This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Potential Contributions of Communication
to Recreation and Leisure Research

presented by

Patricia Ann Stokowski

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.S. degree in Park & Recreation
Resources

 

 

\ I
H
(A
. £1,144" ‘ ‘ W‘

 

' / Major pr/ofessor

November 6, 1978

 

POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF COMMUNICATION
TO RECREATION AND LEISURE
RESEARCH

by

Patricia Ann Stokowski

A THESIS

Submitted to
MiChigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Park and Recreation Resources

1978

ABSTRACT

POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF COMMUNICATION
TO RECREATION AND LEISURE
RESEARCH

by

Patricia Ann Stokowski

The intent of this thesis is to propose and evaluate
potential contributions of communication to leisure and ‘
recreation research. Communication is analyzed as a process'
which is central to the recreation experience. A
theoretical overview of communication principles is pre-
sented in three areas: (1) communication needs prior to
recreation participation, (2) communication processes during
the recreation experience, and (3) communication effects
of recreation participation. The communication process
model is then applied to predicting user choices for out-
door recreation; potential research hypotheses about
communication needs, processes, and effects are outlined
and critically analyzed. Preliminary conclusions drawn
from this thesis suggest a need for further research about

communication processes in recreation and leisure.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My deepest debts in writing this thesis are to my
friends and colleagues who gave generously of their time,
knowledge, encouragement, and support. I am particularly
grateful to my major professor Dr. Dan Stynes, Department
of Park and Recreation Resources, who spent countless
hours thoughtfully advising me, and who allowed me the
freedom to pursue a non-conventional topic. I am also
indebted to my minor professor Dr. Cass Book, Department
of Communication, who directed me towards "creative,
thoughtful, scholarly, original research". Dr. Don Holecek,
Department of Park and Recreation Resources, also partici-
pated as a member of my graduate committee, and gave a
thoughtful reading of the first draft of the thesis. My
mother, Mrs. Patricia Stokowski, typed the first draft.
Ed Mahoney, fellow graduate student and friend, provided
encouragement and support when it was most needed throughout
my graduate program. Joe Gibson completed an insightful
reading of the final drafts of the thesis. Thor Strong and
Glenna Wortman shared many hours of close friendship, long
discussions, and hysterical study breaks. And, although
they are too numerous to mention, the many friends who shared

my thesis-writing experiences are appreciated and thanked.

ii

Above all, I am indebted to my high school teacher
Mrs. Marianne Innis, who first nurtured in me a creative
search for answers to philosophical questions. This thesis

is dedicated to her.

iii

CHAPTER

I.

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . .

Definitions of Recreation and

Leisure . . .

Communication Process: A New

Perspective .
Objectives. . .
Summary . . . .

COMMUNICATION PROCESSES. . . . . . . .

Why Study Recreation in Terms of
Communication?. . . . . . . . . .
Communication Methodology . . . . .

LITERATURE REVIEW.

Recreation Research into Communications

Media . . . .

Recreation Research of Intrapersonal

Feelings. . .

Recreation-Related Psychology

Research. . .
Summary . . . .

PREDICTING USER CHOICES FOR RECREATION:

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES . . . . . . .

Traditional User Choice Models in

Recreation. .

Recreation Choices Defined by
Communication Processes . . . . .
Communication Needs Prior to the
Recreation Experience. . . .

Communication During the
Recreation Experience. . . .

Communication Effects of
Recreation Participation . .

Summary . . . .

iv

PAGE

00 \lmh h)

12
16

17
21
23
28
30

31
33
34
41

48
55

V. PREDICING USER CHOICES FOR RECREATION:
APPLICATIONS OF THE COMMUNICATION MODEL.

Outdoor Recreation Literature . . . .
Predicting Choices for Outdoor
Recreation: Hypotheses . . . . . .

Testing Communication Needs Prior

to the Recreation Experience .
Testing Communication During the
Recreation Experience. . . .
Testing Communication Effects of
Recreation Participation . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VI 0 CONCLUS ION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
Communication Research in Recreation.
Limitations of the Model. . . . . . .
Future Research Directions. . . . . .

BIBLIOGMPHY O O O I O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O

57
59
60
63
65

69
73

75
76
78
81

82

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

More than any other natural resources discipline, the
area of recreation and leisure resources is committed to the
study of the interaction between people (individuals, groups)
and the environment (physical, natural, social, perceived).
To this end, recreation research efforts must include natural,
physical, and social sciences, and must be people-oriented
as well as resource-oriented in scope. Because of the diver-
sity of disciplines, philos0phies, and methodologies repre-
sented in the leisure and recreation resources field, major
difficulties concerning research orientation and measurement
arise.

Four problems can be identified which underlie many
other recreation research problems. First, recreation
research is couched in a Auauey teéeanch tnadition, which
tends to produce results based on measurement of observable
behavior; these results are usually generalized to the
aggregate level (Hendricks and Burdge, 1972). Only recently
have researchers begun to study individual behavior, social
and psychological influences, feelings, knowledge, attitudes,

and beliefs which underlie these observed behaviors (Burdge,

Buchanan,and Christensen, 1977). These studies demand
methods of a different sort than those now popular in recrea-
tion research.

Secondly, the muztfdibcipzinany natuae of recreation
research raises questions about how to find and organize
relevant concepts, theories, literature and ideas. The study
of leisure and recreation arose from sociology, geography,
health and physical education, economics, biological sciences,
landscape architecture, psychology, and a number of other
disciplines (Brown, Dyer, and Whaley, 1973). Students who
approach the field expecting to find a well-integrated,
scientific, logical body of knowledge find that this organi-
zation remains the task of research.

The recreation field emphasizes an appzicd orientation
to solving problems. Research is typically of isolated events
and results are not readily generalizable over space and
time (Smith, 1975). There is little theoretical consistency
from one research effort to another because recreation
research is mainly directed by scientists with education and
training in other disciplines (Moncrief, Holecek, and Stynes,
1978). Only slight overlap among concepts, ideas, and conclu-
sions occurs in recreation research.

Finally, the recreation field suffers from serious
defiinitionaf pnobficmb, which breed major measuncment pnablemé.
These are illustrated by the lack of agreement on definitions

of leisure and recreation.

Definitions of Recreation and Leisure

Today, "leisure" is generally understood to mean the
discretionary or unobligated time an individual has during
which he can choose various pasttimes for pleasurable living.
(Neumeyer and Neumeyer, 1958; de Grazia, 1962; Dumazdier, 1967;
Kraus, 1971). Classical definitions of leisure, however,
focus on slightly different aspects: the notion of leisure
as freedom (from the Latin "licere"), or leisure as a state
of mind (Pieper, 1963), or leisure as a creative activity
(Aristotle, in Kraus, 1971). This variation in the classi-
cal versus the modern definition is due mostly to the need
for operational definitions which outline precise categories
for measurement and analysis in recreation research today.

The root of the word "recreation" is in the Latin
"recreare", which means to re-create or refresh. Recreation
is generally thought of as an activity chosen voluntarily by
participants and carried on within their leisure time for
individual satisfactions, or for the social values perceived
as outcomes (de Grazia, 1962; Kraus, 1971: Twardzik, 1975).
In addition, the term recreation is often used to refer to
the broad field of parks, recreation, and leisure services
and industries.

These definitions, however, are by no means exclusive.
Researchers from major disciplines which have shaped and
structured research in recreation each seem to conceptualize
recreation and leisure in different ways. Measurement prob-

lems arise, particularly concerning "non-observables" in the

interaction between users and the environment. For example,
is everyone who is recreating having the same experience?
In general, are recreation experiences substantially diffe-
rent from other types of experiences? Do the various
definitions of recreation and leisure provide an adequate
basis for valid and reliable measurement? How does recrea-
tion differ from leisure?

Definitional problems, therefore, create problems in the
measurement of: (1) user preferences and choices for
recreation and leisure experiences, (2) needs and wants of
users for recreation, (3) user attitudes and opinions, (4)
quality of recreation experiences, and (5) satisfactions

and benefits received from recreation.

Communication Processes: A New Perspective

Past recreation research has been useful in describing,
explaining, and predicting certain aspects of recreation and
leisure behavior. In particular, survey research methods
have been valuable in gathering socio-economic data about
patterns of use in recreation areas and facilities, travel
behavior, expenditures for recreation opportunities, assess-
ing recreation demand, estimating recreation standards, etc.

However, there is a need in recreation research today
to study the social and psychological aspects of recreation
and leisure behavior in greater detail. With the increasing
emphasis on resource scarcity and managing the environment

for present and future generations, it is imperative that

researchers in recreation begin to develop goals for planning,
research, and management which are related specifically to
people.

The field in general has largely ignored the

broader social context of the role of recre-

ation in satisfying man's needs of solving

problems of the appropriate role of recre-

ation in competing among alternative uses of

resources.

(Brown, Dyer, and Whaley, 1973)
Whether definitions of leisure do, in fact, represent
the actual relationship of the inner, thinking person relat-
ing to the environment he recreates in, is one issue here.
Defining the recreation experience by activity chosen, or
by amount of time spent in recreation activities, facilitates
the counting of observable behaviors; however, it is question-
able whether these measurements help researchers understand
the needs, motives, processes, and effects bearing upon
individual participation in recreation and leisure activities.
Burch (1969) claims, ". . . our standard variables -- income,
age, sex, race -- furnish only a slight explanation of the
extremely diverse behavior possibilities found in leisure."
The result of the past research tradition in parks and

recreation is that the paoceééeé of behavior going on within
the recreation and leisure activities are rarely studied!
Central to a new approach in recreation research is the idea
that the intenaction 05 the necneation expehience -; aathea

than the Apeeifiic aecneation activity -- may be peaceived a6

centaai by the panticipants. For example, people may

participate in recreational volleyball games not merely
because they desire that type of physical exercise and
exertion, but because volleyball offers certain kinds of
communication possibilities which an individual opts for
over other types of interaction at that particular moment.
Primary value of the recreation experience, therefore, might
be the pnoceAA 06 inteaaction and not the activity chosen

or amount of time involved or money spent towards recreation

participation.

Objectives

An understanding of the role of communication seems
crucial in furthering social and psychological research in
leisure and recreation. Therefore, in building upon past
research, and in outlining new approaches to research, the
purpose of this paper is to pursue the potential contributions
of communication theory and methodology to recreation
research. Specific objectives of this endeavor are:

(1) To examine the status of existing relation-
ships between communication and recreation
research as presented in the literature of
each field.

(2) To describe and analyze potential contri-
butions of communication to recreation

research in three broad research areas:

1. Communication needs prior to recreation
participation;

2. Communication processes during the recreation
experience; and

3. Communication effects of recreation
participation.

(3) To apply the communication processes model
toward predicting user choices for recreation
by developing testable hypotheses.

(4) ’To draw conclusions about the usefulness of
communication analysis and research in recrea-

tion research, and to recommend future
research directions.

Summary

This paper represents one of the first attempts to
examine the possibility of combining communication theory
and methods with recreation research in the development of
new social and psychological perspectives for leisure and
recreation. We begin by examining some current recreation
research problems (Chapter I) and introduce the notion of
communication as a process. A discussion of the communica-
tion processes model will be presented next, along with a
rationale for studying recreation in terms of communication
(Chapter II). The literature of both communication and
recreation will be reviewed (Chapter III) to identify past
efforts by researchers to combine research between these
two disciplines. Then, the theoretical perspectives of the
communication process model will be analyzed in terms of
predicting user choices for recreation (Chapter IV). In
an application of these theoretical perspectives, some
specific hypotheses will be developed (Chapter V), about the
communication processes which influence user choices for out-
door recreation activities. Finally, conclusions about the
usefulness of communication in recreation research are

suggested (Chapter VI).

CHAPTER II

COMMUNICATION PROCESSES

Although there is a tendency in studying communication
to define everything as communication, the definition
accepted for this paper is:

Communication is the transactional, symbolic
process which allows people to relate to and
manage their environments by: (l) establish—
ing human contact, (2) exchanging information,
(3) reinforcing the attitudes and behavior of
others, and (4) changing the attitudes and
behaviors of others.

(Miller, 1977)

Integral to this definition is the notion that
communication is an ongoing process which has no clear
beginning nor end. The term paocebb suggests an ongoing and
continuous series of interactions, where each communication
interaction is influenced by past interactions, and each
influences future interactions. The symboiic nature of
communication is expressed in verbal and non-verbal codes
that are developed in shared social exchange. To say that
communication is taanaactionai implies that participants
in the interaction may "reciprocally affect each other's

behavior and the mutually developed rules of structure and

content" (Miller, 1977). That is, the interdependence of

each individual with each other individual in the communica-
tive exchange permits the development of unique patterns of
verbal and non-verbal communication behaviors.

Some arbitrary divisions are necessary and useful in
studying communication. Traditionally, components of communi-
cation processes are identified as source, message, channel,
and receiver factors. These categories facilitate a logical,
comprehensive analysis of each part of the communication
paradigm, and contribute to analysis of the total interaction.
If it is understood that there are multiple, ongoing, and
even simultaneous interactions between and among all these
factors, and that analysis is never complete but always
suggestive of a complexity of influences, then these arbi-
trary divisions serve a purpose for research.

