<%BANNER%>

Examining the Constraints to Golf Lesson Participation among Adults

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044323/00001

Material Information

Title: Examining the Constraints to Golf Lesson Participation among Adults
Physical Description: 1 online resource (82 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Somersall, Philip C
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: constraints -- golf -- lesson -- participation
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Sport Management thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to identify leisure constraints to golf lesson participation. Crawford and Godbey’s (1987) definition of leisure constraints and Crawford, Jackson, and Godbey’s (1991) hierarchical model of leisure constraints was use as the theoretical lens to define and identify those constraints. The study used data collected through convenience sampling from 108 golf participants at golf courses in a south eastern United States “college” town. Principal component factor analysis was run and identified five constraint factors from the data. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to test the relationship between demographic characteristics and the five constraint factors. This analysis revealed that age and income were affected by structural constraints, specifically time and money, and skill level was affected by interpersonal constraints, specifically lack of partners. Further, the constraints “lack of partner” was found to predict lesson interest.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Philip C Somersall.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Kerwin, Shannon M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2012-11-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044323:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0044323/00001

Material Information

Title: Examining the Constraints to Golf Lesson Participation among Adults
Physical Description: 1 online resource (82 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Somersall, Philip C
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: constraints -- golf -- lesson -- participation
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Sport Management thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to identify leisure constraints to golf lesson participation. Crawford and Godbey’s (1987) definition of leisure constraints and Crawford, Jackson, and Godbey’s (1991) hierarchical model of leisure constraints was use as the theoretical lens to define and identify those constraints. The study used data collected through convenience sampling from 108 golf participants at golf courses in a south eastern United States “college” town. Principal component factor analysis was run and identified five constraint factors from the data. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to test the relationship between demographic characteristics and the five constraint factors. This analysis revealed that age and income were affected by structural constraints, specifically time and money, and skill level was affected by interpersonal constraints, specifically lack of partners. Further, the constraints “lack of partner” was found to predict lesson interest.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Philip C Somersall.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local: Adviser: Kerwin, Shannon M.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2012-11-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID: UFE0044323:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 EXAMINING THE CONSTRAINTS T O GOLF LESSON PARTICIPATION AMO NG ADULTS By PHILIP C. SOMERSALL A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Philip C. Somersall

PAGE 3

3 To my parents, for all their support through out the years

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank my academic advisor for the guidance throughout the thesis writing process, and my committee for the help they have given me in making this document. Finally, I thank my parents and friends for their support and encouragement; it would have been so much harder to get through with out your support.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 LIST OF DEFINITIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 Constraints: A Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ .... 14 Research Purpose and Objectives ................................ ................................ ......... 18 Chapter Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 19 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 21 Constraints to Participation ................................ ................................ ..................... 21 Influence of Demographic Variables ................................ ................................ ....... 29 Gender ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 29 Age ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 36 Socio Economic Status ................................ ................................ .................... 38 Skill Level ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 39 Research Question ................................ ................................ ................................ 40 Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 41 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 41 3 METHODS ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 43 Delimitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 45 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 45 Hypothesis Testing ................................ ................................ ................................ 46 Hypothesis One ................................ ................................ ................................ 46 Hypothesis Two ................................ ................................ ................................ 46 Hypothesis Three ................................ ................................ ............................. 46 Hypothesis Four ................................ ................................ ............................... 47 Assump tions ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 47 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 49 Demographic Profile ................................ ................................ ............................... 50

PAGE 6

6 Age ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 50 Gender ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 50 Skill Level ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 51 Socio Economic Status ................................ ................................ .................... 51 Summary of Participation and Interest in Golf Lessons ................................ .......... 51 Factor Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 52 Multivariate A nalysis of Variance (MANOVA) ................................ ......................... 52 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ........ 62 Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 62 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 67 Theoretical Contributions ................................ ................................ ........................ 68 Methodological Considerations ................................ ................................ ............... 70 Practical Contributions ................................ ................................ ............................ 71 APPENDIX : QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ .................... 74 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................... 78 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ............................ 82

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Lesson Frequency/Age Group Cross tabulation ................................ ................. 55 4 2 Lesson Interest/Age Group Cross tabulation ................................ ...................... 55 4 3 Lesson Frequency/Gender Cross tabulation ................................ ...................... 56 4 4 Lesson Interest/Gender Cross tabulation ................................ ........................... 56 4 5 Lesson Frequency/Skill Level Cross tabulation ................................ .................. 57 4 6 Le sson Interest/Skill Level Cross tabulation ................................ ....................... 57 4 7 Lesson Frequency/Household Income Cross tabulation ................................ .... 58 4 8 Lesson Interest/Hous ehold Income Cross tabulation ................................ ......... 58 4 9 Factor Items ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 59 4 10 Age Group MANOVA ................................ ................................ .......................... 60 4 11 Income MANOVA ................................ ................................ ............................... 60 4 12 Average Score MANOVA ................................ ................................ ................... 61 4 13 Gender MANOVA ................................ ................................ ............................... 61

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Hierarchic al model of leisure constraints ................................ ............................ 42 3 1 Map of Gainesville, Florida with golf cour se locations. ................................ ....... 48 5 1 How demographic variables influence constraints ................................ .............. 73

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF DEFINITIONS Beginner An individual who is just taking up the sport or has not been playing very long. Constraint A ability to participate in leisure activities, to spend more time doing so, to take advantage of leisure services, or to achieve a desired level of satisfaction 1988, p. 203) Golf lesson Instruction given by a golf professional Golfer An individual who has played at least 1 round in the last 12 months Socio economic status For the present study socio economic status will be an umbrella term to include education level, househ old income, family size, and state of residence

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EXAMINING THE CONSTRAINT S TO GOLF LES SON PARTICIPATION AMO NG ADULTS By Philip Somersall May 2012 Chair: Shannon Kerwin Major: Sport Management Th e purpose of this study was t o identify the factors that constrain golfers from participating in golf lessons Crawford and Godbe constraints was adopted as the theoretical framework of this study. Data was collected through convenience sampling from 108 golf particip ants at three golf courses in Gainesville, Florida. Principal component factor analysis was run and identified five constraint factors from the data. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to test the relationship between demographic cha racteristics and the five constraint factors. This analysis revealed that age and income influenced whether or not an individual faced structural constraints (e.g., time and money ) and skill level influenced the presence of interpersonal constraints (e.g. specifically lack of partners )

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Golf is one of the few sports that can be played by individuals ranging from the age of five to the age of ninety. Furthermore, it is a game that promotes exercise ( Parkkari et al., 2000) socializa tion (Wood, 2011), and helps support the tourism industry at the regional, national, and international level. Regarding the promotion of exercise, Parkkari et al. (2000) found that older individuals benefit from walking a golf course. Specifically, a notic eable change in weight and body composition, as well as increased flexibility, was observed in individuals who participated in golf a couple of times per week. Given that a typical 18 hole golf course runs approximately 6,500 to 7,000 yards in length (whic h amounts to between six and seven miles to walk an entire golf course), the health benefits of golf participation were noted (Parkkari, et al., 2000) Further, Wood (2011) observed that some individuals use golf as a way to socialize with a group o f frien ds. In her study, female golfers noted that the nature of golf participation (laid back, played outdoors extends three to five hours) lends itself to social benefits and interaction that may not be present in other sports. Finally, g olf is a global sport that is used to specifically attract tourists to a destination. Places such as Disney have built numerous golf courses to attract a greater variety of visitors (Gibson, 1998) and to generate an economic boost for the resort and surrounding areas. Despite these known benefits, participation in the sport of golf has been in decline Report (2007, 2008, 2009), t he number of rounds of golf played per year in the United States has de clined 4.7% since 2007 and similar declines have been reported in other nations. Specifically, Veal (2009) assessed data from the Australian exercise,

PAGE 12

12 recreation, and sport survey from 2001 to 2007 to compare participation percentages in physical activit ies and found that golf participation declined 2.6%. The decline in golf participation is problematic because the golf industry creates jobs, generates taxes for communities, and contributes to the local tourism industry and the housing market. In 2005 th e United States golf industry had a total economic impact of $195 billion (Golf 20/20, 2008). This is a significant impact on the United States economy that if lost, would be detrimental. Due to this high economic impact the desire to use golf as a draw fo r invigorating local economies is high with the number of golf courses increasing over the past decade (National Golf Foundation, 2010). Though the number of courses has increased the demand has decreased over the same time period (National Golf Foundatio n, 2007, 2008, 2009) One reason for this decrease in demand could be the perceived technical complexity associated with golf participation. Since technology has increased the distance that a person can hit a ball newer golf courses have become longer to keep the distance of the course challenging. This increase in course length leads to longer and more difficult golf rounds which is a characteristic that may be frustrating for beginner or novice golfers As such, it may be that much more important for g olfers to participate in golf lessons to improve their abilities, and thus improve their enjoyment of the game. Historically, golf lessons have been perceived by managers as a means to facilitate golf skills improvement, better golf course experiences and by extension, increase the number of return visits. However, the literature contains limited understanding of the constraints associated with golf participation generally, and there

PAGE 13

13 is a void in the research concerning golf lesson participation specifical ly. In the context of the current decline trend, very little is understood about what constraints may limit individuals from participating in golf lessons. By understanding the constraints that individuals face, golf course managers can attempt to help po ssible golf lesson participants negotiate those constraints. Thus, golf managers improve the chances that a patron will participate in golf lessons, which will lead to future rounds played by that participant. Therefore the constraints that individuals fac e towards participation in golf lessons need to be identified. Many constraints exist to leisure and sport participation over the lifespan and For example, time and money are two of the most commonly ranked constraints faced by individuals (McGuire et al., 1986; Kay & Jackson, 1991; Johnson, Bowker, & Cordell, 2001; McGinnis & Gentry, 2006). McGuire et al. (1986) found that as individuals age time constraints gradually become m ore prohibitive until an individual reaches retirement when time becomes less restrictive. Money, on the other hand, restricts young participants until they reach middle age where it becomes slightly less prohibitive and then retirees become restricted mor e due to fixed income (McGuire et al., 1986). Golfers may face many of the same constraints faced by regular leisure participants; however the constraints they face may be more exaggerated due to the cost of a round of golf and the length of time required to complete a round. Because of the amount of time and money required to participate in a round of golf individuals may forego lessons in favor of playing a round of golf. Moreover their choice to participate in golf lessons specifically may be limited or con strained for multiple reasons.

