Leisure Sciences 2 : 3 0 5 - 3 1 4 .

330

LEISURE AND TOURISM EXPERIENCE

1980 Tile Social Psychology of Leisure and Recreation. Dubuque, Iowa: Win. C. Brown.
1982 Toward a Social Psychological Theory of Tourism Motivation: A Rejoinder. Annals
of Tourism Research 12:256 - 262.
1983 Towards a Social Psychology of Recreational Travel. Leisure Studies 2 : 4 5 - 56.
1984 Social Psychological Foundations of Leisure and Resultant Implications for Leisure
Counseling. In Leisure Counseling: Concepts and Applications, E. T. Dowd, ed., pp.
9 7 - 125. Springfield IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., and J. R. Allen
1982 The Dynamics of Leisure Motivation: The Effects of Outcome on Leisure Needs.
Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 53:141 - 149.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., and R. C. Mannell
1985 Social and Psycholgical Constraints on Leisure. In Constraints on Leisure, M. Wade,
ed. Springfield IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Iso-Ahola, S. E., J. R. Allen, and K.J. Buttimer
1982 Experience-Related Factors as Determinants of Leisure Satisfaction. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology 23:141 - 146.
James, W.
1890 The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt.
Kelly, J.
1983 Leisure Identities and Interactions. London: Allen and Unwin.
Kleiber, D., and G. Dirkin
1985 Interpersonal Constraints on Leisure. In Constraints on Leisure, W. Wade, ed.
Springfield IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Kleiber, D., a n d J . Fiscella
1981 Leisure as Interlude. Paper presented at the SPRE Leisure Research Symposium,
Minneapolis, October.
Larson, R., and M. Csikszentmihalyi
1983 The Experience Sampling Method. In New Directions for Naturalistic Methods iv
the Behavioral Sciences, H. Reis, ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Larson, R., R. C. Mannell, a n d J . Zuzanek
1986 The Daily Experience of Older Adults with Friends Versus Family and Its Relation
to Global Well-Being. Psychology and Aging 2:117- 126.
London, M., R. Crandall, and D. Fitzgibbons
1977 The Psychological Structure of Leisure: Activities, Needs, People. Journal of Leisure Research 9:252- 263.
Lounsbury, J. W., and L. L. Hoopes
1985 An Investigation of Factors Associated with Satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research 17:1-13.
MacCannell, D.
1976 The Tourist. New York: Schocken.
Magnusson, D., and N. S. Endler
1977 Interactional Psychology: Present Status and Future Prospects. In Personality at the
Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology, D. Magnusson and N. S. Endler,
eds. Hillside NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Mannell, R. C.
1979 A Conceptual and Experimental Basis for Research in the Psychology of Leisure.
Society and Leisure 2:179 - 196.
1980 Social Psychological Strategies and Techniques for Studying Leisure Experiences.
In Social Psychological Perspectives on Leisure and Recreation, S. Iso-Ahola, ed.
Springfield IL: Charles C. Thomas.
1984 A Psychology for Leisure Research. Leisure and Society 7:13 - 2 1 .
Mannell, R. C., and W. Bradley
1986 Does Greater Freedom Always Lead to Greater Leisure? Testing a Person X Environment Model of Freedom and Leisure. Journal of Leisure Research 18:215 - 230.
Manning, R. E.
1986 Studies in Outdoor Recreation. Corvallis OR: Oregon State University Press.
Maslow, A.
1968 Toward a Psychology of Being, 2nd ed. Toronto: Van Nos Reinhold.
Meyersohn, R.
1981 Tourism as a Socio-Cultural Phenomenon: Research Perspectives. Research Paper
No. 3 of the Research Group on Leisure and Cultural Development. Waterloo: Otium
Publications.
Neulinger, J.
1974 Psychology of Leisure. Springfield IL: Charles C. Thomas.

MANNELL AND ISO-AHOLA

331

Pearce, P. L.
1982 T h e Social Psychology of Tourist Behavior. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Pearce, P., and G. M. Moscardo
1986 T h e Concept of Authenticity in Tourist Experiences. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Sociology 22:121 - 132.
Pervin, L. A.
1985 Personality: Current Controversies Issues, and Directions. Annual Review of Psychology 3 6 : 8 3 - 1 1 4 .
Pope, K. S., and J. L. Singer, eds.
1978 T h e Stream of Consciousness: Scientific Investigations into the Flow of Human
Experience. New York: Plenum.
Przeclawski, K.
1985 T h e Role of Tourism in Contemporary Culture. T h e Tourist Review 4 0 : 2 - 6 .
Redfoote, D. L.
1984 Touristic Authenticity, Touristic Angst, and Modern Reality. Qualitative Sociology
7:291-309.
Robinson, J.
1977 How Americans Use Time: A Social Psychological Analysis of Everyday Behavior.
New York: Praeger.
Shaw, S. M.
1984 T h e Measurement of Leisure: A Quality of Life Issue. Society and Leisure 7:91 107.
1985a T h e Meaning of Leisure in Everyday Life. Leisure Sciences 7 : 1 - 2 4 .
1985b Gender and Leisure: Inequality in the Distribution of Leisure Time. Journal of
Leisure Research 17:266 - 282.
Sorokin, P., and C. Berger
1939 Time Budgets and Human Behavior. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Stebbins, R.
1981 Science Amators? Rewards and Costs in Amateur Astronomy and Archaeology.
Journal of Leisure Research 13:289 - 304.
Stringer, D., and P. Pearce
1984 Toward a Symbiosis of Social Psychology and Tourism Studies. Annals of Tourism
Research 11:5 - 17.
Szalai, A., ed.
1972 T h e Use of Time: Daily Activities of Urban and Suburban Populations in Twelve
Countries. T h e Hague: Mouton.
Tinsley, H. E., T. C. Barrett, and R. A. Kass
1977 Leisure Activities and Need Satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research 9 : 1 1 0 - 120.
Tinsley, H. E., and R. A. Kass
1978 Leisure Activities and Need Satisfaction: A Replication and Extension. Journal of
Leisure Research 10:191 - 202.
1979 T h e Latent Structure of the Need Satisfying Properties of Leisure Activities. Journal of Leisure Research 11:278 - 291.
Toffler, A.
1970 Future Shock. New York: Random House.
Vallee, P.
1987 Authenticity as a Factor in Segmenting the Canadian Travel Market. Masters
Thesis, University of Waterloo.
Wahlers, R. G., and M.J. Etzel
1985 Vacation Preference as a Manifestation of Optimal Stimulation and Lifestyle Experience. Journal of Leisure Research 17:283- 295.
Wall Street Journal
1986 A Special Report: T h e Business of Leisure. T h e Wall Street Journal April 21,
Section 4.
Woods, W. A.
1981 Consumer Behavior. New York: North-Holland.
Zuzanek, J.
1980 Work and Leisure in the Soviet Union: A Time-Budget Analysis. New York:
Praeger.
Article submitted 31 October 1986
Revised version submitted 2 February 1987
Accepted 16 February 1987
Refereed anonymously