To understand how this definition of communication as
a process is important in recreation research, it is necess-
ary to point out here that this is not the only definition
of communication accepted by researchers in that field.
Indeed, there are almost as many definitions of communication
as there are definitions of recreation and leisure! The
definition of communication as a transactional, symbolic
process seems most useful for leisure and recreation research
because it is the easiest to understand when applied to
recreation experiences studied over time. This paper is

based primarily on that communication definition.

10

Why Study Recreation in Terms of Communication?

Four characteristics of communication make it particular-
ly appropriate for application to recreation research.

First, communication research deals with a basically human
characteristic: an individual's communication actions and
processes. The style and manner in which a person communi-
cates with others is at once peculiar to that individual and
also an expression of the socialization processes and environ-
mental influences around him. Thus, communication research

in leisure and recreation may lead to a better understanding
of the processes of behavior occurring at the man-environ-
ment interface.

Communication provides a multidisciplinary framework
for studying interactions between people and their environ-
ments. Analysis of the content, networks, and interactions
of an individual's communication during recreation may lead
to an improved operationalization of the components of the
recreation experience. Identification of the patterns of
communication during leisure and recreation may be useful
in building models of the recreation experience for later
use in recreation planning and management.

Further, communication research has developed from a
strong social and psychological background. Past efforts at
social analysis in recreation have failed to adequately
describe the cognitive, affective, informational, attitudinal,
and behavioral processes of the man-environment interface.

"Current research efforts are based on disciplinary approaches

11

and specific contexts, while the future emphasis is on the
more general areas of antecedents and consequences of
lesiure," according to Crandall and Lewko (1976). Since
communication research has a strong basis in social and
psychological principles, analysis under communication has
potential for identifying the transactional, symbolic
processes within a recreation experience.

Finally, communication research provides a logical,
organized, comprehensive framework based on source, message,
channel, and receiver factors for analysis. Analysis of
communication processes considers input to the process, the
process itself, output from the process, and feedback to
and from each component in the process. .Recreation research
could profit from this systematic, orderly approach to
research.

Communication research in recreation may be useful in
providing a clearer definition of what it is that comprises
the recreation experience. The choices an individual makes
for experiences in communication may define his choices for
leisure and recreation experiences too. Additionally, an
individual's success in communicating during leisure may
influence his later choices for leisure and recreation
experiences. Studying the content, networks and processes
of communication may provide a more operational conceptuali-
zation of the recreation experience. And, focusing on

specific factors in the communication interaction may help

12

define component parts of the recreation experience in terms
more appropriate for outlining specific methods of research,
application procedures, and model-building strategies.

It is necessary to remember that not all leisure and
recreation research problems are problems of communication.
Some problems of the interrelationships between man and his
environment are political, economic, ecological, philosophi-
cal, etc. Communication does not explain or account for all
acts of processes, even though communication interaction is
crucial to most. However, for those man-environment relation-
ships which can be understood in verbal or non-verbal inter-
action, research studies based upon communication processes
is appropriate. Leisure and recreation research offers
one such area of potential application where the man-environ-
ment relationships may be understood better through I

communication.

Communication Methodology

The methods of chiticai anaiysib (Arnold, 1974) provide
a framework upon which to determine possible contributions
of communication in more adequately measuring, analyzing,
and predicting an individual's use of recreational resources.
Critical analysis is a subjective tool for measuring what
occurs in interaction, how it occurs, and how the outcome
could be evaluated within the total symbolic, transactional
communication process. Critical analysis involves analysis

of the components of source, message, channel, and receiver

13

factors in a given communication interaction; this is followed
by measurement and evaluation of consistent and repeated
communication patterns in that interaction. Drawing from
Arnold (1974) and Hart and Toulmin (from Book, 1976), some
examples of representative critical questions are outlined
below.

Source factors: What political, social, philo-
sophical, rhetorical, psychological, or
other considerations affect and structure
the presentation of messages by this source
and the perception of him by receivers?

Message factors: Does the sequencing, logic,
exigency, and organization of the mes-
sage claims, warrants, persuasive techni-
ques, and value appeals reveal something
about the source-receiver interface?

Channel factors: What are the implications
of choosing this particular medium and
not choosing another for presentation
of the message?

Reciver factors: What social, intellectual,
psychological, political, or other
commitments have receivers made which
may affect their responses to this
communication message, and to the source
and channels?

Critical analysis serves particularly well to analyze
social and psychological issues which are not fully explained
through statistical, quantitative measures. It is also a
useful tool for generating hypotheses and alternatives in
preliminary study of an issue. Therefore, it is especially
functional for analysis of the topic presented in this paper.

Research of communication processes may present
methodological difficulties for leisure and recreation

researchers unfamiliar with communication research paradigms.

14

Some basic communication research methods -- content analy-
sis, interaction analysis, and network analysis -- are out-
lined briefly below. Recreation researchers studying
communication processes should be familiar with these methods.
Content anaiyaib is the application of critical analysis
methods to verbal and non-verbal communication interaction.
"It is any technique for making inferences by objectively
and systematically identifying specified characteristics
of messages" (Holsti, 1969). In communication, content
analysis is used to determine the ratio of emphasis given
each topic presented in an individual's communication be-
havior (Berelson, 1952). In recreation, content analysis
has been applied in appraising the Joannai 05 Leiéaae Reseanch
(Van Doren and Heit, 1973) and in natural resources planning
(Stankey, 1972).
Intenaction anaiyaia is the application of rating
scales and weighted evaluations to representative communica-
tion interactions. Each input to the interaction -- a
source's initial statement and the receiver's reply -- is
analyzed to determine the communication control and affection
relationships between the source and the receiver (Swenson,
1973). In communication, interaction analysis is often
applied in measuring the relational characteristics of
conversation (Millar and Rogers, 1976). Interaction analysis,
as used in communication, has not yet been widely applied

as a recreation research method.

15

Netwoah anaiybis is "a type of research in which
relational data about communication flows or patterns are
analyzed by using interpersonal relationships as the units
of analysis" (Rogers, 1976). An individual's position in
communication chains, the strength of his bonds with other
communicators, the direction of message flows, the hierarchy
of leadership in the communication setting, etc., are all
components of the networks of communication interactions.
In communication, network analysis has been particularly
useful in studying leadership patterns (Farace, 1975), and
in group and organizational communication analysis (Weick,
1969). In recreation, network analysis is most similar to
socio-metric techniques used in defining activity group
structure, friendship patterns, perception, etc., in
environmental psychology (Altman, 1975).

The constraints of time and space allow only this
cursory overview of some analysis methods commonly used in
communication research. Interested readers should further
consult the literature of communication and recreation for

a more in-depth review of the pertinent methods.

CHAPTER III

LITERATURE REVIEW

There is little reported research pertaining to the
processes of communication in recreation activities in the
literature of recreation. If the study of communication
processes -- expressed through communication needs, content,
and effects -- in leisure and recreation activities has been
attempted, it has yet to be reported.

Factors which might lead to the lack of research in
this direction are: (l) the comparative youth of research
in both the communication and recreation disciplines, (2)
the tendency of researchers to focus primarily on theory
development (as in communication) or on applied research
(as in recreation) with little intermingling, and (3) the
scarcity of trained multidisciplinary researchers with broad
knowledge of both communication processes and recreation.
Most recreation researchers, in fact, hold only a narrow
view of what communication is, and how it is integral to
recreation experiences.

However, some communication-related research has been
pursued by recreation researchers. The multidisciplinary
nature of recreation research allows for an overlap of

research efforts with other related fields. For example,

16

17

the study of the transmission of messages via the mass media
by environmental interpreters in recreation has produced

some practical results (Sharpe, 1976). The study of man's
intrapersonal communion with nature in his recreation
experiences has been termed communication by some researchers
(Shepard, 1977).

The study of people and the environment through environ-
mental psychology is also valuable to development of the
thesis presented in this paper.

Although there is little recreation research specifical-
ly relating to processes of communication, a review of past
research based on other conceptions of communication is
useful in understanding the development of this thesis.

This literature review will thus consider: (1) recreation
research into communications message transmission, (2)
recreation research into intrapersonal feelings, and (3)
recreation research in environmental psychology. These three
topics are significant as the foundations upon which the study

of communication processes in recreation is built.

Recreation Research into Communications Media

First references to communication in the literature of
leisure and recreation appeared in the late 1950's. At that
time, sociologists -- then the major researchers of leisure
time use -- began to study the so-called "supreme force" of
the mass media in influencing the lives of a passive audience.

This "hypodermic approach" to communications viewed the media

18

as an all-powerful force injecting an unsuspecting public

with information (Schramm, 1971: Baurer, 1971). The term

"communications" was used to loosely describe the creation
and transmission of mass-mediated messages, and the techn-
nology or hardware associated with such practices.

The prevalence of the technology of the mass media --
television, radio, movies, books, newspapers, etc. -- in
making information available to large numbers of people,
influenced the development of two research areas in recrea-
tion and leisure research. In one, researchers studied the
information—transmission function of the mass media, an
interest which later came to be called "environmental
communications", "environmental interpretation", or
"environmental education". The other group of researchers
studied primarily the entertainment function of the mass
media, whereby use of communications media was itself consider-
ed a recreational activity. These two divisions are respon-
sible for most of the early research into mass communications
issues by leisure and recreation researchers. Both areas are
briefly described below.

Mass media for information.. The major influence on
this area of study by recreation researchers occurred in the
1960's with the advent of the environmental movement and
public concern for ecological issues. The belief that many
environmental problems could be solved by educating the
public through the mass media was the basic tenet of these

environmental writers (Schoenfeld, et al., 1974).

19

Research concerning the content of the media and know-
ledge change effects became popular in the declining years
of the environmental movement in the 1970's. Some studies
are noteworthy. Mahaffey (1970) analyzed the effectiveness
of various media used in environmental interpretation at
historical areas, concluding that, in order of preference,
recordings, signs, and then leaflets, resulted in best
retention of environmental information. Stamm (in Schoenfeld,
et al., 1974) showed a "positive relationship between media
exposure and level of knowledge", when knowledge was measured
by recall of facts about environmental issues. However,
Bailey (1971) had earlier suggested evidence supporting the
"knowledge gap" -- "the more educated segment of the audience
is more likely to receive and assimilate knowledge then is
the less educated segment" -- in his study of the effects
of mass media presentation of information about Earth Day.

More recently, researchers have directed their attention
to developing "how to . . ." guidelines for application in
recreation resource management and public relations. Dick,
McKee, and Wagar (1974) described methods of effective
communication which involved the use of various message
tactics relating style to presentation and results. Other
researchers stress the technical skills of communication, or
the use and ability of various media to disseminate informa-
tion about environmental issues for educational purposes
(Schoenfeld, et al., 1974; see also the Joannai 06 Envinon-

mental Education).

20

One other noteworthy study in mass communications is
Da Silva's "Mass Media and Environmental Affairs: A Case
Study in Santos, Brazil" (1976). Da Silva studied the
question, ”How does the mass media influence the public's
knowledge, attitudes, and behavior toward environmental
issues?", in order to determine how mass-mediated informa-
tion might help produce solutions to environmental problems
in Santos. This study represents a preliminary effort at
interpreting changes in knowledge of environmental issues
within a context of the interrelated factors of source-
message-channel-receiver in communication..

From a recreation research standpoint, the study of
environmental communications remains significant: it repre-
sents a major attempt to study man-environment interactions
based on information-transmission and knowledge retention.

Mass media for entertainment. Neumeyer (1958) was one
of the first to suggest that the "mass media of entertain-
ment represent perhaps the most significant recent develop-
ment in recreation . . .“. He prophetically predicted that
this area of research would continue to gain importance in
recreation and leisure research.

Early conceptions of the communications media as a
source of vicarious interaction between man and his environ-
ment stem from the reports published by the Outdoor Recrea-
tion Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) in 1962. Research

Report #22 -- "The Mass Media and Man's Orientation to

21

to Nature" (Kaplan and Lazarsfeld) -- signified a first
organized attempt by a central research body to study
recreation and leisure in terms of the entertainment value
of the communications media. ORRRC #22 addressed the issue
of the role of the media in "mediating between modern man
and the world of nature with which he has lost contact" as
a result of industrialization. Kaplan and Lazarsfeld
reported the results of surveys showing that Americans were
increasingly using the media for vicarious recreational

and leisure purposes.

While these studies do not examine underlying communi-
cation processes, they are the first studies to recognize
the importance of mass media communications analysis for
parks and recreation research. This awareness is later
reiterated by other recreation researchers. Kraus (1971)
suggested that the role of communications in recreation was
mainly in the study of the use of the media -- especially
TV watching -- as a recreational activity. Other researchers
studied the entertainment value of the media as related to
socialization processes (Kaplan, 1960; Meyersohn, 1969;

Dumazdier, 1974).