PAGE 14

14 Constraints : A Theoretical Framework Jackson (1988 ) define ability to participate in leisure activities, to spend more time doing so, to take advantage of leisure service s, or to achieve a desired level of satisfaction Further, Crawford and Godbey (1987) reviewed leisure constraints literature and identified the absence of a leisure constraints conceptual model. From their review of the literature they went on t o qualify leisure constraints on the basis of three factors: structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Structural constraints are defined as factors which intervene in leisure preferences and participation (Crawford & Godbey, 1987) and may include ti me, money, and health. marginalized groups in America, t ime and money were found to be the most common constraints Specifically, s tructural constraints dictated what type of activity people participated in more than it kept them from doing an a ctivity. Furthermore, i n Samdahl and Jekubovi the researchers found that individuals who worked full time and/or had family obligations were limited in the amount of time they were able to allocate to leisure activities. In a study conducted on sport participation in Greece (Alexandris & Carroll, 1997a) three constraint factors were identified that fell within the structural category. These constraints were facilities /services, accessibility/financial, and time. Time was found to be the most common constraint observed/reported. Thus, it appears that the structural constraint of time plays a significant role in influencing whether or not individuals participate in leisu re activities. Within golf specifically, McGinnis and Gentry (2006) found that w omen were more likely than men to view family obligations as a constraint to golf participation, and those women who were

PAGE 15

15 married had no problem letting their husbands play whi le they stayed home with the family This finding may imply that women face greater time constraints when it comes pursuits. A second structural constraint, money, also shapes what type of leisure activities people chose Monetary considerations present a constraint for both adults and children (Kay & Jackson, 1991; Kremarik, 2000) Kremarik (2000) used data gathered from youth aged 15 and over to find out more about their sport participation. He found that f amilies that make more money are able to put children into more activities, including those that are more cost prohibitive (Kremarik, 2000). A few sports these children participated in included golf, hockey, socce r, downhill skiing, and tennis. Moreover, Kay and Jackson (1991) conducted a study of constraints on leisure participation across a wide range of living situations. The study areas consisted of participants ranging from inner city to upper class. Fifty six percent of those interviewed listed money as one of their dominant constraints to participation (Kay & Jackson, 1991). Further the study by Alexandris and Carroll (1997a) found that the third most experienced constraint was the financial constraint. With the price of sport participation and leisure increasing, coupled with the current recession, many families and individuals will most likely choose a less expensive activity. Physical health is another structural factor that influences participation and e njoyment in sport and leisure activities (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). For golf participation one must be able to turn their torso and move their arms to make a golf swing. Batt (1992) surveyed amateur golfers to see what injuries they sustained from

PAGE 16

16 playing golf and found that, of the participants surveyed, over half reported having a golf related injury, of those the top two injuries were to the wrist and back. Injury to the wrists and back make the motion of the golf swing more difficult and uncomfortable s ince the wrists must hinge and the body must turn around the spine. Experiencing discomfort, pain, or immobility would make that act of swinging a golf club more difficult, thus leading to reduced participation in golf and golf related activities (i.e., le ssons). Interpersonal constraints include relationships between participants, family responsibilities, absence of a leisure partner, and possessing a mismatched leisure partner (Crawford & Godbey, 1987; Samdahl & Jekubovi ch, 1997) McGinnis and 006) study of female golfers found that, for women with families, f amily responsibilities dictate what type s of activities are done and limit the women from their previous level of participation. To participate in golf an individual is not required to have a partner or team; it is an individual sport. However, having a partner can make it more enjoyable for participants as McGinnis and Gentry (2006) and Wood (2011) observed. mea ns of staying connected with friends while simultaneously getting their desired amount of physical activity. McGinnis and Gentry (2006) interviewed 20 golf professionals about their observations of female golfers at their courses. For women they observed t hat they preferred to play in groups of other women of their same ability level (McGinnis & Gentry, 2006). that they preferred to play in their normal group with one woman saying that she

PAGE 17

17 Alexandris and Carroll (1997b) found that having a partner to participate with was of some importance to those who participated in their study. By not having a partner to participate with, individuals may find an activity to b e un enjoyable. Conversely having a partner who is not of the same enthusiasm or skill level can also become a barrier to participation for an individual. This issue is seen with couples in Samdahl and t having a partner who is not interested in doing the same activities. These individuals become frustrated that their partners come up with excuses not to participate, thus reducing their leisure involvement and enjoyment. Intrapersonal constraints emphasi ze individual differences that are produced through varying personalities, levels of self esteem, perceived skill and psychological states such as fear, anxiety, and stress (Crawford and Godbey, 1987) If an individual does not feel that he or she is comp etent at a given activity, he or she may get frustrated, angry, and upset and no longer wish to participate in that activity These varying psychological states influence the ind activity and t activity. For example, if a person is learning or playing golf and he / she does not have patience then he / she will quickly become frustrated with the game, making it un enjoyable for him /her self and his / her playing partner ( s ) Leisure research has focuse d on factors influencing participation and constraints ; however, constraint literature has continued to evolve. Specifically, s ince Crawford and Godbey (1987) defined the ir typology of constraints (intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural) the measurem ent of these constraint factors has continued to shift. Specifically, each new study puts a slight adaptation to the constraints measurement

PAGE 18

18 scale, such as adding context specific factors (i.e. no other choice except skiing (Alexandris et al. 2008)) or rem oving unnecessary constraint items (i.e. lack of knowledge in Alexandris et al. (2008)). For the case of skiing it is more likely that an individual will realize that to get skiing instruction you must go to the ski resort. For the focus was on recreation participation as a whole (Crawford et al., 1991), focusing on specific leisure activities such as park use and skiing (Scott & Jackson, 1996; Alexandris, Kouthouris, Funk, & Chatzigianni, 2008), and then moving towards particip ation outside of N orth America (Alexandris & Carroll, 1997a). Constraints research has continued to evolve and will keep evolving to encompass specific sports (Wood, 2011). Specifically, Wood (2011) suggests that barriers to sport participation may be con text specific, which emphasizes the need to examine the phenomenon on a sport by sport b asis. Further the measurement of constraints is continually evolving For example, Alexandris and Carroll (1997a) uses seven factors to measure overall leisure constra ints, and later Alexandris et al. (2008) adapted the scale to assess only five leisure constraint factors. This use of fewer variables was a result of focusing on one specific leisure activity, rather than trying to encompass multiple leisure activities an d their constraints into one study (Alexandris et al., 2008) Research Purpose and Objectives Over the last decade, most (if not all) sectors of industry in North America ha ve seen some form of economic decline with the golf industry being no exception ( National Golf Foundation, 2007, 2008, 2009) The majority of research related to golf and sport in general, has lacked information about how sport lesson participation has been impacted. Thus, this study is to address the knowledge gap about golf lesson

PAGE 19

19 p articipation and the constraints individuals face Specifically, th e purpose of this study is t o identify the factors that constrain golfers from participating in golf lessons The objectives of this study are three fold. The first objective is to provide empirical evidence that may help to close the research gap concerning golf lesson participation constraints. The study therefore, will contribute to an evolving understanding of golf participation and golf lessons. Furthermore, the findings could provide a benchmark for research in other leisure or sport contexts where a link between increased participation and sport lesson participation is needed. The second objective is to provide much needed insights for golf professionals who may use the research to inf orm management and decision making personnel in areas such as lesson pricing, service delivery, and marketing. The third objective is to determine if a relationship exists between demographic variables and golf lesson constraints. This objective will prove useful to golf professionals for identifying how to target specific groups (e.g., women) by negotiating the constraints they face (e.g., structural). Chapter Summary The golf industry impacts the United States economy but the number of rounds played per year has decreased in recent years. This decrease directly impacts golf course revenues and indirectly impacts local economies. Golf is a difficult game that takes time and commitment to learn how to play, and therefore enjoy. Further golf rounds continue to get exceedingly long, due to players not being more skilled (e.g., losing golf balls, not knowing rules, teaching friends on the golf course). Golf lessons knowledge of the rules, and golf course etiquette. Thus, golf lessons are ever more

PAGE 20

20 important to improving the skill level of golfers so that they may enjoy the game, and potentially reduce drop off from participation. Therefore, identifying the constraints that indiv iduals face to participating in golf lessons is important to maintaining golf participation by those who are currently involved and for properly introducing new golfers to the game so that they will enjoy playing and continue to participate. With that in mind the purpose of this research is to identify the factors that constrain golfers from participating in golf lessons. This will be done through the use of leisure constraints theory (Crawford et al., 1991) where structural, intrapersonal, and interperson al constraints will be examined in relation to demographic variables