Recreation Research of Intrapersonal Feelings

The study of man's intrapersonal communion with nature
was identified by the early outdoorsmen and pioneers of
conservation in the United States. Thoreau, Pinchot, Muir.

and Leopold are represenative authors of the conservation

22

movement who wrote about their experiences with nature in
philosophical terms. For example, Threau wrote:
A lake is the landscape's most beautiful
and expressive feature. It is the earth's
eye; looking into which the beholder
measures the depth of his own nature.
(Thoreau, in Bode, et al., 1966)

These talented writers were instrumental in creating a
national awareness of the beauty, solitude and expanse of
wild lands and natural resources in America. The "communion
with nature" which they professed has often been defined as
a type of "intrapersonal communication" or philosophical
experience which results from a leisure and recreation
experience. What occurs during recreation and leisure is
communication with the self -- the internalization of
information, senses, and emotions -- or, a philosophical,
mental experience.

Feelings,sensations, dreams and thoughts are
the sort of phenomena which are usually clas-
sified as "mental". In calling them mental,
philosophers usually mean that, unlike physi-
cal objects, they are "private" or directly
knowable by one person only.

(Edwards, 1973)

In addition to the literary essays of these philosopher-
naturalists which identify mental experiences as components
of recreation, one major analysis of intrapersonal communi-
cation in parks and recreation settings presents a prototype

for later research. Nash's Wilderness and the American Mind

(1973) traced in historical overview man's relationships to

23

wilderness and the land, and his internalization of the
feelings and sensations particular to communion with nature.
Although there is only very limited research of the
feelings, sensations or mental communication processes in
a recreation and leisure context, this notion does provide
an alternative explanation for why people engage in certain
kinds of recreation activities. Some leisure and recreation
experiences are best experienced alone. Indeed, one may
question whether any part of the recreation or leisure
experience can be fully communicated to others. In addition,
some aspects of the interaction between man and his environ-
ment may be so complex or subtle that they cannot be eval-
uated under traditional methods and measures. Nash suggest-
ed that wilderness presented this type of experience. Other
researchers suggest that art, painting, and nature photo-_
graphy are also similar communication experiences (Shepard,
1967; 1977), where the recreation or leisure experience is

internally-mediated.

Recreation-Related Psychology Research

 

The relatively new field of environmental psychology
offers a multidisciplinary perspective for studying some
problems in recreation. Scientific study focuses on

. . . understanding how and why people per-
ceive the environment as they do and how
these perceptions, whether grounded in real-
ity or myth, alter the patterns of use and
occupance of that environment.

(Stankey, in Winters and Winters, 1977)

24

Environmental psychology research has particular appli-
cation to recreation and leisure research topics. For
example, Piaget's (1962) and Kerr's (1962) observations of
child development and learning have implications for play
theory and leisure planning. Much of the developing thera-
peutic recreation emphasis and leisure counseling studies
are products of combining psychological analysis with leisure
and recreation education. See, for example, Frye and Peters
(1972), Lewko (1976), and Chase (1977).

Additionally, the perception studies of natural and
man-made environments are importnat for leisure and recrea-
tion resources planning. These include practical, applied
approaches to: landscape description and evaluation, environ-
mental design, and spatial analysis and behavior (Lynch,
1960; Hall, 1966; McHarg, 1969; Lee, 1972; Cheek, Field,
and Burdge, 1976). Noteworthy theoretical studies on per-
ception have been recently suggested by Wohlwill (1976),

Zube (1976), and Knopf (1977).

A relatively large portion of the recreation and leisure
research in environmental psychology is of a very applied
nature, and deals mainly with problems related to active
outdoor recreation experiences. Mercer (1976) says, "one
could almost be forgiven from thinking that adventurous
outdoor activities, broadly defined, are by far.the most

popular forms of recreation in the world today."

25

The research on wilderness perception and use has been
particularly well-developed. Perception and quality of the
aesthetic experience was measured in psychological terms by
Shafer and Mietz (1969), Peterson (1974a), and Swan (1977).
Heberlein (1973), using the "wildernism scale" developed by
Hendee (1968) to measure user attitudes concerning wilderness
resources, found that "attitudes to wilderness are related
to numerous central beliefs, but are relatively unrelated
to the demographic characteristics of users." Rossman and
Ulehla (1977) examined the psychological reward values
associated with wilderness use. Peterson's (1974b) study
of managers and canoeists in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area
remains a landmark study in recreation, with respect to de-
fining both needs and motivations for wilderness participation,
and a social-psychological basis for management decisions.

Even though these studies reflect a growing concern
with psychological analysis in recreation, some problems
are evident. Craik (1973) points out that:

With few exceptions, research on the diverse
forms of outdoor recreation has focused upon
demographic and sociological variables (of
participants); a psychological understanding
of them remains quite a way down the trail.

In fact, in recreation, only limited psychological
research of personality attributes, dispositions, needs,
attitudes, or motivations has been attempted. Despite the

idea that ". . . lesiure activity choices (may be) shaped by

personality traits or basic personality needs rather than

26

social factors . . ." (Burch, 1969), Neulinger (1974) says
"the main problem in trying to predict leisure behavior from
personality traits is that any given activity may fulfill
different needs for different peOple or even the same person
at different times." Burch (1969), Witt and Bishop (1970),
Field and Burdge (1972), Mercer (1976), and Wapner, Cohen
and Kaplan (1976) have all identified this difficulty in
recreation and leisure research.

Yet it is precisely this personality research in environ-
mental psychology which has major importance for the study
of the processes of communication in recreation. Research
into personality characteristics of both sources and receivers
in communication interactions is part of a broader analysis
of communication processes. Some specific environmental
psychology research which may have implications for develop-
ment of a communication research emphasis in leisure and'
recreation is reviewed briefly below.

Bultena and Klessig (1969) studied a group of California
campers to determine the basis for satisfaction and other
benefits received from recreational camping. Their study
was one of the first to suggest that social interaction dur-
ing the recreation experience was an indicator of the perceived
benefits of that experience. “Important to these campers
was the opportunity afforded for meeting congenial people,
enjoying good fellowship, and experiencing family together-

ness."

27

The psychological basis for human needs was studied by
Moss and Lamphear (1970), and later Ritchie (1975), Altman
(1975), and Becker (1976). Moss and Lamphear used data from
questionnaires given to college students in clustering
recreation activities by perceived similarity. Although the
Moss and Lamphear findings are somewhat generalized (for
example, "several activities may be related to the same or
similar needs"), their study does suggest that some recrea-
tion and leisure activities may be perceived as similar in
meeting certain stated needs or drives of the user.

Driver and Knopf (1977) used a variation of the
Personality Research Form to study outdoor recreators en-
gaged in different activities. Their results indicate that
personality traits probably influence recreation activity
choice (although more research is needed to confirm this),
and that personality variables are significantly related to
the amount of participation and importance of desired bene-
fits or consequences from the experience.

Awareness of and preference for different environments
was discussed in terms of an individual's cognitive frame-
work by S. Kaplan (1973) and later Leff, Gordon, and
Fergussen (1974). Cognitive mapping theory is presented as
‘ a new approach in recreation research to discern how
individuals choose their environments based on their needs
for certain kinds and amounts of information. Similarly,

Wapner, Kaplan, and Cohen (1973) suggest a broad

28

psychological mapping approach -- where components include
past experiences, the exigency of the moment, the physical
setting, and the behavior resulting -- to understand how
man relates to his environment. At present, basic or
applied research in recreation utilizing these mapping
approaches is relatively scarce.

Mehrabian and Russel (1974) proposed a verbal communi-
cation approach for measuring information rate in various
environments. They suggest that "information rate . . . may
characterize (l) the environment or setting, and (2) the
task performed in that setting." Their study represents
a unique approach to measuring environmental perception
through verbal communication.

In general, environmental psychology research of
attitudes, knowledge, and personality, may find wide appli-
cation in the developing communication process research
in recreation and leisure. How these personality and
environmental characteristics affect subsequent communica-
tion potential in recreation activities is a useful

extension of this research.

Summary

A review of recreation literature suggests that there
is a shortage of research about communication processes in
recreation and leisure. The communication-related research

completed up to now by recreation researchers is generally

29

based on other definitions and conceptions of communication.
Three areas of research which have particular significance
for the proposed communication process approach to recrea-
tion research were identified as: (l) recreation research
into communications message transmission, (2) recreation
research into intrapersonal feelings, and (3) recreation
research in environmental psychology. These three areas
form the foundation for the new communication process

approach.

CHAPTER IV

PREDICTING USER CHOICES FOR RECREATION:
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

A new approach to recreation research -- an approach
based on the study of communication processes -- has been
suggested towards resolving some recreation research prob-
lems. The literature of recreation identifies a general
shortage of research about communication processes in
leisure and recreation at this time. This chapter will
examine the theoretical basis for the communication process
approach in terms of predicting user choices for recreation.
Later, these theoretical perspectives will be applied in
developing some specific hypotheses about predicting user
choices for outdoor recreation activities.

The communication process approach to analysis of
recreation experiences is based on an understanding of the
processes of symbolic, transactional communication which
occur in recreation. The recreation experience, analyzed
in terms of communication processes, may be subdivided into
three parts: (1) communication needs prior to recreation
participation, (2) communication processes during recreation,
and (3) communication effects of recreation participation.
Each part is briefly discussed below with respect to predict-

ing user choices for recreation.

30

31

One point must be noted. Even though communication
needs, processes, and effects are analyzed separately in
the following pages, the reader should remember that each
of these parts is a component of the ongoing process of
communication. Each component part interacts with each
other part, and through feedback, influences the outcome
of the communication process. The interactive nature of
these component parts makes for complex analysis which
should be undertaken only after the researcher has a clear
understanding of the separate parts. This paper examines
the component parts of the communication process as an
introduction for recreation researchers unfamiliar with
communication research. Complex analysis of the interact-

ing components will build from this introduction.

Traditional User Choice Models in Recreation

 

An examination of traditional user choice models in
leisure and recreation provides the necessary background
for presenting the communication process approach to pre-
dicting user preferences. Traditional user choice models
in recreation research draw primarily from socio-economic
analysis of the recreation experience. The most influen-
tial of all past models is Clawson and Knetsch's (1966)
model which structures the recreation experience along a
continuum including: (1) anticipation of the recreation
experience, (2) travel to the site, (3) the on-site expe-

rience, (4) travel from the site, and (5) recollection

32

of the experience. This model has been widely applied in
recreation research because it logically divides the com-
plex recreation experience by activity, time, and space
referents and constraints.

Clawson and Knetsch, and other recreation economists,
are responsible for much of the recreation research on
predicting user choices for (demand), and consumption of,
recreation resources. They suggest that a recreator will
evaluate his choices for recreation participation in terms
of his socio-economic status, the perceived and actual
benefits of recreation, and the time and travel costs
associated with the experience. The recreator will par-
ticipate in a given activity if the perceived benefits
outweigh the perceived "costs". There is a wealth of
literature in recreation economics which presents more
detail than is possible here. Particularly useful analyses
of user choice models for recreation participation from
an economic perspective may be found in Wilkinson (1973)
and Maw (1974).

Defining user choice through marketing approaches
is another popular area of recreation research. Market-
ing researchers analyze recreation activities as ”prod-
ucts" or "goods" which have predictable life-cycles. The
"marketing mix" (that is, the combination offactors
which influence the product's marketing potential) is

designed to maximize the appeal of the recreation product

33

to the consumer. LaPage (1974) presents a comprehensive
overview of marketing research models useful for recrea-
tion planning, and King and Richards (1977) explore recrea-
tion choices through a consumer behavior model.

More recent approaches in recreation choice models
focus on different variables influencing user choices.
Driver and Brown's (1975) behavioral model of the recreation
experience is especially important. Their social and psycho-
logical model of recreation demand and recreation benefits
closely follows the continuum of Clawson and Knetsch, but
also incorporates a behavioral perspective which addresses:

...why a person recreates, what he or
she does while participating, what he
or she derives personally from the par-
ticipation, and the effects of personal
and environmental influences on recrea-
tion behavior.

This model is noteworthy because it attempts prelimi-
nary conceptualization of recreation based on social and
psychological determinants of a user's choice for recrea-
tion participation. Driver and Brown's model represents
the link between the economic demand models of past research
and the communication processes model pr0posed here.

Recreation ChoicesDefined by
CommuniCatiOn Processes

If communication is an integral process to recreation
and leisure participation, then the communication needs,
processes, and effects of interaction are created by and

also later influence the experience of the recreation

activity.

34

An individual approaches the recreation experience with
certain communication needs which he seeks to satisfy through
interaction in recreation. His choice to participate in
a specific recreation activity depends partly on the content
and aeiationai abpectb of his past communication interactions
within and outside that activity, which influence his later
decision-making regarding recreation participation.

During and after participation in the chosen recreation
activity, certain communication efifiecta and consequences
occur which may influence some parts of that individual's
social, psychological or cognitive structure. Changes have
happened because of the processes of communication in the
recreation experience. These changes are the "feedback"
which may influence that individual's future choices for
recreation participation. Analysis of communication needs,
processes, and effects in recreation and leisure has major
importance in understanding the potential role of communi-
cation in leisure and recreation research.

Communication Needs Prior to
the Recreation Experience

Individuals participate in recreation to fulfill a
variety of needs or desires (Kaplan, 1960; Mercer, 1973;
Dumazdier, 1974; Kelly, 1974). These needs include, but
are not limited to, needs for physical exercise, pleasure,
relaxation, escape from work pressures, challenge and risk-

taking, communication interaction, creativity, and others.

35

This section is particularly concerned with the communica-
tion interaction needs which are a prelude to recreation
participation. "Communication needs" are defined as those
needs (including drives, tendencies, motivations, and other
goal-oriented impulses) which an individual seeks to satisfy
through communication interaction with others.

Book (1977) has identified four communication needs
which can be satisfied through interaction: (1) the need
to confirm the self-identity, (2) the need to have control
in relationships, (3) the need to display and receive affec—
tion, and (4) the need to achieve competency in life—roles
through information processing. Two additional needs which
may be fulfilled through communication are proposed here:
(5) the need to learn social norms, and (6) the need for
social experimentation.

Sources and receivers seek to satisfy or fulfill com-
munication needs through communication interaction. If
recreation and leisure activities are viewed as interactions
where there is potential for communication to influence the
outcome of the recreation experience, than a generalization
which can be tested is:

Individuals participate in leisure and
recreation activities to fulfill communi-
cation needs. Communication needs include:
(1) confirmation of the self-identity, (2)
control in relationships, (3) display and
receiving of affection, (4) processing in-

formation, (5) learning social norms, and
(6) social experimentation.

36

Self-identity needs. Sources and receivers bring to
any leisure and recreation activity a background of social-
psychological characteristics and traits developed through
their past experiences. The "self-identity" is one such
set of characteristics. One of the main functions of com-
munication between two people is, in fact, the development,
presentation, and validation of the self-concept, or mental
picture, of how each individual perceives himself in rela-
tion to others around him (Cushman and Craig, 1976). If the
recreation experience is viewed as a place where interpersonal
communication occurs, then participation in recreation may
be one way in which an individual satisfies his needs for
confirmation of his self-identity. He may choose recreation
activities which allow him the opportunity to communicate
his self-concept in a way he desires.

If some recreators at any given time are at the same
level of self-concept deve10pment, and have similar communi-
cation characteristics and other needs, they might choose
similar recreation activities to fulfill these needs (all
other things being equal). These recreators might not all
choose the same activity, but may choose from a range of
activities which offer perceived similar opportunities for
self-concept confirmation. These recreation activities
could be considered substitutes for one another based on
the communication patterns which occur there.

Need for control in relationships. In relationships,

the need for control is best satisfied when an individual

37

can direct the rate and flow of information and emotion in
the interaction. An individual must learn the rules and pro—
cesses of verbal and nonverbal interaction, follow the norms
of acceptable behavior, gather and transmit information
through apprOpriate channels, etc., as he attempts to per-
form leadership roles. These control or leadership positions
are verbally and non-verbally negotiated among individuals
during the course of the interaction, as the participants
attempt to control the patterns of communication and achieve
leadership positions in that activity.

Mastery of the communication patterns of a recreational
activity by achieving control in relationships involves com-
promise and continuous negotiation, since the communication
situation is always changing in response to a changing social
and physical environment. An individual may choose to par-
ticipate in recreation based on the nature of the control
in relationships which he can negotiate there.

Need to display and receive affection. Emotion is
integral to recreation activities. An individual's need
to display and receive affection is one asepct of emotion
which may be satisfied through communication in recreation.
Affection refers to both verbal and non-verbal communication
supportive of an individual's self-identity or behavior.

Some peOple are more affectionate or have a greater
need to receive verbal or non-verbal affection than others.

The amount of affection displayed, the kind or nature of

38

the affection, and the intensity of affection, are factors
influencing satisfaction of this need. Recreation usually
offers a more relaxed, experimental, socially-acceptable
setting for displaying and receiving affection.

One reason supporting differential participation in
recreation and leisure activities is the potential to
dramatize or play-act certain situations which are not part
of the typical behavior patterns of an individual. To experi-
ment in displaying and receiving affection through recreation
is a learning experience for a recreator who may have little
opportunity to practice affection display outside the recrea-
tion experience. Those individuals who otherwise fail in
their attempts to display and receive affection may gain
support and encouragement for their actions and overtures
in recreation settings where the social constraints are
less imposing.

Need to achieve competengy in life-roles through in-
formation processing. Individuals act and react according
to messages given and received. Competency in life—roles
(defined here as how well individuals relate to and manage
their environments) is partially accomplished as a result
of the acquisition of information by individuals through
recreation partcipation. In achieving greater competency
in life-roles, two characteristics demand attention: the
need for a certain amount of information, and the need for

certain kinda of information.

39

Those individuals who receive greater amounts of in-
formation, greater amounts of information they perceive
as useful, and greater amounts of information others per-
ceive as useful, will show greater competency in performing
their assumed roles and also greater success and satisfac—
tion in communicating. As long as they continue to receive
information, they will continue to retain their positions
of control in that hierarchy. If an individual cannot sat-
isfy his needs to attain enough information that complements
the role-playing he desires, he may tend to join other (rec-
reation) groups which better fulfill his needs for informa-
tion.

What processes must recreators understand about the
information they receive in order to satisfy needs to achieve
competency? First, they must learn the raw bits of data and
information about other participants and the environment
where the recreation activity occurs. Secondly, they must
learn the norms and rules by which information travels with-
in the communication networks, including a working knowledge
of the social structure and roles other individuals play
in the transmission of information. And third, they must
learn how best to use the channels of communication to
achieve desired effects when they create their own messages.

Need to learn social norms. Particularly important

 

effects of engaging in recreation and leisure activities

are the processes of socialization which are learned there.

40

Through recreation, the rules and norms of the social sys-
tem and organization, and culture, are passed from one
individual to another (Dumazdier, 1974). Communication
interaction is the primary vehicle for these specialized
and often unwritten rules of acceptable behavior to be
transmitted.

Social and cultural rules and norms define appropriate
and expected communication and behavioral processes. Rec-
reation activities maintain, to a large extent, these social
and cultural rules and norms (Prinkey, 1976), while simul-
taneously allowing some space for social deviance, experi-
mentation, and non-conformative behavior. Even though the
rules and norms of communication are promoted, they are not
heavily monitored or enforced. Therefore, an individual
may attempt to practice radical or new behavior actions
within the recreation setting, and will choose recreation
activities which allow him this freedom.

Need for social experimentation. Recreation and leisure

 

activities may also fulfill communication needs for social
experimentation and challenge. "The leisure system... pro-
vides a relatively open opportunity space as input to the
socio-cultural system," according to Stephansky (1976).
In its broadest sense, social experimentation occurs as a
component part of all other communication needs mentioned
above.

Recreation activities are often undertaken because

they allow experimentation without strong social commitment

41

and without strict social constraints. In fact, one aspect
of play behavior identified by researchers for its social
value is its detachment from reality (Huizinga, 1950; Kinget,
1975).

Play-acting in recreation through communication allows
an individual to experiment with leadership roles, affection
display, and processing information. Experimenting with
social norms and rules in recreation settings generally al-
lows an individual to make mistakes within reasonable bounds
in a safe setting without penalty of strong social disfavor.
Recreation activities, then, may be classified by the kinds
and extent of communication experimentation they allow.

Communication During the
Recreation Experience

Analysis of verbal and non-verbal processes in communi-
cation must necessarily be based on the dynamic, transac-
tional nature of the interaction process. To this extent,
the analysis of communication during the recreation experi-
ence is never complete because it must always be made in
retrospect -- yet, the situation has changed even in some
small ways because of the processes of interaction which
have occurred in that setting. It may be possible, however,
to identify some regular and repetitive patterns of communi-
cation during recreation which can be measured and analyzed.

Recreation researchers have, in the past, failed to

study communication during the recreation experience. It

42

is the contention of this author that an integrated para-
digm which analyzes the characteristics and interactions
of source, message, channel, and receiver components in
communication can be applied towards predicting user
choices for recreation. Communication during the recrea-
tion experience may be an indicator of why individuals par-
ticipate in recreation, and how they Choose specific activi-
ties to participate in. It may be found that the processes
of communication, rather than the activity itself, are
perceived as central by the users of that recreation source.
Drawing from this discussion is a generalization which

can be tested:

Individuals participate in leisure and

recreation activities for the processes

of communication which occur in that

interaction. Analysis of source, message,

channel, and receiver components of the

interaction may help explain and predict

why users make decisions to participate

in specific recreation activities.

Source factors. Development of social and psychologi-

 

cal characteristics, and past learning and experiences,
are important pre-existing conditions which influence the
source to structure messages in particular ways to given
audiences. His learned skills in communicating are impor-
tant constraints on how well the source develops and
presents his message. In addition, the audience has cer-
tain preconceptions about the source based on their past
interactions with him, as well as on their social and psy-

chological traits and past learning and experiences. These

43

relational aspects of the source-receiver interface may be
studied in terms of predicting user choices for recreation.
The intent of the source in communicating, and the
exigency he is responding to by the act of communicating,
affects the amounts and kinds of messages he structures.
A source whose intent is to persuade his audience to attempt
high-risk recreation activities (like parachuting or cliff
diving) will implement different communication strategies
and messages from a source trying to persuade his graduate
student colleagues to join him at a local pub after an exam.
Non-verbal communication characteristics also influence
how well a message is perceived by receivers. Arnold (1974)
identified some non-verbal features of spoken communication
as: rhythmical features of delivery, vocal pitch and rate
variety, dialectical features, intelligibility, and gestural
behaviors. There are also other situation-specific non-
verbal factors which influence a receiver's perception of
a communication message. In predicting user choices for
recreation, analysis of non-verbal communication which
occurs during the recreation experience may indicate an
individual's preferences for specific kinds of communica-
tion in recreation settings.

Message factors. Along with the relational aspect

 

of communication among participants in recreation groups,
the content of the messages that are communicated may sug-

gest reasons for why individuals participate in that

44

activity. Individuals create, develOp, and present mes-
sages with a certain intent or purpose. Some messages are
persuasive, some are for humor or entertainment, some con-
tain information, some express uncertainty. Each message

or series of messages is a reflection of the source, channel,
and receiver factors interacting in a given setting.

When a source presents a message, he uses a specific
vocabulary, sentence structure, organization of ideas,
method of presentation, and other aspects of style, form,
and structure. A source may employ such message content
components as: verbal devices of analogy, simile, metaphor,
or definition; simple or abstract ideas; juxtaposition of
ideas and images; emotional appeals; persuasive arguments;
etc. How the source uses stylistic features to create
structures and forms which receivers can perceive is a func-
tion of his goals or intent in communicating.

Message analysis -- or analysis of what is said and
how it is said in an interaction -- may help define user
choices for recreation participation. Some general ques-
tions might be explored. For example, do individuals at-
tend specific recreation activities for the kinds of
messages they receive there? What are the characteristics
of these messages? Can recreation activities be categori-
zed by specific message characteristics? How does the
content of a given message influence an individual's choice

of activity? What needs are satisfied, and what effects

45

are produced, which influence later message creation,
development, and presentation by the same source? These
are pertinent questions for preliminary study of communi-
cation messages in recreation activities.

Channel factors. Analysis of any communication inter-
action must consider the implications of the use of differ-
ent channels in transmitting messages. Channels can be
described as those lines through which messages flow. For
example, a television, a public speech, a written letter,

a touch, etc., are all channels through which a source sends
messages to receivers. Channels can also be described as
interpersonal, mass-mediated, organizational, etc. A tele-
vision is a mass media channel; a touch is an interpersonal
or non-verbal channel.

The environment, the characteristics of the message,
the characteristics of and relationships between sources
and receivers, and the intended effects of the message,
are all factors that a source must consider in choosing
a channel to present a message. Some channels are better
than others in achieving desired effects. For example,
if the goal of a source is to distribute informational
messages to a diverse group of people, mass-mediated mes-
sages are better than interpersonal messages for achieving
that purpose.

Different channels allow receivers to perceive differ-

ent parts of the communicated message in different ways.

46

This is termed the "agenda setting" function (Boorstin,
1974) of the media or channels used. Each individual re-
ceiver is influenced by a specific channel in various
and unique ways, depending on his past communication expe-
riences, past learning, and social and psychological traits.
Channels can be manipulated. The choice to employ a
channel which is best suited to the message, forms, style,
content, and structure, to source dispositions, to receiver
attitudes and expectations, and to situational demands,
will result in the greatest effectiveness in transmitting
messages. In predicting user choices for recreation
activities, a useful study would be to determine: (1)
the channels used to deliver messages to recreators, (2)
the influence of the channel on the kinds of messages that
could be developed and presented, (3) the recreator's per-
ception of the channel and message, and (4) whether there
is a relationship between the channel used and the choice
to participate in a given recreation activity. Further
extensions of these ideas are useful for research into
communication processes in recreation.

Receiver factors. Like the source, the receiver

 

brings to the communication interaction some past learning
and behavior influences, social and psychological traits,
and certain needs and goals. This background structures
how well he responds to the source, message, and channel

components of the communication interaction.