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Constraints to Participation As a reminder to the reader, constraints have been defined as anything that ability to participate in leisur e activities, to spend more time doing so, (Jackson, 1988, p. 203). In the last few decades, the literature indicates an evolving understanding of constraints in the cont ext of leisure and sport participation and several models have been proposed and tested. For example, Crawford and Godbey (1987) and Crawford et al. (1991) identified specific constraints as being intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural. In 1991, Craw ford et al. (1991) adapted the constraints identified by Crawford and Godbey (1987) and created a hierarchical model for measuring leisure constraints (Figure 2 1). The constraints were ranked as intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural. The constraint s were ranked as such because an individual first must overcome intrapersonal constraints (e g. fear) and form a desire or leisure preference. As such, if intrapersonal constraints are overcome by an individual, interpersonal constraints surface (e.g., la participation. Finally structural constraints are encountered (e.g., time commitments), which must be negotiated in order for participation in an activity to occur. This model explains how people move fro m one constraint to another in their leisure participation. Raymore, Godbey, Crawford, and Eye (1993) conducted a constraints study of high school kids based on the model created by Crawford et al. (1991) and found that constraints do follow the hierarchy that was proposed. Overall Raymore et al. (1993)

PAGE 22

22 found that individuals seemed to be either highly constrained structurally, intrapersonally, or interpersonally or they were relatively unconstrained structurally, intrapersonally, or interpersonally in the ir leisure participation. With busy daily lives it is difficult for individuals to fit leisure participation into their daily routine. In obser ving this, Samdahl and Jekubovi ch (1997) conducted in person interviews where participants were asked about their daily routine and whether they were able to make time for themselves during the day. Using the leisure constraints factors developed by Crawford et al. (1991), evidence of structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal constraints were uncovered. For struct ural constraints, money and time were two of the most commonly identified constraints to participation in outdoor recreation activities. The participants acknowledged that interpersonal constraints included family obligations, lack of partner, and having a partner who was not as skilled or enthusiastic as interpersonal constraints; however, most participants did not view family obligations as a significant constraint but more as a normal part of everyday life. Finally, intrapersonal constraints were not vie wed so much as leisure constraints but rather constraints on life in general. For instance, one participant detailed how he had lost everything due to alcoholism. In this regard intrapersonal constraints can be an overwhelming constraint to overcome for so me. Alexandris and Carroll (1997a) identified seven factors related to constraints faced by recreation participants. The seven factors were individual/psychology, lack of knowledge, facilities/services, accessibility/financial, lack of partners, time, and lack of interest. Here, they concluded that these seven constraint factors could be grouped into the constraint categories listed by Crawford and Godbey (1987): interpersonal (i.e., l ack

PAGE 23

23 of partners), intrapersonal (i.e., Individual/psychological and lack of interest), and structural constraints (i.e., facilities/services, accessibility/financial, and lack of time). Lack of knowledge fell into both intrapersonal and structural constraints due to the variables in the factor and therefore was not defined as o ne or the other. The study indicated that those who have more intrapersonal constraints are more likely to have lower levels of participation than those who are less intrapersonally constrained. Further, the study indicated that time and facilities/service s (structural constraints) were the highest rated factors constraining both participants and non participants. In a study of 502 Greek adults, conducted by Alexandris and Carroll (1999), on constraints to Greek recreational participation, found that time (structural constraint) was the most constraining factor on recreation participation. Work, family, and social commitments were the strongest factors relating to time constraints. As a factor of constraint, time was followed closely by the constraint of fa cilities/services (structural constraint) with lack of interest rated as the lowest constraint. Specifically, Alexandris and Carroll (1999) stated that the quality of the service and the sport facilities influenced willingness to participate in leisure act ivities in that inadequate facilities constrained participation. identified a number of constraints. Park users identified lack of time and being too busy with other activitie s as the top two constraints limiting them from using parks more. Both of these constraints can be classified as structural constraints relating to time. In their analysis they found that people of different ages reported time constraints differently. Spec ifically a difference existed between the middle age group related to both the

PAGE 24

24 younger and older groups, showing that middle aged participants were more constrained structurally than younger and older participants. Further, Younger individuals were found t o be participating in multiple activities more so than middle age and older individuals and reported a lack of information about parks as a reason for lower use of parks. This participation in multiple leisure activities limited the time they could spend p articipating in each of their different leisure pursuits. Seniors, those over 66, stated that they participated less due to lack of partners, poor health, and lack of transportation. In this case the strongest constraints to participation in leisure park u se differences did not exist, but a few items were noted as significantly different; family responsibilities, lack of partners, and distance to the parks. Jackson and Du nn (1991) used data collected from two surveys, administered by the Alberta Recreation and Parks in 1984 and 1988, to identify constraints faced by individuals who ceased a recreation activity and individuals who wanted to start a new recreation activity b ut could not. The data was divided into two groups. The first group included those individuals who ranked a constraint as not important and the second group included those who ranked constraints as somewhat important to very important. The first analysis w as the relative overall importance of barriers to participation. From this analysis the top ranked reason as a barrier to participation was cost of equipment to participate in a given activity. Whereas the top reason for ceasing an activity was being physi definition of structural constraints. The second analysis measured the differences in Younger

PAGE 25

25 and older individuals were less constrained then middle aged individuals when asked about family commitments and lack of leisure partner, interpersonal constraints (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). Lack of transportation, a structural constraint, was the opposite, constraining younger and older individuals more than middle aged individuals. Finally, cost of equipment, a structural constraint (Crawford & Godbey, 1987), became d efinition of constraints, age appears to influence interpersonal (e.g., lack of partners and family commitments) and structural (e.g., cost of equipment and lack of transportation) constraints. Jackson and Henderson (1995) conducted a study on gender based differences related to leisure constraints which revealed that women are more constrained than men in their leisure participation. Specifically, women are more constrained intrapersonally and interpersonally due to a difficulty of having others to partici pate with, family responsibilities, lack of ability, lack of knowledge of where to participate, and lack of transportation. Women were also found to be more constrained by social isolation and lack of skills. From this analysis they found that family and w ork commitments were got older until they reached the age of 43 when they started to become less milar levels of constraints based on income. It was noted that women between the ages of 22

PAGE 26

26 of interpersonal and intrapersonal constraints (Crawford & Go dbey, 1987) A study conducted on the demographic differences in the perception of constraints to recreational activity (Alexandris & Carroll, 1997b) on the Greek population identified the same seven constraint factors identified by Alexandris and Carroll ( 1997a) and found that demographic differences exist in the level of constraints felt by participants. Two of these demographics apply to the current study; these demographics are gender and age. Females, overall, were found to be significantly more constr ained than males. Specifically the study identified intrapersonal constraints to be the most experienced constraints by females. Using the hierarchical constraints model (Crawford et al., 1991) females in this study were in the first stage of constraints, intrapersonal, which includes characteristics such as the individual/psychological and lack of knowledge. Since this is the first constraint that must be negotiated this supports the finding that females had a lower rate of participation in leisure activit ies. well, with significant differences existing in the time, individual/psychology, and lack of knowledge constraints. Overall the youngest group (18 25) and oldest group (4 6 65) were found to be the most constrained. The oldest group was found to be most constrained by individual psychology and lack of knowledge, while the middle age groups (26 35 and 36 45 years old) were found to be constrained more than the young and old groups by time. This same finding was evidenced by Scott and Jackson (1996).

PAGE 27

27 Overall constraints related to time and facilities/services (structural constraints) were reported to be the most perceived constraints by participants. A study of 190 skiing par ticipants indicated that intrapersonal constraints are important in predicting skiing behavior (Alexandris, Kouthouris, Funk, & Chatzigianni, 2008). Again, psychological and time constraints were the constraints experienced most frequently by the participa nts in the study. Skiers may have felt they were not good skiers or that they were not fit enough to ski, and since skiing, for most individuals, requires travel time to and from the resort, time constraints play a big part in determining if and how often an individual can participate in skiing. Moreover, Alexandris, Funk, and Pritchard (2011) conducted a study of skier constraints and motivation in Greece. The sample included 294 participants who filled out a self reported questionnaire updated and adapted leisure constraints scale. Constraints and motivation were found to be negatively correlated, this indicates that the more constraints that must be negotiated the less motivated an individual is likely to be. The u individuals are constrained was seen throughout the reviewed literature. The vast majority of previous research has adopted Crawford et al Crawford an exploring leisure constraints among participants. As such, structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal constraints were selected for use in the current study as the theoretical model an d conceptualization technique for measuring how individuals are constrained in their golf lesson participation.

PAGE 28

28 From the literature structural constraints (i.e., time, money) appear to be the most strongly perceived constraints by recreation and leisure participants. However, after reviewing previous research in this area, it appears that the hierarchical model created by Crawford et al. (1991) ( Figure 2 1) may be problematic when examining sport lesson participation specifically. For instance with the exception of Jackson and Dunn (1991), each reviewed article sampled current leisure participants who were asked why they did not participate more often or ceased participation all together. Since participants in the se studies already participated in the ac tivities examined (e.g., skiing, parks, outdoor recreation), it would be reasonable to assume that they have already negotiated intrapersonal constraints (e.g., fear, anxiety) Further, Jackson and Dunn (1991) found that for participants who wished to star t a new activity they rated structural constraints as the highest factor for constraining their participation in a new activity. Therefore, the findings of previous research do not appear to follow t he hierarchy proposed by Crawford et al. (1991) that sugg ests that intrapersonal constraints are faced before interpersonal constraints which are then followed by structural constraints This could be because individuals have negotiated intrapersonal constraints to begin the activity, and therefore intrapersonal constraints are no longer the most constraining factor to participation. For example, with an individual who has already participated in skiing the fear attached to continued skiing participation (intrapersonal constraint) is no t the greatest issue, but r ather the interpersonal (e.g., lack of partner) or structural (e.g., lack of money) constraints may be the deterring factors to enhanced participation. This challenge to the model may be particularly relevant for golf lessons where individuals

PAGE 29

29 will typical ly have participated in at least one golf related experience (e.g., driving range, round of golf) prior to contemplating lesson participation. Influence of Demographic Variables Demographic variables are important to recreational professionals in identify ing target markets. Further, understanding if and how demographic variables influence constraint levels can help industry professionals attempt to target specific markets for sustained or increased lesson participation. Support for the exploration of how d emographic variables influence constraints is evidenced in a study conducted by Alexandris and Carroll (1997b). Specifically, education, age, gender, and marital status were all found to have an effect on the constraints faced by sport participants. In the following section s each demographic variable will be addressed with evidence of how each can constrain sport and leisure participation. Gender Men and women face many constraints and barriers to participation in sport and leisure activities. In the case o f golf participation women face greater constraints than men. In particular, McGinnis and Gentry (2006) conducted interviews of golf professionals about the difficulties that women face in golf. From these interviews it was f they are not important people in golf Gentry, 2006, p. 224) given that golf is typically viewed as being a masculine sport, which can lead to social closure for women. social group, seeking to monopoli ze its own life chances, organizes itself against (Weber, 1978 p. 342 ) S ocial closure can be experienced by female golfers in many ways. For instance,

PAGE 30

30 McGinnis et al. (2005) conducted inter views of women from the mid west about how they are treated in golf and how they feel on the golf course. From that research lack of merchandise, course setup, and golf functions were found to be particularly relevant to social closure (McGinnis et al., 20 05 ). Lack of merchandise for women such as equipment, clothing, and accessories was a common concern for women (McGinnis et al., 2005) Most men do not face this particular problem, although left handed golfers may sometimes run in to problems finding rea dily available clubs. Both left handed golfers and w omen may be an under represented market in golf and by not having merchandise for them many feel forgotten and women may feel unwanted. Social closure in the form of course setup is felt by women through a lack of restroom facilities on the golf course ( McGinnis et al., 2005 ). J ohnson et al. (2001) also found that inadequate facilities were a common constraint for recreation. Since men are not limited in their need to use restroom facilities and can relieve themselves anywhere on the course, the lack of restroom facilities have lead women to feel that the golf course is an extension of et al., 2005), which can result in a segregated at mosphere for women (McGinnis & Gentry, 2006). It is not surprising then that female golfers experience more anxiety, primarily feeling unimportant, threatened, lost, and unaccepted as a result of the course setup (Mc G innis &Gentry, 2006). T hese factors wo uld increase non participation decisions and removal from an activity as women declines.

PAGE 31

31 Golf outings are enjoyable experiences where fellow golfers can come together and c ompete with one another, socialize, and enjoy golf. However, for women to participate in an outing a majority of the time it is in couples events where they must play with men (McGinnis et al., 2005). For some women this is fine because they already play w ith their husband or boyfriend, but it limits those women who wish to play with and against other women, and socialize with other women, with very few opportunities ( McGinnis et al., 2005; Wood, 2011) used their social gro up to allow them to have other women to play golf with once a week. By having this group of women they were able to have an enjoyable golf experience. Since these women are faced with facility and equipment barriers, as evidenced, social closure in this ca se would fit as a structural constraint as defined by Crawford et al. (1991) Social closure also puts on added pressure which leads women to underperform due to increased anxiety. This anxiety leads them to fall into gendered stereotypes of women who are s low, bad g olfers (McGinnis et al. 2005). Increased anxiety also appears to lead women to take lessons in groups and a desire to avoid making mistakes (Mc G innis & Gentry, 2006 ; Wood, 2011 ). This desire to avoid mistakes also leads w omen to take group lesson s because it makes them more comfortable learning around other s who are of the same skill as themselves Wood (2011) concluded in her study of a group of female golfers that women were more comfortable learning with each other; groups they trusted and knew had similar skill levels. McGinnis and Gentry (2006) also found that females display less confidence on the golf course, during lessons, and with their golf knowledge, more so than men do. This may be a result of

PAGE 32

32 the hegemonic structure of golf and the tr eatment that women receive in sports by men. Men also treat women as if they have n o knowledge of golf without knowing anything The anxiety and lack of confidence created by social closure fits with i ntrapersonal constraints as defined by Crawford et al. (1991). One of the ways people believe you can show golfing ability is by how far you hit the ball off the tee, and this is no different for women. McGinnis et al. (2005) and McG innis and Gentry (2006) found that women were concerned about driving distance as a measure of golfing ability and felt that slow speed of play lead them to be stereotyped as bad golfers. Many women assume that because they do not hit the ball very far they are inadequate golfer s, and they believe that men see them as inadequate as well. Many of the women involved in these studies believe driving distance is important to determining who belongs on the golf course ( Mc Ginnis et al., 2 005; McGinnis & Gentry, 2006). However, the real ity is that it only determines which tee box one should be playing from. Because of this misconception many women put unneeded pressure and dissatisfaction upon themselves and their level of play (McGinnis et al., 2005). In addition to these pressures wome n felt that in order to feel on par with the men they must drive the ball further. Thus, it may be that women feel they must play in a similar way to men to deserve to be on the golf course. Being labeled as slow players was of larger concern then a lac k of driving distance (McGinnis & women feel picked on by the men at the golf course as well as the golf course employees. Women would be warned to watch their pace of play but many women never witn essed the men being

PAGE 33

33 warned. This targeting of the women puts more pressure on them. Due to being labeled as slow players women fe el rushed when they play on the course because they do not want to be slow (McGinnis et al., 2005) Because women are still viewed as being inferior players to men they are doubted for their abi lity and knowledge of the game. In McGinnis et al. (2005), one women, who is an NCAA Division one college player, was less respected by the men until they found out her credentials at wh ich point they would then try to make up for their behavior. roles. This leads to women emphasizing the differences between men and women on the golf course. Women who embrace their femininity try to play in such a way that they do not appear to o masculine. For some this is not too difficult since to them golf can T oken women golfers reported feelings of frustration because of stereotyping, heightened performance pressures due to increased visibility, and role entrapment because of gendered expectations of behavior. (McGinnis et al. 2005 p. 320 ) McGinnis, Gentry, and McQuillan (2009) interviewed 22 fe male golfers about their golfing habits along with their likes and dislikes about golf. From those interviews they concluded that female golfers can be broken down into three groups; accommodating, unapologetic, and unaware. Accommodating women will act i n such a way that does not challenge the masculinity of the men on the golf course. These women will avoid times when men play more and many of these w omen will play only with their significant others. Some of the women in this group actually felt more unc omfortable playing with other women than with men. According to McGinnis et al. (2009) these women would

PAGE 34

34 playing their own success. This group would be mostly intrapersonally con strained since they feel that they must act in a certain way and have feelings of social pressure. The unapologetic group challenged the gender norms and rituals. These women felt that they should be treated equally with the men and found power when playin g with women who had similar views. These women found enjoyment in playing golf and being competitive with the men. The unapologetic women will mostly be constrained interpersonally because they prefer playing with like minded women. They will not be very constrained because they play for the love of the game but they may feel some interpersonal constraints. The unaware group was either unaware or ignored the masculine rituals and gender norms and played because of intrinsic motivation and enjoyment of the game. They shared the love for the game that the unapologetic women had and felt many of the problems in golf but did not feel that these problems were gender biased, such as confusing golf terms and rules, and therefore felt gender biases were of little concern This group will not be constrained by one specific constraint more than another. Women fell into these groups based on how they view their playing partners. It is important to see how women view themselves on the golf course because it provides in sight into how golf can become more inclusive and break gender norms and stigmas in golf themselves by creating their own set of rules to play by. These women ignored much of the estab on the green, kicking the ball out from under bushes, talking while others are hitting the

PAGE 35

35 ules they made the game more enjoyable and easier f or themselves to play and since they were not worried about playing in competition they have no need to adhere to the strict rules of golf. These women tried to negotiate the interpersonal constraint by c reating a group the y fe l t comfortable playing golf with which in turn will help negotiate the other two constraints better. Time is a big factor in determining how much an individual can participate in a leisure activity (Samdahl & Jekubovich, 1997). F or golf participation women tend to play less golf than men ( McGinnis & Gentry, 2006) Some of the reasons that women reported were family obligations, time constraints, lack of ability, and frustration with the game (McGinnis & Gentry, 2006). These constrain ts can be grouped into both structural constraints and intrapersonal constraints. Time and family obligations both fit under structural constraints and lack of ability is an intrapersonal constraint (Crawford et al., 1991). Taking care of the kids takes a lot of time and many women stated that many times their husbands would take time to play golf but they themselves had never asked their significant other to watch the kids so that they could go play golf (McGinnis et al. 2005 ). Women were not only frustrat ed with their own abilities with the game but with the way they were treated by other players. Golf is still a male dominated sport, with only about 20% of golfers being women, therefore many women still feel out of place and unwelcome on the golf course (National Golf Foundation, 1998). Also women tend to take over more of the family responsibilities than men do which puts golf and golf lessons low on the list of priorities. With these pressures from men at the course and family responsibilities that take up