47

As a general rule, individuals attempt to maintain
cognitive consistency and balance in their attitude, be-
lief, and value structures (Heider, 1946: Newcomb, 1953;
for an especially good review of the cognitive balance
theories and other related social-psychology theories, see
Shaw and Costanzo, 1970). This means that individuals will
selectively interpret messages in a personal way which "fits"
their existing cognitive state at that time. Arnold (1974)
suggested three premises about receivers in relation to
spoken messages (these may be generalized to other channels
and messages, too):

(1) The consequences of a speaker's
utterances always occur within the
(receiver's) world of awareness,
and they occur under the "rules"
his past experiences have given him.

(2) The concepts that determine a (re-
ceiver's) reactions may or may not
closely resemble the concepts sym-
bolically offered verbally by the
source.

(3) As they interpret, (receivers) always
add to or take away from the intended
meanings of what they hear.

For example, those recreators who are members of out-
door recreation organizations or clubs have internalized
some group attitudes, norms and manners of perception.

This affects how they will selectively hear and respond
to messages which are/are not consistent with organization

policies, goals, or attitudes. Receivers will usually be

reinforced by those messages which support their views,

48

and tend to disregard those messages which are not within
their cognitive structures (Roberts, 1974). How a receiver
structures his cognitions would therefore influence his
choices for assimilation of recreation information, leading
to possible participation in a recreation activity.
Communication Effects of
Recreation Participation
According to Atkin (1975), communication effects occur
as a result of an individual's awaaenebb of an issue, which
induces him to seek out exposaae or involvement in that
experience, and to detectiveiy attend to various parts of
that experience which he finds most meaningful. Greenberg
(1977) identified five major areas of effects in mass media
analysis; these can be applied in study of other communica-
tion channels too. These effects include: (1) cognitive
effects, (2) informational effects, (3) effects on atti-
tudes, (4) effects on affect or emotions, and (5) behavioral
effects.
Drawing from this discussion is a generalization which

can be tested:

Individuals who participate in leisure

and recreation activities receive

effects related to communication inter-

action. Communication effects include

cognitive, informational, attitudinal,

affective, and behavioral changes.

These effects influence later recrea-

tion choices.

Cognitive effects. An individual's perception of how

 

things fit together as a whole in a total system of

49

impressions is termed his cognitive structure (Bem, 1970).
This structure is composed of beliefs, expectations, and
aspirations which structure the individual's understanding
of relationships and meanings among events and experiences.
Cognitive communication effects can be described as follows:
(1) communication structures our beiiefié about what is true
or false, (2) communication structures our expectationb
about what people, issues, and the environment are like,
and how we should relate to them, and (3) communication
creates potential for aspiaationa, particularly role-
modelling and goal-oriented behaviors.

In an individual's total cognitive system of meanings
and interrelationships, changes in the intensity of ideas
will occur over time. New experiences may be assimilated
into the existing beliefs, expectations, and aspirations
structure if they are consistent with existing cognitions.
Short or long term cognitive changes may result, and may
later influence behavior.

In terms of recreation choices, it is likely that an
individual comes to a recreation experience with some ex-
pectations of what the environment, activity, and other
participants are like. This existing cognitive structure
has been formed from the individual's past communication
interactions in similar recreation situations. The individ-
ual may choose to participate in the new activity if he

perceives that the processes and activity which occur

50

there "fit" with other aspects of his cognitive structure.
As a result of the communication processes which occur in
the new experience, the individual may modify or reinforce
his existing cognitive structure.

Informational effects. Of all the effects which may

 

occur as a result of communication interaction, informa-
tional effects may be the easiest to measure in research.
These effects can be defined as changes in information
level, knowledge gain, or understanding, which an individ-
ual experiences over time as a consequence of exposure to
messages. These changes are monitored by measuring at dif-
ferent times an individual's recall of both single "bits"

of information, and also generalized "processes" of informa-
tion.

Information seeking behavior begins when an individual
perceives an inconsistency in, or lack or information re-
garding, his own levels of knowledge or understanding of
an issue. He will selectively seek out credible sources
to supply this information. Often information is assimi-
lated without conscious decision by the individual. This
is particularly true of some mass-mediated information
which is widely disseminated and perhaps partially sublimi-
nal.

In predicting user choices for recreation, informational
effects may be measured to determine the kinds of information

bits and processes an individual learns during the recreation

51

experience. An individual may participate in specific
activities if that type of recreation provides needed in-
formation better than a non-recreational activity or
another recreational activity. The informational effects
may then influence later choices made by the individual
for recreation participation.

Effects on attitudes. An attitude may be defined as

 

a disposition or tendency to feel a certain way about an
object or categories of objects. Attitudinal effects occur
when individuals incorporate incremental changes in their
attitude structure in three ways: (1) by aeinéoncement, or
change in the intensity of an existing attitude, (2) by
caeation, or the development and establishment of a new
attitude where none were previously, and (3) by conveasion,
or a change in attitude from one valence, positive or nega-
tive, to the other valence.

Attitudes are developed as individuals learn about
people and objects by associating certain characteristics
with each. Attitude development may be accomplished as a
result of communication processes. Over time, these atti-
tude effects may be reinforced and assimilated into be-
havior patterns, or dropped from the behavior repertoire.

Analysis of attitudinal effects resulting from recrea-
tion participation may reflect changes in attitudes which
influence an individual's choices for later recreation

participation. By studying how the processes of communication

52

in the recreation experience influence attitude formation,
some generalizations and hypotheses might be made concern-
ing perceived quality and value of the recreation experience
to the participant.

Effects on affect. The wide range of emotional re-
sponses which occur as a result of communication interac-
tion are termed effects on affect, or emotional effects.
These emotional responses include such feelings as happi-
ness, sympathy, joy, apprehension, fear, altruism, love,
etc. These emotions usually have corresponding physiologi-
cal components based on arousal tendencies.

Schachter's Two-Component Theory of Emotion (Berscheid
and Walters, 1974) hypothesize that emotional responses are
a product of both: (1) physiological arousal, and (2) la-
belling of the affective responses. Knowledge of these
affective responses comes to an individual from both within
and outside himself. He perceives the physiological changes
occurring as a result of some experience, and labels these
feelings according to accepted socio-cultural norms and
values. His evaluation of the strength of the arousal
results in differential labelling of the affect response
or emotion based on what situational effects are perceived
to "cause" it:

It is difficult to change or remove effects on affect
or emotion. Once an individual internalizes his emotions
as part of his cognitive structure, he will likely integrate

these into his behavior structure.

53

This has implications for predicting user choices
for recreation. Individuals may choose to attend recrea-
tion settings based on their past experiences of receiving
pleasurable emotional effects; likewise, they may refrain
from participating in those activities which have had nega-
tive effects. Although the negative effects may not be
directly correlated with the communication processes of
that recreational acitvity, the affective response may
still influence behavior.

Behavioral effects. The long or short term effects

 

of incorporating any of the above effects alone or in com-
bination into an existing repertoire of acting and react-
ing are the behavioral effects of communication. The inter-
play of all influencing communication factors makes these
the most complex effects to evaluate.

Some behavioral effects of communication in leisure
and recreation activities result from the satisfaction (or
lack of satisfaction) of an individual's needs through the
processes of communication during recreation. Observable
recreation behaviors such as buying recreation equipment
and products, willingness to pay for recreation experiences
and opportunities, actual visitation to parks,and other be-
haviors, may be directly associated with specific combina-
tions of awareness and exposure to certain channels of
communication.

The purpose or intent of a source in communicating

is often to direct, change, reinforce, or otherwise

S4

influence a receiver's behavior or potential to behave
in certain ways. Success depends on the interactions
among communication components in the situation.

It is generally held that behavior is highly cor-
related with attitudes: behavior is assumed to be the
outer representation of inner beliefs, attitudes, knowl-
edge, and value components in an individual's cognitive
structure. However, a more realistic view would suggest
that behavior is an individual's tendency to perform based
on the constraints of situation, skill, opportunity, ability,
attitudes, needs, and a host of other influences. Attitudes
may be an indicator of behavior, especially if they are
strongly held, very specific, or socially-confirmed through
action (Jacobson, 1978). Nevertheless, the communication
situation, and the communication processes occurring in
that situation, also influence behavior potential.

Although verbal and non-verbal communication may be
the best indicator researchers have now for measuring an
individual‘s potential to behave in certain ways, it is
important to remember that what an individual days he will
do and what he actually does may be two very different
things. Communication content does not always reflect an
individual's tendency to behave in certain ways. Individ-
uals communicate and behave in ways that are desirable and

profitable to them at a given time and in a given situation.

55

Summary

This chapter has identified a specific recreation
research problem -- predicting user choices for recreation --
and examined the theoretical communication principles which
may be helpful to researchers in addressing this problem.
The recreation experience was subdivided into three parts
for clarity in analysis: (1) communication needs prior to
recreation participation, (2) communication processes during
the recreation experience, and (3) communication effects of
recreation participation.

It was noted early in this chapter that subdividing
the communication process in recreation into needs, content
and relationships, and effects components facilitates a logi-
cal analysis of the recreation experience. Recreation re-
searchers are generally trained to view the recreation expe-
rience along a continuum of "before-during-after" factors.
Defining the communication process in these terms creates
insight about communication processes in recreation-

However, because communication is a symbolic, trans-
actional, ongoing and continuous process, analysis of com-
munication at one point in time is never complete. That
is to say, communication needs do not only occur prior to
recreation, but may become evident during or after recrea-
tion too. Likewise, communication effects may occur at
any point in the recreation experience, not only at the

end of it. Communication processes are much more complex,

56

and communication analysis is much more detailed, than

is presented here. The outline followed in this paper,
though, is useful for recreation researchers who have
little communication research background. Using this out-
line, they will achieve the necessary introduction to com-
munication processes in recreation research, and this can
be applied in the future to more complex interaction prob-

lems.

CHAPTER V

PREDICTING USER CHOICES FOR RECREATION:
APPLICATIONS OF THE COMMUNICATION MODEL

What influences prompt an individual to engage in
leisure and recreation activities? More explicitly,
what motivates an individual to choose, from the realm
of all possible recreation activities, the specific few
he consistently participates in? The major contention
of this paper is that individuals opt for certain recrea-
tion experiences partly because of the processes of com-
munication which are likely to occur there.

Some questions about the interrelationships between
communication and recreation arise at this point. First,
do individuals consciously choose certain kinds of communi-
cation interaction at different times to fulfill certain
needs? Do some people consistently choose to be in large
groups, and others choose to be with few people? And, what
are the circumstances when these differential choices occur?
Secondly, if individuals make choices for the kinds of
interactions they prefer, do they consciously choose cer-
tain kinds of recreation or leisure Opportunities based on
the types of communication offered in those activities?

And third, does an individual's success in communicating

57

58

during recreation and leisure influence his later choices
for recreation and leisure participation?

One way to address these issues is to apply the theo-
retical perspectives developed in Chapter IV to analysis
of a specific recreation issue. In this chapter, the
recreation problem of predicting user choices for leisure
and recreation is addressed from an empirical perspective.

The broad tOpic of outdooa aecaeation activities has
been selected to provide a focus for discussion of user
choices for recreation. This topic is general enough to
allow some flexibility in scope when discussing communica-
tion processes; it is also specific enough to define rather
clearly a range of researchable problems which researchers
can identify. In addition, there is a moderately large,
available body of literature and past research about pre-
dicting user choices for outdoor recreation resources.

The communication process model will expand on and add to
this research.

In this chapter, then, the following format is used:
(1) a brief overview of the literature about outdoor recrea-
tion activities is presented and critically analyzed, (2)
the communication principles outlined in Chapter IV are
applied to developing and explaining specific hypotheses
about predicting user choices for outdoor recreation
activities, and (3) methods of analysis for testing the

hypotheses are briefly explained. Some further hypotheses

59

developed from the application of the communication pro—
cess model in recreation are discussed at the conclusion

of this chapter.

Outdoor Recreation Literature

Outdoor recreation activities include outdoor swimming,
boating, fishing, hunting, skiing and other winter sports,
hiking, driving for pleasure, nature walks, picnics, camping,
and other activities which involve use of outdoor recreation
resources (Mueller and Gurin, 1962). Most of the analyses
of demand for and participation in outdoor recreation activi-
ties stems from a socio-economic tradition (Mueller and Gurin,
1962; ORRRC Commission Staff, 1962; Clawson and Knetsch,

1966; Kalter and Goose, 1970; King and Richards, 1977). In
fact, economists have made major contributions to quantify-
ing numerous aspects of the recreation experience (Wennengren~
and Johnston, 1977).

Sociologists and psychologists have also made some
notable advances concerning qualities of users engaged in
outdoor recreation and leisure activities. Stankey (1977)
identified some social components of recreation choices;
these can be coupled with economic analysis for application
in recreation planning. Driver and Knopf (1977) studied
personality characteristics of users and benefits associated
with outdoor recreation participation. Environmental prefer-
ences associated with user choices for outdoor recreation

have been studied in depth by Lucas (1964), Hendee (1968),

60

Shafer and Mietz (1969), Clark, Hendee, and Campbell
(1971), Heberlein (1973), R. Kaplan (1974), Peterson (1974a,
1974b), among others.