PAGE 36

36 possible leisure time there will most likely be gender differences in the constraints faced by golfers to participate in golf lessons. Women appear to face more constraints than men do in the golf participation. The two most obvious being structural an d intrapersonal, women must first overcome the intrapersonal constraints that they have built up within themselves before they can negotiate the structural constraints. Age McGuire, Dottavio, and the lifespan and ranked constraints as limitors and prohibitors. Limitors were constraints all together. From this study i t was found that everyone is constrained in s ome way across their lifespan but the constraints change and the level of each constraint changes The top three constraints identified by McGuire et al. (1986) were lack of time, lack of companions, and poor health. In McGuire s (1986) study time constraints and lack of companions were high limitors to participation in young to middle aged persons but as individuals reached their fifties the percentage in which they were limited decreased. (1991) study on the leisure activities of adolescent students, 1274 students were surveyed about their leisure time participation. Time was ranked highly by 250 of the students as a constraint to their participation in current activities as well as constraining their inte rest in trying new ones. Since youth have so much to do between school, family obligations, and extracurricular activities they do not have enough time to participate in everything they wish to participate in. Johnson et al. (2001) found the individuals pa rticipation in their favorite activity was the top constraint cited by those who participate in leisure activities and non participants. Poor health increased as a

PAGE 37

37 limitor as individuals increased in age with a large increase after age 50 (McGuire et al., 1986). Both Johnson et al. (2001) and McGuire (1984) found that older individuals were more likely to be constrained by personal health problems than younger individuals. Thus, these findings suggest that there may be constraints to participants of all age s; however, analysis of these differences remains relatively scant. As an individual gets older he or she will begin to have more time to partake in leisure activities and find it easier to find a companion to participate with (McGuire, 1986) Young children do not have much problem finding people to that every age group will have someone constrained in just about every way. Son, Kerstetter, and Mow en (2008) conducted a study on age and gender and how it is related to constraining physical activity. Two hundred seventy one participants age d 50 and older were involved in the study to identify how age and gender were related to the constraints faced i n leisure participation. It was found that age wa s not related to overall constraint levels for older adults compared to middle age d in di viduals (Son et al. 2008). Son et al. (2008) and McGuire et al. (1986) both have similar findings for individuals arou nd 50 years of age and their participation in leisure activities. It is agreed by both Son et al. (2008) and McGuire et al. (1986) that constraint levels are similar for middle age to elderly individuals but the constraints that individuals face change as they get older Everyone has something that constrains them from participating in activities or completing tasks that they set for themselves. One of the factors that will dictate the extent that an individual is constrained is his or her age. As individua ls become older

PAGE 38

38 age could be a way to identify how an individual is constrained. Socio Economic Status Golf is an expensive sport in terms of both time and money. To play a round of golf an individual must have golf clubs and pay a fee to play at the golf course. This fee ranges from $20 to upwards of $100. Additionally, many golf courses require membership to play and charge membership fees. Along with these fees one has to account for how much is their time worth. The average amount of time for an 18 hole round of golf is four hours, a long amount of time to take out of a day. The socioeconomic status of an individual or family plays an important role in the decis ion to participate in golf and golf lessons. Socioeconomic status (SES) is a conglomerate of factors that include occupation, education, income, wealth, and place of residence. By looking at the combination of education, income, wealth, and place of resid ence, it creates a better understanding of how an individual lives than the use of each element individually. Raymore, Godbey, and Crawford (1994) used SES as a means of measuring self esteem, leisure participation and desire to participate in leisure. It was found that SES is negatively correlated to intrapersonal constraints in that as SES goes up the number of intrapersonal constraints goes down (Raymore et al., 1994). The same study also found esteem increased as income level i ncreased. Therefore it can constrained decreases. Won, Hwang, and Kleiber (2009) conducted a study on how golfers choose a golf course. The study included 155 participa nts who were asked to rank the most important

PAGE 39

39 factors they consider when choosing a location to play. Between men and women, cost of a round of golf (greens fees) was third and second respectively (Won et al., 2009). It was noted that individuals who make less than $60,000 per year ranked cost as the on his or her ability to participate in golf and golf related activities (i.e., lessons). In minority under participation in golf, focus groups consisting of minorities from North Chicago were used to determine possible reasons as to why minorities did not participate. Cost was ranked as one of the dominant factors preventing those involved in th e study group from participating (Gobster, 2009). Cerin and Leslie (2008) studied the link between socioeconomic status and physically active leisure participation. For their study, 2650 participants aged 20 65 were randomly sampled and asked to rate thei r physically active leisure along with the collection of SES data. Walking was used as the measure for physically active leisure participation. Cerin and Leslie (2008) found that higher income, higher education, and higher self efficacy led to higher parti cipation in walking for leisure, whereas individuals with lower income, lower education, and lower self efficacy had lower participation rates. economic status will impact the choice or the level of constraints faced in his or her participation in golf lessons. The socio economic status of an individual falls under structural constraints in that individuals are constrained by financial issues. Skill Level Skill development i s done in a couple of ways. Early on in an individual s sporting career it has been suggested that the best way to begin the learning process is through

PAGE 40

40 deliberate play (Cote, Lidor, & Hackfort, 2009) Deliberate play is where an individual is given the op port unity to engage themselves in sport s without any real guidance at first to let them explore what they can do. Cote et al. (2009) suggested that through deliberate play individuals develop the necessary skills to later specialize in a single sport. Afte r deliberate play is deliberate practice where instruction and focus on basi c essential skills is performed; i n the case of golf deliberate practice would include focus on the proper grip, stance, alignment, ball position, and swing plane. These elements are considered the foundations for the golf swing and are learned through golf instruction Skill level is an important factor to the enjoyment of sports activities. Therefore, the current and desired skill level of an athlete will be important factors in the consideration of how much time that individual will participate in lessons and deliberate practice sessions to improve his or her skills. The skill level of an individual will constrain people intrapersonally, since each individual sets their own goals and determines for Further it can be fit somewhat under interpersonal constraints because they may not be able to find a partner to participate with because they are eithe r too skilled or not skilled enough for particular groups. Research Question What constraints exist to golf lesson participation and does a relationship exist between constraints and demographic characteristics of golf lesson participant s ?

PAGE 41

41 Hypotheses Giv en the summary of literature represented in the preceding section, the economic status. Specifically, fou r hypotheses were formed to identify how individuals are constrained in their golf lesson participation. Given the lack of research on constraints related to golf lesson participation, the magnitude and direction of this influence on individual constraints is unknown. As such, the hypotheses are as follows: Hypothesis one: There will be d ifferences between males and females in their constraints Hypothesis two: There will be differences between age groups in their constraints. Hypothesis three: There will be differences between skill levels and their constraints Hypothesis four: There will be differences between different income levels and their constraints Conclusion The current chapter outlined constraints as defined by Crawford and Godbey (1987) i nto structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal factors and provided supporting evidence for those constraints and how they affect leisure participation. From the review of the literature structural constraints were the most perceived constraints by parti cipants as constraining to leisure participation. Participants in each of the studies had a wide range of participation constraints with age being most related to structural

PAGE 42

42 constraints, where as gender was related to both intrapersonal and interpersonal c onstraints. Further, how these constraints relate to demographic characteristics of individuals has been outlined. The current study specifically focuses on constraints to golf lesson participation and is intended to fill this gap in the academic literatur e and open up further research into specific sport constraints research. Four hypotheses have been established to identify how demographic variables relate to structural, interpersonal, and intrapersonal constraints related to golf lesson participation. Figure 2 1. Hierarchical model of leisure constraints [Retreived from A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. (source: Crawford, Jackson, &Godbey, 1991, p. 313.) ]

PAGE 43

43 CHAPTER 3 METHODS The current study involved the collection of quantitative dat a through the use of pencil and paper surveys administered in person at golf facilities located in Gainesville, Florida. The questionnaires (Appendix ) consist ed of self constructed items measuring demographic information (i.e., gender, age, skill level, an d socio economic status), average 18 h ole golf score and frequency of golf lesson participation. There w ere also q uestions regarding if an individual feels they participate often enough in golf lessons, and why they may not participate mor e in golf lesson s. The survey was designed to take five minutes to complete. items underwent minor wording adjustments to fit the current golf lesson participation context. Within this scale there are five fac tors that include individual ( e.g., it makes me feel tired), lack of partners ( e.g., nobody to participate with), golfing experience ( e.g., e.g., work/study comm e.g., lessons are expensive) Prior to data collection, Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval of the project was obtained. The target population was Gainesville area golf participants. Current golf participants we re chosen because of ease of access in locating individuals for participation, rather than asking random individuals if they have considered taking a golf lesson before. The average Gainesville, Florida resident is 26.4 years old, makes $27,420 per year, a nd have a r elatively equal male to female ratio (48.9% and 51.1% respectively) (City of Gainesville, 2011). The average skill level of golfers in Gain esville

PAGE 44

44 is relatively unknown. In total, 143 individuals were invited to participate in the study. Of thos e who were invited, 108 individuals completed the pencil and paper questionnaire for a response rate of 75.5 % Survey collection took place onsite at the Mark Bostic k golf course, Gainesville Country Club, and Ironwood golf courses. These courses were chos en because they are located in different parts of Gainesville which receive different types of players. Also each course receives a different type of player demographic. Gainesville Country Club is a private golf course with high membership dues. The Mark Bostic k faculty, staff, and athletic booster members. Finally Ironwood golf course is a city run golf course that has lower costs for play. Further these courses were willin g to allow the researcher to hand out surveys during business hours. Each golf course had a different response rate with 35.2 % of the respondents coming from the Mark Bostic k golf course, 23.1 % of the respondents coming from Gainesville Country Club, and 41. 7 % of the respondents coming from Ironwood golf course (Figure 3 1). Convenience sampling was used to gather data from local golfers in Gainesville, Florida. A table was set up at three local golf course s where golfers were asked to participate in a brief survey about their golf lesson participation. Data was analyzed using SPSS software and multiple comparisons were r un to formulate groups based on gender, age, skill level, income, and frequency of participation and interest in golf lessons Descriptive a nd multivariate analysis of variance ( M ANOVA) statistics were run to determine the differences in level of participation in golf lessons, create a basic demographic profile of participants, and

PAGE 45

45 examine potential significant differences in the impact of con straints related to the demographic characteristics of the participants Delimitations This study has been delimited to individuals who are golfers in the area of Gainesville, Florida Limitations The study was limited to a sample population of golfers in the geographical area of is important to note that the range of ages and the ratio of male to female golfers in this city is not be a good representative sample of the entire golf population. Also, the skill level of golfers is not a representative sample of the golfing population. In particular, the type of golf courses within the city may be limiting; three public courses, two private courses, and the university go lf course, which is limited to students, faculty, and alumni are available to the Gainesville population. Convenience sampling is limiting because it cannot be used to represent a population (Bryman, 2008). As such, it does not give everyone in the populat ion an equal chance of being selected. Convenience sampling may lead to biased results due to motivation for participation in the survey; however, this potential bias was combated by not offering an external incentive such as a prize for participation. By not offering external incentive it puts the focus back on the purpose of the study rather than putting focus on whether the prize is worth the participat ion Convenience sampling is the best meth od for the current study due to ease of access to golfers in Gainesville Florida; it is low cost, and is the quickest way to obtain data. For the purpose of this study, being an initial look at

PAGE 46

46 constraints in golf lessons, this strategy provide d a good bas e for future research to build from and compare to. Therefore the researcher has firsth and experience through interaction with golf lesson students and fellow golf instructors about how people interact while taking lessons, and some reasons that people do not take more golf lessons. These experiences influence some of the opinions and some o f the items on the questionnaire. Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis One Hypothesis one was tested using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with gender as the independent variable and the five factors identified in the factor analysis as dependent var iables. Hypothesis Two Hypothesis two was tested using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with age as the independent variable and the five factors identified in the factor analysis as dependent variables. Hypothesis Three Hypothesis three was tes ted using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with skill level as the independent variable and the five factors identified in the factor analysis as dependent variables.

PAGE 47

47 Hypothesis Four Hypothesis four was tested using multivariate analysis of varia nce (MANOVA) with income as the independent variable and the five factors identified in the factor analysis as dependent variables. Assumptions It was assumed that there would be differences in the types of constraints faced and the level of constraints b ased on demographic variables. Specifically, women would be more constrained than men, middle aged individuals would be more constrained by time than younger and older individuals, middle aged individuals would be less constrained financially than young an d older individuals, and that those with lower incomes would be more constrained financially than those with higher incomes.

PAGE 48

48 Figure 3 1. Map of Gainesville, Florida with golf course locations. Mark Bostick Golf Course Ironwood Golf Course Gainesville Country Club

PAGE 49

49 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Of the 108 responses 86.6 % were men and 13.2 % were women, where the majority of participants (30 .0 %) fell into the 41 60 years of age category. Approximately 47 .0 % of the respondents reported household income over $100,001. Skill level of survey participants was measured by average scor e since not all golfers keep a golf handicap. The scores ranged from 72 to 130 and were broken down into categories of skill level for analysis: 72 to 80 (experienced; 15.2%), 81 to 90 (avid; 48.5%), 91 to 100 (average; 23.2%), and 101 and over (beginner/n ovice; 13.1%). When asked to indicate their previous participation in golf lessons, 52.8 % of respondents indicated that they had not taken lessons; however, 65.7 % indicated that they were at least somewhat interested in taking golf lessons in the future. T his data represents the basic demographic profile of participants in the study. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the participant profile, cross tabulation analyses were run to analyze golfers demographic factors related to their interest i n golf lessons and their frequency of participating in golf lessons. The cross of participation in lessons to better understand what type of golfer participated in th e study. These results are displayed in Tables 4 1 through 4 8, and demonstrate how demographic factors interact with current golf lesson participation, as well as interest in participating in golf lessons.

PAGE 50

50 Demographic Profile Age Of those that indicated they had participated in golf lessons, individuals who were 41 to 60 years old had the highest frequency of participation (Table 4 1). Specifically, 33.3 % of those 41 to 60 years old participated once a year, while 46.6 % of individuals in the same age gro up participated in lessons two to six times a year. The lowest level of golf participation was in the 26 40 age category, where the participants were found to have a 35.0 % overall lesson frequency rate. Furthermore, as noted, the majority (30.0 % ) of surve y respondents fell into the 41 to 60 age category. Of those 30.0% 76.6 % indicated they were at least somewhat interested (Table 4 2) in taking golf lessons. Interestingly those that were in the 26 40 age category (18.9 % ) and had noted only a 35.0 % lesson frequency rate also indicated a substantial interest in taking golf lessons in the future (63.1 % ). Gender Of the survey respondents, 50.0 % of women indicated that they did not participate (Table 4 3) in golf lessons. However, of the 50.0 % that had taken le ssons, 85.0 % of those individuals took lessons between once a month and once a year. For the men, 53.2 % stated they did not take golf lessons. However, of those who did take lessons, 41.8 % took lessons once a year and 37.2 % took lessons two to six times a year. Of note, a larger percentage (64.0% ) of male respondents indicated that they were at least somewhat interested (Table 4 4) in lessons. Moreover, 78.5 % of female respondents indicated that they were interested in taking golf lessons.

PAGE 51

51 Skill Level Wit hin the skill level categories, the individuals with the highest level of participation (Table 4 5) were in the 81 to 90 skill category (avid golfer) with a rate of 85.7 % ; yet, all of the groups had a high level of interest in taking golf lessons. The 72 t o 80 skill category (experienced golfer) had a 76.9 % interest (Table4 6) in taking golf lessons followed closely by the individuals in the 91 to 100 skill category (average golfer) with a 73.9 % interest rate. Those individuals in the 101 and over skill cat egory (beginner/novice golfer) reported a 50 % interest rate in taking golf lessons. Socio Economic Status Survey respondents in the $100,001 to $120,000 income category had the highest participation (Table 4 7) rate with 71.4 % taking lessons once a year. Of those in the over $120,001 income category, respondents indicated participation rates of 39.1 % taking lessons once a year and 39.1 % taking lessons two to six times a year. For golf lesson interest (Table 4 8), 84 .0% of respondents were at least somewha t interested in taking golf lessons in the $100,001 to $120,000 income category. Summary of Participation and Interest in Golf Lessons When asked how often do you participate in golf lessons 70.6 % indicated that they either did not participate in golf l essons or only did once a year. However, interestingly of those who did not currently participate in golf lessons, 52.7 % indicated they were at least somewhat interested in taking golf lessons in the future. As such, to serve the purpose of this study, it is also important to examine the potential constraints

PAGE 52

52 Factor Analysis A principal components factor analysis was run and then rotated using a varimax rot ation to determine the factor structure of the items used to measure constraints among golf lesson participants. From the factor analysis, a five factor structure emerged from the data. The five factors accounted for 71.4 % of the variance explained in the factor structure. Only those components with eigenvalues greater than 1.00 were retained and rotated. The results are shown in Table 4 9. The factors were labeled similar to previous literature (Alexandris et al., 2008) and the conceptual relevance of the labels to the items under each factor. As such, the factors are as follows: 1) ndividual psychology (four items), 2) ack of partners (four items), 3) olfing experience (four items), 4) ime constraints (four items), and 5) inance (two items). New variables were created with the items identified so that further analysis could be run. Those items that were greater than .60 and no closer than .10 from loading on any other factor were included in the analysis ( Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). It is i M = 1.67, SD = M = 2.30, SD = 1.697 ) were removed wh en recoding the factors for hypothesis testing These items were removed because they di d not conceptually fit the definition of the factors under which they were loading (Table 4 9). calculated for each of the individual scales to determine scale reliability and ranged from .83 to .9 4 Therefore, the values fell into acceptable limits ( DeVellis, 1991) Multivariate Analysis o f Variance ( MANOVA ) gender skill level, and income level as the independent variables. The five constraint factors identified by the factor analysis