Although outdoor recreation research has made progress
concerning user choices for recreation, some problems are
still evident. Much of the past outdoor recreation research
has been exploratory, based on small samples, and somewhat
inconclusive (Driver and Knopf, 1977). There are many
"before-after" studies, or studies performed only at one
point in time during the recreation experience; longitudinal
studies (over time) may be more beneficial in understanding
the recreation experience (Brown, Dyer, and Whaley, 1973).
Some psychological measurement indices such as the Person-
ality Research Form (described in Driver and Knopf, 1977),
the Environmental Response Inventory (described in Craik,
1973), and the Wildernism Scale (Hendee, 1968), are being
employed extensively. However, whether they suit the con-
text of the situation, whether they explain behavior fully,
and "whether (researchers) have measured what needed to
be measured or simply those variables that are convenient,
popular, and economical" (Cousineau, 1978), are pertinent,
unanswered questions.

Predicting Choices for Outdoor
Recreation: Hypotheses

 

Fundamental to a communication approach to recreation

research is the idea that the processes of communication

61

in the recreation experience -— rather than the specific
recreation activity -- may be perceived as central by the
participants. This thesis is the foundation upon which
communication principles can be applied to outdoor recrea-
tion issues. Some theoretical principles were identified
in Chapter IV. In this section, specific hypotheses based
on these principles are suggested, and research designs
for testing the hypotheses are described.

For purposes of exposition, let us assume we are
studying the recreation activities of a hypothetical individ-
ual called Individual A. As recreation researchers, we
want to measure why Individual A participates in some out-
door recreation activities, and why he does not participate
in others. Why does he enjoy camping and hiking with
friends? Why does he belong to some recreation-related
clubs and organizations? How does his participation in '
some recreation activities influence his choices for par-
ticipation in other activities? How can we as researchers
determine and predict A's future choices for recreation
activities?

One way to address these questions is to follow tra-
ditional socio-economic analysis approaches to recreation
research. Another way is to apply the communication pro-
cess approach described above in this paper. In the com-
munication approach, the researcher must measure Individual

A's outdoor recreation choices, measure his communication

62

processes before, during, and after the recreation activity,
and then test for a relationship between recreation activity
choices and communication processes.

Measuring recreation and leisure activity choices is
fairly straight-forward, since that is usually what is
first measured in any recreation study. The major questions
a researcher must ask of a respondent are, "Do you partici-
pate in (a given activity)?", and, "How frequently do you
participate?" The survey-questionnaire and observation
techniques for testing representative samples of a popula-
tion have been widely employed to measure recreation par-
ticipation. These methods determine actual visitation rates
to recreation sites, willingness-to-pay for the recreation
resource, preferences for some activities over others, and
other socio-economic determinants of recreation choice.'

Measuring communication processes is somewhat more
complex. However, communication researchers have made
significant progress in developing measurement techniques.
The following hypotheses and discussion about Individual
A will illustrate some of these communication measurement
techniques. This discussion parallels the three-part
scheme used in Chapter IV to present theoretical principles
for communication in recreation: (1) communication needs
prior to recreation, (2) communication processes during
recreation, and (3) communication effects of recreation

participation.

63

Testing Communication Needs Prior
to the Recreation Experience

Once it is determined in socio-economic analysis
that Individual A does indeed participate in a given rec-
reation activity, and how frequently he participates,
communication researchers can address the question of why
he chooses that activity. Research into communication
needs prior to the recreation experience may yield some
answers to the question "why".

It is logical to study an individual's communication
needs which may influence his recreation choices. If a
researcher could isolate those communication needs which
occur prior to and influence the choice of a recreation
activity, he could then test for a relationship between
communication needs and recreation activity choices. Some
testable hypotheses developed from the example of Individual
A will illustrate this.

H.l. If Individual A communicates a
low self-concept, he will choose
recreation activities which do
not threaten or challenge that
self-concept.

H.2. If Individual A communicates a
low self-concept, he will choose
recreation activities which do
not place him in leadership
positions.

H.3. If Individual A communicates a
low self-concept, he will choose
low-risk recreation activities.

These hypotheses can be studied in an experimental

correlational research design. The researcher would test

64

Individual A's self-concept level by studying A's repre-
sentative communication interactions prior to recreation.
Communication content analysis, interaction analysis, and
network analysis methods could give an indication of how

A presents his self-concept in conversation. The researcher
would also sample other individuals of the test population
to determine their self-concept levels, and then devise a
scale which plots communicated self-concepts from low to
high levels.

Each individual would also be tested to determine his
participation in and preferences for outdoor recreation
activities. These activities would be plotted along the
self-concept levels graph to test for a relationship between
the communicated self-concept needs and recreation choices.
If relationships do exist, some conclusions may be drawn
about how communication needs prior to recreation may in-
fluence an individual's choices for recreation activities.

For example, communication analysis of Individual A's
conversation might indicate that A has a low self-concept.
Simultaneously, survey research may indicate that Individ-
ual A chooses to participate in low-risk recreation activi-
ties frequently. Survey responses may also indicate that
other individuals with low self-concepts will, like Individ-
ual A, also choose to participate in low-risk recreation
activities (H.3.). These individuals may choose to go

hiking with their families, but will not participate in

65

mountain climbing recreation experiences. This correla-
tion -- based on testable communication needs expressed

in conversation -- may be significant for predicting recrea-
tion activity choices.

The other communication needs described in Chapter IV
could also be tested in similar fashion. These needs could
be identified through communication analysis of an individ-
ual's conversation prior to recreation. Then, the needs
may be correlated with recreation activity choices to test
for relationships between communication needs and recreation
participation. Significant correlations may aid researchers
in predicting future recreation choices.

Testing Communication During
the Recreation Experience

Analyzing communication processes as they occur'during
recreation may allow researchers to predict user choices
for recreation. What is said and done in communication
interactions during the recreation experience, what mes-
sages an individual designs, transmits, and receives from
other recreators, and what relationships develop among
participants influencing the interaction, are important
considerations for researchers studying communication pro-
cesses.

The situation of Individual A presents an example for
developing hypotheses related to testing communication pro-

cesses during an outdoor recreation experience.

66

H.4. If Individual A belongs to an
outdoor recreation organization,
he will tend to design and present
messages during recreation consis-
tent with that organization's goals.

H.4.a. If Individual A presents mes-
sages supportive of an organi-
zation's goals, he will tend
to seek out other recreation
activities with similar goals.

H.S. If Individual A perceives himself
as similar to other recreators in
a given outdoor recreation activity,
he will design messages which are
highly personalized (i.e., based on
shared symbols, using implicit per—
suasive arguments, drawing from
shared experiences, etc.).

H.5.a. Individuals who form a cohesive
recreation group will develop
a group-specific "language"
based on shared meanings, vo-
cabulary, interpretations, non-
verbal cues, etc.

H.5.b. If an individual is a member
of one cohesive recreation
group, he will tend to seek
out other recreation activi-

ties which offer similar
small group interaction.

In predicting Individual A's choices for participation
in outdoor recreation activities, a researcher would measure
the processes of communication during a recreation activity,
measure recreation choices, and test for a relationship
between the two. For example, in testing Hypothesis 4,
the researcher would identify organization goals, then
perform a content analysis on the messages designed and

presented by participants during the outdoor recreation

67

activity. This content analysis would be accomplished by:
(l) observing the communication interaction, and (2) draw-
ing inferences from it, generally with the aid of a written
or recorded transcript. Then, based on explicitly-stated
rules for inclusion/exclusion of data, the researcher

would code the data into categories reflecting quantity

(for example, the number of topics introduced by the source,
the frequency of statements about a recreation topic, etc.),
and qaaiity (that is, the strength of a receiver's state-
ments about a topic, the intensity of various non—verbal
acts, etc.).

Suppose Individual A is a member of the American Camp—
ing Association. A content analysis of his messages during
recreation would identify to what extent he has incorporated
organizational goals into his cognitive structure by
counting the frequency of his statements about goal-oriented
topics, and qualitatively assessing the strength of his
feelings about organizational goals.

The purpose of pursuing a content analysis is to later
make critical inferences about the processes of communica-
tion that have occurred in a specific interaction, and are
predicted to occur in other similar settings. This issue
is addressed in Hypothesis 4.a., where it is suggested that
the type of goals and type of organization which Individual
A supports in one outdoor recreation setting, will influence

his later choices for recreation activity participation.

68

For example, if one of the goals of the American Camping
Association is to "encourage family camping", then Individ-
ual A will tend to participate in other recreation activities
which also encourage family-oriented recreation.

It must be noted here, though, that Hypothesis 4.a.
is related more to measurement of communication effects
(discussed in the following section) than to content analy-
sis of communication processes during recreation. Individ-
ual A may only seek out similar activities if he has incor-
porated these organizational goals into his own cognitive
and attitudinal structures over time. Hypothesis 4.a. is
merely a simplistic representation of the direction research-
ers could follow in analyzing communication content during
recreation to determine user preferences.

Along with analysis of the specific content of communi-
cation messages during recreation, a researcher must also
analyze the relational aspects of the communication situa-
tion. Through the methods of critical analysis, outlined
in Chapter I, the researcher can outline various character-
istics of source, message, channel, and receiver factors
which may influence the communication process. Hypotheses
S, 5.a., and 5.b. allude to these relationships. Message
analysis, a component of content analysis methods, along
with analysis of the interpersonal communication networks,
can be used in examining the relational aspects of the com-

munication processes during specific recreation activities

69

(H.5., H.5.a.). Testing for a relationship between these
processes and recreation activity choices (H.5.b.) would
allow a researcher to predict, in part, an individual's
future choices for recreation.

It should be stressed that analysis of communication
during the recreation experience cannot be attempted with-
out consideration of the communication needs and communi-
cation effects also influencing recreation participation.
Based on needs they desire to satisfy, individuals will
seek out certain predictable patterns of communication in
recreation. Based on the processes of communication (the
content of messages, and the relationships among partici-
pants) which occur during recreation, an individual receives
certain effects. Based on the nature and extent of these
effects, the individual may choose to participate in Some
specific recreation activities. Predicting a user's
choices for recreation can be attempted only upon consid-
eration of the interacting components of needs, processes,
and effects in the communication interaction.

Testing Communication Effects
of Recreation Participation

Individuals who participate in recreation activities
may receive effects as a result of the communication expe-
rienced before, during, and after that recreation activity.
Some of these effects can be measured by communication

analysis methods.

70

It is relatively easy to see and record what is said
and done in a communication interaction. It is more diffi-
cult, when studying such complex systems as total life-styles,
to determine which attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, or values
changes are due directly to communication processes in rec-
reation. It is most difficult to comprehend long—term be-
havioral effects and consequences of communication in recrea-
tion and leisure.

The communication effects generalization states that:
(1) individuals receive certain communication effects from
their recreation experiences, and (2) these effects influence
later choices for recreation participation. Some testable
hypotheses about communication effects can be developed from
the example of Individual A.

H.6. If Individual A is exposed to
favorable mass media messages
about an outdoor recreation
activity, he will tend to learn
more information about the
activity.

H.7. If Individual A is exposed to
favorable mass media messages
about an outdoor recreation
activity, he will tend to think
positively about that activity.

H.8. If Individual A is exposed to
favorable mass media messages
about an outdoor recreation
activity, he will tend to par-
ticipate more often in that
activity (including increasing
the frequency of actual site
visitation, equipment buying be-
havior, willingness-to-pay for
the experience or resource, etc.).

71

One point must be clarified in the beginning: there
are certain social, demographic, and economic differences
among individuals which influence their attitudes and be-
havior at any given time. Communicated mass media messages
do not induce effects in a vacuum: an individual's back-
ground, experiences, social and psychological traits, etc.,
all influence how effects are received and assimilated.

In testing communication effects related to recreation
participation, the researcher must measure recreation
choices, measure communication effects, and test for a
relationship between the two. Much of the past communica-
tion research on effects has taken the form of survey re-
search (measure exposure by receivers to a specific message,
and correlate this with observed or reported behavior), or
experimentation (use of control and experimental groups to
determine receiver effects from varied levels of exposure
to messages).

A possible research design for measuring communication
effects can be suggested from the hypothesis based on the
example of Individual A. Individual A is pre-tested, as
part of a sample survey pepulation, about his knowledge
levels, interest, and attitudes towards, for example, cross
country skiing outdoor recreation activities. He is asked
at this time if he owns cross country skis. Then, the
researcher experimentally exposes part of the sample popu—

lation to mass-mediated information messages about cross

72

country skiing activities. Levels or amounts of exposure,
characteristics of messages presented, or channels used
for information dissemination, may be manipulated by the
researcher for the control and experimental groups. During
the experiment, it is expected that the subjects will expe-
rience certain cognitive, affective, informational, attitudi-
nal, and behavioral effects related to mass media exposure.