PAGE 53

53 (individual psychology, lack of partners, golfing experience, time constraints, and finance) were used as the dependent variables. From the MANOVA statistics a significant difference was found for three of the independent variables ; age, income, and skill level. Age was found to influence significant differences in constraint dependent variables. Specifically, t he 41 60 ( M =3.6, SD= 1.5 ) year old group differed significantly from both the 26 40 ( M =4.2, SD= 1.8 ) and the over 60 ( M =2.3, SD= 1.3) age 1 0 ). Thus, the 26 40 year old age group 60 age group, and the over 60 age group was less constrain ed than the 41 25 ( M =4.3, SD =2.0) age group differed significantly from both the 26 40 ( M =2.6, SD =1.9) and 60 and over ( M =2.3, SD =1.5) age groups (Table 4 10 ). Th ose individuals in the 19 25 age group were more 26 40 and the over 60 age group, th us partially supporting hypothesis two. const raint with the income groups of $40,001 $60,000 ( M =4.6, SD= 2.2) and the $100,001 $120,000 ( M =2.9, SD =1.6) being sig nificantly different (Table 4 11 ). Those individuals who made between $40,001 and $60,000 were more constrained than those who made between $ 100,001 and $120,000. This partially supports hypothesis four. differences for those individuals who scored over 101 ( M =2.7, SD= 1.4) on 18 holes (Table 4 12 ) compared to t hose who scored between 91 100 ( M =1.5, SD =.6) and 81 90

PAGE 54

54 ( M =1.7, SD =1.1) (Table 4 12 ). Individuals who scored over 101(beginner/novice) were more constrained than both the 91 100 (average) group and the 81 90 (avid) group in e results partially support hypothesis three. Finally no significant difference was found to exist between the level of constraints faced betwe en males and females (Table 4 13 ) which provides no support for hypothesis one

PAGE 55

55 Table 4 1. Lesson Frequency/Age G roup Cross tabulation Age G roup Total under 18 19 25 26 40 41 60 60 and over Lesson Frequency Not at All 1 15 13 17 10 56 Once a year 0 3 3 5 9 20 2 6 times a year 0 6 2 7 3 18 Once a month 0 0 1 1 2 4 Twice a month 0 2 0 1 0 3 Once a we ek 1 0 1 1 1 4 Twice a week or more 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 2 26 20 32 26 106 Table 4 2. Lesson Interest/A ge G roup Cross tabulation A ge G roup Total under 18 19 25 26 40 41 60 60 and over Lesson Interest Not at all 1 0 1 1 2 5 Uninterested 0 0 3 2 1 6 Somewhat Uninterested 0 3 2 2 2 9 Neutral 0 4 1 3 7 15 Somewhat Interested 0 9 3 9 5 26 Interested 0 6 5 9 8 28 Very Interested 1 4 4 4 1 14 Total 2 26 19 30 26 103

PAGE 56

56 Table 4 3. Lesson Frequency /G ender Cross tabulation G ender Total Ma le Female Lesson Frequency Not at All 49 7 56 Once a year 18 2 20 2 6 times a year 16 2 18 Once a month 2 2 4 Twice a month 3 0 3 Once a week 3 1 4 Twice a week or more 1 0 1 Total 92 14 106 Table 4 4. Lesson Interest/G ender Cross tabulat ion G ender Total Male Female Lesson Interest Not at all 4 1 5 Uninterested 4 2 6 Somewhat Uninterested 9 0 9 Neutral 15 0 15 Somewhat Interested 23 3 26 Interested 22 6 28 Very Interested 12 2 14 Total 89 14 103

PAGE 57

57 Table 4 5. Lesson Fr equency/ S kill Level Cross tabulation Score Total 72 80 81 90 91 100 101+ Lesson Frequency Not at All 5 27 11 8 51 Once a year 3 10 4 2 19 2 6 times a year 4 8 5 0 17 Once a month 1 1 1 1 4 Twice a month 1 1 0 1 3 Once a week 1 1 2 0 4 Twi ce a week or more 0 0 0 1 1 Total 15 48 23 13 99 Table 4 6. Lesson Interest/Skill Level Cross tabulation Score Total 72 80 81 90 91 100 101+ Lesson Interest Not at all 1 3 0 1 5 Uninterested 1 0 3 2 6 Somewhat Uninterested 1 3 2 2 8 Neutral 0 11 1 1 13 Somewhat Interested 4 14 6 2 26 Interested 1 12 8 3 24 Very Interested 5 5 3 1 14 Total 13 48 23 12 96

PAGE 58

58 Table 4 7. Lesson Frequency/Household Income Cross tabulation What range does your household income fall Total < $20,000 $20 ,001 $40,000 $40,001 $60,000 $60,001 $80,000 $80,001 $100,000 $100,001 $120,000 >$120,001 Rather not say Lesson Frequency Not at All 7 2 9 8 4 10 10 6 56 Once a year 0 2 1 1 1 5 9 1 20 2 6 times a year 0 1 3 1 1 1 9 2 18 Once a month 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 4 Twice a month 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 Once a week 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 4 Twice a week or more 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Total 8 5 14 11 8 17 33 10 106 Table 4 8. Lesson Interest/Household Income Cross tabulation What range does your household income fall Tota l < $20,000 $20,001 $40,000 $40,001 $60,000 $60,001 $80,000 $80,001 $100,000 $100,001 $120,000 >$120,001 Rather not say Lesson Interest Not at all 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 5 Uninterested 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 6 Somewhat Uninterested 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 2 9 Neutral 0 1 5 2 2 2 2 1 15 Somewhat Interested 4 1 4 1 1 4 9 2 26 Interested 1 2 2 3 2 4 13 1 28 Very Interested 1 1 0 1 1 1 5 4 14 Total 8 5 14 10 8 16 32 10 103

PAGE 59

59 Table 4 9. Factor Items Survey Items Factor Individual psychology Lack of partners Golfing e xperience Time constraints Finance / Cannot afford Feel too tired to participate .840 It makes me feel tired .805 Afraid of getting injured .800 Perceived health problems .711 Transportation problems .606 Nobody to participate with .840 Friends do not like golf lessons .792 Friends do not have time .757 Not Feeling confident in my skills .584 Not happy in social situations .568 Not liking the golf facility .885 Feeling Unwelcome at the golf course .86 1 Not liking the Weather .815 No Choices other than Golfing .606 Work/study commitments .863 Family commitments .847 Social time commitments .834 Not enough time .641 Cannot afford lessons .922 Lessons are expensive .911

PAGE 60

60 Table 4 10. Age Group MANOVA Participant Group under 18 19 25 26 40 41 60 over 60 Dependent Measure M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Lack of Time 4.0 2.8 3.5 1.6 4.2 a 1.8 3.6 b 1.5 2.3 a,b 1.3 Finance/Cannot afford 4.3 3.2 4.3 a 2.0 2. 6 a 1.9 3 .0 2.0 2.3 a 1.5 Note. Means in a row sharing subscripts are significantly different. Table 4 11 Income MANOVA Participant Group <$20,000 $20,001 $40,000 $40,001 $60,000 $60,001 $80,000 $80,000 $100,000 $100,001 $120,000 >$120,000 Depe ndent Measure M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Finance/ Cannot afford 4.2 2.2 5.1 1.2 4.6 a 2.2 2.1 1.2 3.3 2.0 2.9 a 1.6 2.5 1.8 Note. Means in a row sharing subscripts are significantly different.

PAGE 61

61 Table 4 12. Average Score MANOVA 72 80 81 90 91 101 O ver 101 Dependent Measure M SD M SD M SD M SD Lack of Partner 1.9 1.2 1.8 a 1.1 1.5 b .6 2.8 a,b 1.4 Note. Means sharing subscripts are significantly different. Table 4 13. Gender MANOVA Male Female Dependent Measure M SD M SD Individual Psychology 1. 5 .83 1.6 .94 Lack of Partner 1.8 1.1 2.4 1.4 Golf Experience 2.7 1.6 2.5 1.5 Lack of Time 3.2 1.7 4.0 1.6 Finance/Cannot afford 2.9 2.0 4.0 2.1

PAGE 62

62 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The purpose of the current study was to identify constraints to golf lesson participation Further, there were two underlying objectives. The first objective was to provide empirical evidence of constraints and how they relate to demographic variables that may help to close the research gap concerning golf lesson participa tion constraints. The second objective was to provide much needed insights for golf professionals who may use the research to inform management and decision making personnel in areas such as lesson pricing, service delivery, and marketing. Five constraint factors similar to those found by A lexandris et al. (2008); ndividual psychology olfing experience inance were identified from the factor analysis (Table 4 9 ). These factors were used t o test the four hypotheses; Hypothesis one: There will be differences between males and females in their constraints. Hypothesis two: There will be differences between age groups in their constraints. Hypothesis three: There will be differences between s kill levels and their constraints. Hypothesis four: There will be differences between different income levels and their constraints. Hypotheses No differences in constraints between men and women were found in thi s study; both men and women reported bei ng equally constrained by the five factors Therefore providing no support for hypothesis one. This finding contrasts what McGinnis and

PAGE 63

63 Gentry (2006) found in their study of female golfers. Specifically, in their study, women faced more social pressures an d barriers in course set up and lack of merchandise. Since the current study focuses on constraints to lesson participation and not constraints to golf participation, as McGinnis and Gentry (2006) studied, it may be that women feel less constrained by the learning process than by the actual play. Further Alexandris and Carroll (1997b) identified that women are constrained intrapersonally (Crawford & Godbey, 1987) specifically by individual/psychology and lack of knowledge. More evidence of females being mor e constrained is seen in t he conclusions of McGinnis et al. (2005) and McGinnis and Gentry (2006) ; that women experience constraints through social closure, lack of merchandise, and family responsibilities, each of which can be classified as structural con straints (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). Furthermore, Jackson and Henderson (1995) identified that women are more constrained by men both intrapersonally a nd interpersonally (Crawford & Godbey, 1987). There are a few possible reasons for not finding a signific ant difference between men and women in lesson constraints in the current study. First, the small number of female survey participants may have contributed to this result. With a small number of female participants the amount of variability between partici pants is more difficult to obtain, thus a larger sample of females may provide different results. Second, the females who do participate did not perceive any of the items as being more constraining to their participation than the men did. Third, the women who participated have already successfully negotiated their constraints, therefore no longer considering them constraining. For example Wood (2011) found that women prefer to participate with