After the test period, Individual A is again tested by
the researcher using questionnaires, interviews, observation,
or other methods, to assess the effects or changes related
to message exposure. As a result of increased exposure to
mass-mediated messages about cross country recreational
skiing, Individual A may have received some effects. For
example, he may have learned some new information about
that activity, as suggested in Hypothesis 6. He may have
developed some beliefs and expectations (cognitive effects)
or experienced changes in his attitude structure (attitudi-
nal effects), as suggested in Hypothesis 7. And, he may
have incorporated some changes into his behavior repertoire:
he may participate in cross country skiing more often, or
he may buy or rent cross country ski equipment with the
intent of participating, or he may try to convince others
to participate with him (Hypothesis 8).

It may appear that effects are relatively easy to
record and measure; actually the reverse is true. Communi-

cation effects are very complex, based on a number of

73

interacting factors in the communication process, and some-
times cannot be directly attributed to any one variable.
Effects generally occur as a result of a complexity of
interacting needs, processes of communication, and expected
and subliminal outcomes. However, the study of communica-
tion effects may aid recreation researchers in predicting
user choices for recreation. Study of possible communica-
tion effects, combined with recreation research of observa-
ble user choices, may allow researchers to make some assump-
tions about long and short term user preferences for recrea-

tion resources and activities.

Summagy

Recreation researchers, using socio-economic analysis
methods, can identify some characteristics of individuals
who participate in recreation, and what activities they
choose to participate in. Communication researchers can
add to this a social-psychological perspective about why
individuals choose to participate in specific recreation
activities. Communication researchers can analyze: (l)
the needs which influence an individual's selection of
recreation activities, (2) the repetitive communication
patterns and processes which occur during recreation, and
(3) some effects of communication concerning recreation.

Communication analysis appears promising as an ap-
proach to predicting user choices for recreation. It may

also be appropriate for addressing other recreation

74

research problems. Some further extensions of the com—
munication process model in recreation may be: (1) in
better understanding user needs for and satisfactions
received from recreation; (2) better measurement methods
and models for evaluating the quality of the recreation
experience; (3) determination of potential substitutable
recreation resources; (4) measurement of changing social
values related to leisure and recreation attitudes; (5) an
understanding of components of environmental perception
from a communication perspective; (6) a theoretical under-
standing of information dissemination campaigns; (7) other
applications.

It is necessary to point out that communication needs,
processes, and effects do not correlate directly with the
well-accepted model of the recreation experience: before,
during, and after recreation participation. The process
nature of communication means that needs, processes, and
effects all interact at any part of the recreation experi-
ence. Thus, communication effects can occur before recrea-
tion, during recreation, and also after recreation, etc.
The simplistic model of communication needs, processes,
and effects was used in this thesis primarily to logically
describe communication components. Researchers who become
familiar with this model as it relates to recreation re-
search can advance to more complex issues about the trans-

actional, symbolic processes of communication.

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSION

This paper has examined the potential role of communi-
cation in leisure and recreation research. The definition
of communication as a "transactional, symbolic process
which allows people to relate to and manage their environ-
ments" (Miller, 1977) was chosen to direct the analysis.

A theoretical overview of communication principles and
concepts was discussed in terms of: (1) communication

needs prior to recreation participation, (2) communication
processes during the recreation experience, and (3) communi-
cation effects of recreation participation. These theoreti-
cal principles were then applied to predicting user choices
for outdoor recreation. Testable hypotheses were developed
as examples of practical research directions for addressing
this recreation research problem.

It is suggested here that the communication process
model can be extended towards solving other problem areas
in recreation and leisure research as well. The breadth
and sc0pe of both the recreation and communication disci-
plines allows and encourages multidisciplinary application
and experimentation.

The diversity of each discipline also accounts for

some of the difficulties of addressing in one short paper

75

76

such complex issues as the role of communication in recrea—
tion and leisure research. This paper makes preliminary
attempts in that direction, and hopefully, will stimulate

additional work.

Communication Research in Recreation

 

As a relatively new field of scientific inquiry, rec-
reation research has concentrated primarily on descriptive
studies which emphasize data collection through survey
methods and an applied orientation to solving problems.

The synthesis of the existing body of knowledge and facts
about leisure and recreation into an integrated, comprehen-
sive theory of recreation is difficult. However, the devel-
opment of a theoretical base for leisure and recreation is
slowly beginning to be addressed by researchers.

Communication research can potentially contribute to
both applied and theoretical problems in leisure and recrea?
tion research. Some of the current social and psychological
recreation research, in fact, is very similar in design to
communication research. Attitude, information, and behavior
studies have received increasing attention in recreation
research within the last few years. Communication research,
based in the social sciences, could provide the needed
focus for social, psychological, and behavioral theory in
recreation.

Importantly, the study of communication as a "trans-

actional, symbolic process" indicates a system's approach

77

to research. A comprehensive system's focus developed from
communication could direct recreation towards a theoretic
research framework. This framework would provide for con-
sistency in terminology useful for development of opera-
tional research definitions, theoretical models of the
recreation experience, formulas for forecasting recreation
demand, etc.

Verbal and non-verbal communication patterns are the
best indicators researchers have so far about the status
of an individual's attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and
values structures. Evaluation of the recreation experience
according to communication needs, processes, and effects,
may help researchers assess such intangibles as: opera-
tionalization of "leisure" and "recreation" definitions,
the "demand" for and choices for recreation resources, the
"value" and "benefits" of the recreation experience, and
the perceived "quality" of recreation activities and set-
tings. Choices for recreation activities, substitutable
recreation resources, and complementary experiences may
all be analyzed according to the communication processes
which occur in those activities.

It is anticipated that communication research in
recreation may help define the needs for and satisfactions
achieved from recreation, the demand for recreation re-
sources, and the social benefits and values to be gained

from recreation participation. In practical application,

78

recreation managers could better plan and manage programs
and facilities for recreation use, based on the communica-
tion that could potentially occur there. Leisure counselors
may one day be able to guide individual recreators to those
leisure and recreation activities and resources which best
suit their lifestyles, based on analysis of the communica-
tion processes preferred. Recreation planners could develop
social planning goals and objectives for recreation resources
based on the behavioral aspects of communication processes
in recreation. Standards for resource use, expressed in
terms of needs met in and satisfactions achieved through
communication processes in recreation, may be one applica-

tion of the communication process model.

Limitations of the Model

 

Although communication may provide a number of signifi-
cant contributions to leisure and recreation research,.
there are some limitations on the wide—spread acceptance
and use of this approach. Notable among these limitations
is that not all recreation research problems are problems
of communication, and cannot be measured as if they were.
Some problems of the interrelationships between man and
his environment are political, economic, ecological, philo-
sophical, etc. Communication research may help in under-
standing the problems of verbal and non-verbal interaction
in recreation, but it cannot resolve every recreation

problem.

79

Secondly, to understand attitude, belief, and value
structures, researchers must study an individual's choices
in action -- both the verbalized accounts of inner cogni-
tions, and also the overt behaviors. It is necessary to
remember, though, that sometimes "...(one's) real (attitude,
belief, or value) structure may not coincide with his ver—
balized (attitude, belief, or value) structure" (Kuhn,
1975). Although communication appears at the present time
to be the best indicator linking internal thought processes
with overt behavior, what an individual says may not always
indicate what he is thinking or what he will do.

Additionally, the benefits to be received from the
application of the multidisciplinary communication field
to the equally multidisciplinary recreation and leisure
field may be overshadowed by the fact that it sometimes
seems that everything is related to everything else. The
process of drawing the boundaries of analysis so as to seg-
ment issues into manageable parts for study is a tedious
and subjective procedure. Using principles and processes
of communication to explain phenomena in leisure and rec-
reation may serve only to further bury important recreation
issues under layers of jargon and concepts, segmenting the
field even further.

Another limitation of applying the communication ap-
proach concerns who will do the research. Currently,

leisure and recreation researchers have only limited

80

knowledge of the concepts, theories, and methodologies of
communication research, and vice versa. There is a need
for researchers who are well—versed in both natural and
social and psychological sciences. These researchers

must be capable of basic-theoretical and applied-practical
research. They must be able to communicate with the pub-
lic, and must also be able to translate their research
results into useful managerial practices.

A critical limitation, too, is based in the problems
of measurement. Communication needs, processes, and effects
are multidimensional, and exceedingly difficult to measure.
Recreation problems are also difficult to measure because
so many influences affect an individual's perception of
any one recreation experience. More analysis of the methods
used for measurement in both disciplines would be a useful
research consideration.

There is also a conceptual difficulty in how researchers
perceive and understand the terms "communication", "lei-
sure”, and "recreation". Since each individual has a per-
sonal conception of what these terms mean within the bounds
of his own experience, it is difficult to agree on universal
definitions, and more difficult to measure these in re-
search. The fact that some people fail to take the scien-
tific study of leisure, recreation, or communication seri—

ously is a major deterrent in research.

81

Future Research Directions

 

The analysis undertaken in this paper indicates
that communication principles, concepts, and methods
have not been applied to a significant degree in recrea-
tion and leisure research. Communication seems highly
relevant, however, and has potential to make contribu-
tions in a variety of areas in recreation. These poten-
tial areas of overlap are too numerous to be fully and
adequately addressed in this preliminary paper. The com-
munication approach in recreation raises a number of ques—
tions about the future of recreation and leisure research.
Interested researchers may begin to answer some of these
questions by testing the hypotheses presented here, and
further exploring other interrelationships between com-
munication and recreation. It is hoped that this thesis
will encourage further research in these areas, and will
assist in facilitating a greater transfer of ideas between

communication and recreation.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

B IBLIOGRAPHY

Altman, Irwin. 1975. The Environment and Social Behavior.
California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

 

Arnold, Carroll C. 1974. Criticism of Oral Rhetoric.
Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.

 

Atkin, Charles A. 31 January 1975. Department of
Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan. Class lecture: Eéfiects 06 Mass Communication.

Bailey, George A. 1971. "The public, the media, and the
knowledge gap." Jounnai 05 Enviaonmentai Education
2(4).

Bauer, Raymond A. 1971. "The obstinate audience: the
influence process from the point of view of social
communication." In The Process and Effects of Mass
Communication. Editediby WilburISChramm andiDonaId
F. Roberts. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

 

 

Becker, Boris. 1976. "Perceived similarities among
recreation activities." Jouanai 05 Leisuae Reseaach
8(2): 112-122.

Bem, Daryl J. 1970. Beliefs, Attitudes, and HumanvAffairs.
Belmont, California: BrooEs7CoIe Publishing Company.

Berelson, B. 1952. Content Analysis in Communication

4

Research. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.

Berscheid, Ellen, and Walster, Elaine. 1974. "A little
bit about love." In Foundations of Inter ersonal
of Interpersonal Attraction, pp. 356-82. Edited by
Ted L. Huston. New York: Academic Press.

 

 

Book, Cassandra L. 9 January 1976. Department of Communica-
tion, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Class lecture: Essentiais 06 Message Anaiysis.

. 1977. "Development of communication resources
through an experiential future-focused role-image and
function-oriented curriculum: the task of communication
educators." Michigan Speech Association Jouanai (12):
89-91.

 

82

83

Boorstin, Daniel J. 1974. "From news-gathering to news-
making: a flood of pseudo-events." In The Process
and Effectsof Mass Communication, pp. 116-150. Edited
by Wilbur Schramm and Donald F. Roberts. Chicago:
University of Illinois Press.

 

Brown, Perry J.; Dyer, A. Allen; and Whaley, Ross S. 1973.
”Recreation research -- so what?" Jouunai 06 Leisune
Reseanch 5(1): 17-19.

Bultena, Gordon L., and Klessig, Lowell L. 1969. "Satisfac-
tion in camping: A conceptualization and guide to social
research." Jouanai 06 Leisuae Reseaach
1(4).

Burch, William. 1969. "The social circles of leisure:
competing explanations." Jounnai 06 Leisuae Reseanch
1(2): 125-44.

Burdge, Rabel J.: Buchanan, Thomas; and Christensen, James
E. 1977. "A critical assessment of the state of out-
door recreation research." Paper presented before the
Outdoor Recreation Research Symposium, the Fawcett
Center for Tomorrow, Ohio State University, Columbus,
Ohio. November.

Chase, David R. 1977. ”Leisure counseling and leisure
behavior research." Thetapeutic Recaeation Joannai
xi (3): 94-102.

Cheek, Neil H., Jr.; Field, Donald R.; and Burdge, Rabel
J. 1976. Leisure and Recreation Places. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Publications, Inc.

Clark, Roger N.; Hendee, John C.; and Campbell, Frederick
1. 1971. ”Values, behavior, and conflict in modern
camping culture." Jounnai 05 Leisure Research
3(3): 143-59.

Clawson, Marion, and Knetsch, Jack. 1966. Economics of
Outdoor Recreation. .Maryland: The Johns HopEins Press.

 

Craik, Kenneth H. 1973. "Environmental psychology." Annuai
Review 05 Psychoiogy 24: 403-22.

Crandall, Rick, and Lewko, John. 1976. ”Leisure research,
present and future: who, what, where." Joannai 06
Leisure Research 8(3): 151-7.

Cousineau, Claude. 1978. "The measured impact of outdoor
adventure programmes." Recaeation Reseaach Review
May: 45-51.

84

Cushman, Donald P., and Craig, Robert T. 1976. "Communica-
tion systems: interpersonal implications." In
Explorations in Interpersonal‘Communication, pp. 37-58.
Edited by Gerald R. Miller. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Da Silva, Carlos Eduardo Lins. 1976. "Mass media and
environmental affairs: a case study in Santos, Brazil."
Master's thesis, Department of Communication, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

de Grazia, Sebastian. 1962. Of Time, Work, and Leisure.
New York: Twentieth Century Fund.

Dick, Ronald E.; McKee, David T.; and Wagar, Alan J. 1974.
"A summary and annotated bibliography of communication
principles." Jounnai 05 Envitonmentai Education
5(4).

Driver, B.L., and Brown, Perry J. 1975. "A social-psychologi-
cal definition of recreation demand, with implications
for recreation resource planning.” In Assessing Demand
fgrigutdoor Recreation, pp. 65-88. Washington, D.C.:
The Bureau of:Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Department of
the Interior.

, and Knopf, Richard C. 1977. "Personality,
outdoor recreation, and expected consequences."
Enviaonment and Behavion 9(2): 169-93.

 

Dumazdier, Joffre. 1967. Toward a Society of Leisure.
Illinois: The Free Press.

. 1974. Sociology of Leisure. New York: Elsevier.

 

Edwards, Paul. 1973. "Introduction: body, mind, and death."
In A Modern Introduction to Philosophy, pp. 171-3.
Edited By PauI Edwards and Arthur Pap. New York: The
Free Press.

Farace, Eugene. 5 June 1975. Department.of Communication,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Class
lecture: Netwoah anaiysis in Onganizations.

Field, Donald R., and Burdge, Rabel. 1972. "Methodological
perspectives for the study of outdoor recreation."
Joannai 06 Leisune Reseaach 4(1): 65-6.

Frye, V., and Peters, M. 1972. Therapeuticgecreation:
Its' Theory, Philosophy, and Practice. Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books-

85

Greenberg, Bradley S. 14 April 1977. Department of
Communication, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan. Class lecture: Behavionai Reseaach in
Mass Communication.

Hall, Edward T. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc.

 

Heberlein, Thomas A. 1973. "Social-psychological assumptions
of user attitude surveys: the case of the Wildernism
scale." JouAnai 05 Leisuue Reseanch 5(3): 18-33.

Heider, Fritz. 1946. "Attitudes and cognitive organization."
Jounnai as Psychoiogy 21: 107-12.

Hendricks, Joe, and Burdge, Rabel. 1972. "The nature of
leisure research: a reflection and comment." Jouanai 06
Leisune Reseanch 4(3): 215-17.

Holsti, Ole R. 1964. Content Analysis for the Social
Sciences and Humanities. Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley.

Huizinga, Johann. 1950. Homo Ludens: A Study of_the Play
Element in Culture. Boston, Massachusetts: Beacon
Press.

 

Jacobsen, Eugene. 20 July 1978. Department of Psychology,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Class lecture: Attitudes -- Theoneticai Bachgaound.

Kalter, J., and Goose, L.E. 1970. ”Recreation demand
functions and the identification problem." Jouanai 06
Leisune Reseanch 2(1): 43-53.

Kaplan, Max. 1960. Leisure in‘America: A Social Inquiry.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.

, and Lazarsfeld, Paul. 1962. "The mass media
and man's orientation to nature.” In Trends in American
Living and Outdoor Recreation, pp. 187-2I4. Report
#22 of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior.

 

 

Kaplan, Rachel. 1974. "Some psychological benefits of an
outdoor challenge program." Envinonment and Behavioa

Kaplan, Stephen. 1973. ”Cognitive maps, human needs, and
the designed environment." In Environmental Design
Research, pp. 275-88. Edited by W.F.E. Preiser.
Stroudsberg, Pennsylvania: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.

 

86

Kelly, John R. 1974. "Socialization toward leisure: a
developmental approach." Jouanai 06 Lesinne Reseanch
6(3): 181-4.

Kerr, Walter. 1962. The Decline of Pleasure. New York:
Simon and Schuster.

 

King, David A., and Richards,.Merton T. 1977. "Determinants
of choice in outdoor recreation." In Outdoor Recreation:

 

Advances in Application of Economics, pp. 91-7.4fEdited
By Jay M. Hughes and R. Duane Lond. Washington, D.C.:
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, General
Technical Report WO-2.

 

Kinget, G. Marianne. 1975. On Being Human: A Systematic
View. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

 

Knopf, R. C. 16 November 1977. "Recreation behavior and
leisure choices." Seminar presented at the Department
of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Muchigan.

Kraus, Richard. 1971. Recreation and Leisure in.Modern
Society. New York: .Meredith Corporation.

 

Kuhn, Alfred. 1975. Unified Social Sciences: A System-
Based Introduction. Illinois: THe Dorsey Press.

 

 

 

La Page, W. F. 1974. “Market research models for outdoor
recreation development planning." Taavei Reseaach
Paoceedings, pp. 121-30.

Lee, Robert G. 1972. "The social definition of outdoor
recreational places." In Social Behavior, Natural
Resources, and the Environment, pp. 68-84. Edited by
WiIliem R. Burch, Jr., Neil H. Cheek, Jr., and Lee
Taylor. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

 

 

Leff, Herbert L.; Gordon, Lawrence R.; and Fergussen, James
G. 1974. "Cognitive set and environmental awareness."
Envinonment and Behavion 6(4): pp. 395-447.

Lewko, John W. 1976. "An analysis of therapeutic recreation
as a service." Jouanai 06 Leisuhe Reseanch
8(1): 35-48.

Lucas, R. C. 1964. "Wilderness perception and use: the
example of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area." Natuaai
Resounces Joannai 3:394-411.

87

Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of a City. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Technology Press.

 

Mahaffey, Ben D. 1970. "Effectiveness and preferences for
selected interpretive media." Journai 06 Environmentai
Education 1(4): 125-8.

Maw, Ray. 1974. "User choice models for recreation."
In Leisure Research and Poiicy, pp. 78-108. Edited by

Fan Appelton. Edinburg: Scottish Academic Press.

 

McHarg, Ian. 1969. Designwith NaEure. Garden City, New
York: Doubleday anHICompany, Inc.

 

Mehrabian, Albert, and Russel, James A. 1974. "A verbal
measure of information rate for studies in environmental
psychology." Environment and Behavior 6(2): 233-52.

Mercer, David. 1973. "The concept of recreation need."
Journai 06 Leisure Research 5(1).

. 1976. "Motivational and social aspects of
recreation behavior." In Human Behavior and Environ-
ment: Advances in Theory and Research, pp. 123-56.
Edited by Irwin Altman and Joachim Wohlwill. New York:
Plenum Press.

 

Meyersohn, Rolf. 1969. "The sociology of leisure in the
United States: introduction and bibliography, 1945-
1965." Journai 05 Leisure Research 1(1): 54-6.

Millar, Frank E., and Rogers, Edna. 1976. "A relational
approach to interpersonal communication." In
Explorations in interpegsonal Communication, pp. 87-
10 . Edited by Gerald R. Miller. Beverly Hills,
California: Sage Publications.

Miller, Gerald R. 1977. "Introduction to communication."
In Human Communication: Pringiples, Contexts, and
SkiIIs. Editedrby Cassandra L. Boo . East Lan51ng,
Michigan: Department of Communication, Michigan State
University, Mimeo.

 

Moncrief, Lewis; Holecek, Donald; and Synes, Daniel. 1977.
"What is sophistication in terms of research in outdoor
recreation?" Paper presented at the Federal Agency/
University Concurrent Workshop on Research, Arlington,
Virginia, December 5-6.

Moss, William T., and Lamphear, Steven C. 1970. "Substitut-
ability of recreation activities in meeting stated
needs and drives of the visitor." Journai 06 Environ-
mentai Education 1(4): 129-32.

88

Mueller, Eva, and Gurin, Gerald. 1962. Participation in
Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting Demand Among
American Adults. Report #20 of the Outdoor Recreation
Resources Review Commission. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of the Interior.

 

Nash, Roderick. 1973. Wilderness and the American Mind.
New Haven: Yale University Press.

Neulinger, John. 1974. The Psychology of Leisure.
Springfield: Thomas Publishing Co.

Neumeyer, Martin H. 1958. "Areas for research in leisure
and recreation." Socioiogy and Sociai Research
43: 90-6.

if , and Neumeyer, Esther S. 1958. Leisure and
Recreation: A Study of Leisure and Recreation in their
Sociological Aspects. New York: The Ronald Press Co.

 

 

 

Newcomb, T.M. 1953. "An approach to the study of communica-
tive acts." Psychoiogicai Review 60: 393-403.

 

ORRRC Commission Staff. 1962. Pros ective Demand for
Outdoor Recreatign. Report 326 of the Outdoor Recrea-
tion Resources Review Commission. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of the Interior.

Peterson, George L. 1974a. "Evaluating the quality of
the wilderness experience, congruence between perception
and aspiration." Environment and Behavior 6(2):

. 1974b. "A comparison of the sentiments and
perceptions of wilderness managers and canoeists in
the Boundary Waters Canoe Area." Journai 06 Leisure
Research 6(3).

 

Piaget, J. 1962. Play, Dreams, and Imitation in Childhood.
(Translated by C. Cattegno and F. M. Hodgson). New
York: Norton.

 

 

Pieper, Josef. 1963. Leisure: The Basis of Culture.
New York: Random House.

Prinkey, Dale. 1975. "Recreation: an adaptational response".
Unpublished paper, Department of Park and Recreation
Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan.

89

Ritchie, J. Brent. 1975. "On the derivation of leisure
activity types -- a perceptual mapping approach."
Journai 06 Leisure Research 7(2): 129-39.

Roberts, Donald F. 1974. "The nature of communication
effects". In The Process and Effectsgf Mass Communi-
cation, pp. 347-88. Edited by Wilbur Schramm and Donald
F. Roberts. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

 

Rogers, Everett M. 1976. "Communication and development:
the passing of the dominant paradigm." Communication
Research 3(2): 213-40.

Rossman, Betty B., and Ulehla, Joseph. 1977. "Psychologi-
cal reward values associated with wilderness use: a
functional-reinforcement approach." Environment
and Behavior 9(1): 15-41.

Schoenfeld, Clay. 1974. "The environmental communications
ecosystem:. an overview of the field." In Interpreting
Environmental Issues, pp. 1-19. Edited by Clay
Schoenfeld, et a1. Madison, Wisconsin: Dembar
Educational Research Services.

Schramm, Wilbur. 1974. "The nature of communication between
humans." In The Process and Effects of Mass Communi-
cation. Edited by Wilbur SEhramm and DonaId F. RoBerts.
Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Shafer, Elwood L., and Mietz, James. 1969. "Aesthetic
and emotional experiences rate high with northeast
wilderness hikers." Environment and Behavior 1(2):
187-98.

Sharpe, Grant. 1976. Intgipreting the Environment. New
York: John Wiley and Sons.

Shaw, Marvin E., and Costanzo, Philip R. 1970. Theories
of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.

Shepard, Paul. 1967. Man in the Landscape. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.

 

. 1977. ”Place in American Culture." Paper
presented for the seminar Perspectives on the Land,
.Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
Mary 29.

 

Smith, Stephen. 1975. "Toward meta-recreation research."
Journai 06 Leisure Research 7(3): 236-7.

90

Stamm, K. 1974. "Conservation communication frontiers:
reports of behavioral research." In Interoreping
Environmental Issues, pp. 227-36. Edited by Clay
Schoenfeld, et a1. Madison, Wisconsin: Dembar
Educational Research Services.

 

Stankey, George. 1972. "The use of content analysis in
resource decision-making." Journai 06 Forestry
70(3): 148-51.

. 1977. ”Recreational geography: its' evolution
and application to problems of wilderness management."
In Applications of Geographic Research, pp. 75-88.
Edited by Harold A. Winters and Marjorie K. Winters.
East Lansing: Department of Geography, Michigan State
University.

 

Stephansky, Joseph D. 1976. "A system's view of leisure's
role in the socio-cultural system." Master's thesis,
Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

Swan, James A. 1977. "The psychological significance of
the wilderness experience." Journai 06 Environmentai
Education 8(4): 4-7.

Swenson, Clifford H. 1973. Introduction to Interpersonal’
Relations. Glenview, Illindis: Scott, Foresman, and
Company.

 

Thoreau, Henry David. 1969. "From Walton". In American
Literature: The Fiist Pgrt of the i9th Centur , pp.
347:77. Edited by Carl Bode, Leon Howard, and Louis
B. Wright. New York: Washington Square Press, Inc.

Twardzik, Louis F. 1975. "A Higher Quality of Life Beyond
Leisure." Paper presented at the Institute on National
Affairs -- The American Future and Beyond, Iowa State
University.

Van Doren, Carlton, and Heit, Michael J. 1973. "Where it's
at: a content analysis and appraisal of the Journai
05 Leisure Research." Journai 06 Leisure Research
5(1): 67-70.

Wapner, Seymour; Cohen, Saul; and Kaplan, Bernard. 1976.
Experiencing the Environment. New York: Plenum Press.