PAGE 64

6 4 other women and therefore actively pursue playing partners befo re getting involved in the sport As such, the lesson participation in the current study (i.e., already involved in playing golf) may not be constrained by lack of partner. Further, men may wish to participate in lessons on their own rather than in a group, which may limit their need for a practice partner. Thus, there would be no variation between genders when Finally, the number of men who participated in the study was more than double the number of women who participated, which would lead to a dilution of percentages for the men. These are a few possible reasons that no significant differences were found in the data. faced between different age groups therefore partially supporting hypothesis two. and 60 were found to differ from both the 26 40 and over 60 age groups. The 26 40 age group was found to be the most constrained age group followed by the 41 60 age group. Since the 26 40 age group includes those individuals who are just starting and still advancing through their careers as well those with families with young to adolescent children it would be assumed that this group would be most constrained. This trend follows what McGuire et al. (1986) and Alexandris and Carroll (1997b) found in their h retirement. Further, Scott and Jackson (1996) found that time was a constraint to leisure participation provides support that age is related to structural constraints.

PAGE 65

65 Differences who were 19 25 years old being the most constrained and differing from the 26 40 age group and the 60 and over age groups respectively. The 19 25 age group includes students and individu als who are just starting out in new jobs. These groups tend not to have much discretionary income to spend on activities such as golf lessons. From this defined by C rawford and Godbey (1987). This finding is supported by Alexandris and participation by Jackson and Dunn (1991) and Jackson and Henderson (1995) as well. Significant differenc es were also found in the constraints faced between individuals with varied skill levels, thus providing some support for hypothesis three. average score from 101 and up (beginner/novice) compared to those from two groups; 91 100 (average) and 81 90 (avid). Those individuals who scored 101 and over were the most constrained by not having a partner to participate with, followed by the 81 90 and 91 100 groups respectively Further, those individuals who have a higher average score may be infrequent golf participants who only participate when they have a partner to participate with. As Wood (2011) found, some individuals only participate because of the social group they are a part of and only play when members of that group are playing. From this analysis the skill level of an individual is constrained by interpersonal constraints as defined by Crawford and Godbey (1987). This finding is further supported by Samdahl and Jeku bovich (1997) and McGinnis and Gentry (2006) who found the

PAGE 66

66 Participants from Samdahl and Jekubovich mismatched leisure partner was co skill level, but there is little literature relating skill level and constraints specifically. Differences were found in the constraints faced between different income levels, specifically for the cons hypothesis four. Those individuals whose income was between $40,001 and $60,000 were found to be significantly more constrained than those individuals who made between $100,001 and $120,000 Won et al. (2009) found that those individuals who make under $60,000 per year rated cost of a round of golf as the highest constraint to a structural constrain t (Crawford & Godbey, 1987) further support for this finding is established by Kay and Jackson (1991) and Samdahl and Jekubovich (1997) who found structural constraints (cost of leisure and lack of money) to be one of the top constraining factors to leisur e participation. For those individuals in the higher income categories their ability to negotiate this constraint is supported by Raymore et al. (1994) negotiate constrai nts increases. From the hypothesis testing it was found that demographic characteristics influence constraint variables. Specifically, were all found to be significant constraints r elated to golf lesson participation are labeled as structural constraints (Crawford & Godbey, 1987) whereas t he lack of partner is an interpersonal constraint (Crawford & Godbey, 1987 ). This supports

PAGE 67

67 previous literature (Jackson & Dunn, 1991; Scott & Jackson, 1996; Alexandris & Carroll, 1997b; Samdahl & Jekubovich 1997) that found structural constraints to be the strongest constraint factor to constraining leisure participation follow ed closely by interpersonal constraints. The findings in the current study provide support for the need to re hierarchical model, specifically in the context of sport participation where individuals have already been participating in the sport (i.e. golf lesson participation). Moreover, t he demographic variables age and socio economic status specifically influenced structural constraints and skill level influenced interpersonal co nstraints. G ender did not reveal any differences in the level of constraints felt by study participants. Interestingly, intrapersonal constraints were not significantly influenced by any of the demographic factors in the current study. This may be due, in large part, to golf lessons being a sub section of the sport of golf. Since those individuals who already play golf were asked to participate in the survey they have already negotiated most, if not all, of the intrapersonal constraints that they would face as first time participants. Therefore they do not need to negotiate intrapersonal constraints before participating in golf lessons. Conclusion Overall demographic variables do have some influence on how an individ ual will be constrained in his/her golf le level, and socio economic status will affect how an individual is constrained. Thus providing an answer to the research question, a relationship was found to exist between demographic characteris tics and the constraints that an individual will face in their golf lesson participation. Furthermore, in t he current study both structural and interpersonal

PAGE 68

68 constraints were the strongest constraints faced by individuals in their golf lesson participation It was assumed that s ince most individuals may already negotiate intrapersonal constraints in order to participate in golf itself, then they must only negotiate interpersonal and structural constraints to participate in golf lessons. This is an assumptio n that should be explored in future research through qualitative interviews with golf participants. The current study has t heoretical, m ethodological, and p ractical contributions that should be addressed 991) model providing evidence for how demographic factors influence (1987) constraint factor s. This is particularly useful for constraints theorists moving forward who may wish to examine specific constraints in depth with demographic populations that are relevant to each constraint. For example, when exploring interpersonal constraints it may be helpful to target female populations to gain a more in depth understanding of antecedents and outcomes of this particular constraint category Methodologically this study supports how the leisure constraints scale adapted from Alexandris et al. (2008) can be further adapted for use in measuring leisure constraints of golf lesson participation. This may be particularly relevant for individuals a ssessing lesson participation in other sport contexts (e.g., skiing, tennis). Practically, the findings show how specific demographic characteristics of people may affect the way in which an individual is constrained, which can be used by golf professional s. Each of these contributions is outlined in detail in the following sections. Theoretical C ontributions Leisure constraints theory has been focused on leisure participation on a broad scale, specifically the literature has only gone as deep as looking at constraints related

PAGE 69

69 to a leisure activity as a whole. Raymore et al. (1993) and Jackson and Dunn (1991) observed constraints related to general leisure participation, Samdahl and Jekubovich (1997) focused on the ability to make time for any kind of leisur e participation, Alexandris and Carroll (1997a) observed general recreation participation, and Alexandris et al. (2008) observed constraints faced by skiing participants. Overall there has been little focus on very specific sport by sport or even more spec ific, sport lesson constraint research. This research focus on the sport of golf, specifically golf lesson participation and how constraints impact participation in golf lessons contributes not only to constraints literature but to golf participation liter ature and more specifically opens the door to sport lesson participation research. The current study further adds to constraints literature by providing information about how demographic variables relate age and socio economic status are related to structural constraints and that skill level of an individual is related to interpersonal constraints (Figure 5 1.). This research contributes further application towards measuring constraints as they relate to golf lesson participation. Specifically, since golf lessons are a sub section of golf as a whole, the negotiation of constraints for golf lessons via intrapersonal constraints (Crawford & Godbey, 1987) may n ot be influenced by demographic characteristics in particular. Since the individuals involved in this study were already golf participants, and therefore had negotiated their intrapersonal constraints (e.g. anxiety, and lack of ability, and lack of knowled ge about golf) they no longer needed to negotiate intrapersonal constraints to participate in golf lessons. This suggests that a leisure activity can be broken down further to identify

PAGE 70

70 constraints based on specific aspects of that sport, as in the case of golf lessons, where demographic factors may only influence interpersonal and structural constraints within constraints should be considered in this context. The current stud y involved the use of current golf participants, which would lead to participants who have already negotiated most if not all intrapersonal constraints. Future research into golf lesson participation would benefit from looking at non golf participants and the constraints faced by individuals interested in participation, but have not yet participated. These individuals may be constrained differently than current golf participants within each of the intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural constraint fact ors Methodological C onsiderations As in any research projects, it is important to recognize the potential limitations of the study. First, t his study was limited by the sample area of Gainesville Florida since the demographics do not represent the Unite d States golf population Despite the potential limits on generalizability, the findings here provide a benchmark for the need to further decipher constraints to sport lesson participation. Second, since this was the first study to be done on golf lesson p articipation constraints, the validity of the constraints scale from Alexandris et al. (2008) may need to be reassessed in this context with this phenomenon. Specifically, the leisure constraint factors within their scale may not adequately represent the f actors that constrain lesson participation. The leisure constraints scale, adapted from Alexandris et al. (2008), was a good stepping stone to identifying constraints to golf lesson participation. With that said there are a few items that should be added to the scale for future research into golf lesson

PAGE 71

71 participation. First, information about availability of partners, social identity attached to lesson participation, how people view the importance of instruction to improving their game and the enjoyment o f the game may be factors that will reveal more detailed information about constraints related to golf lesson participation that was not identified in the current study. Second, availability of instructors, quality of instructors, and knowledge of where to get instruction should be included in future research. Third evaluating how a person currently views their golf game (do they feel they need to improve, are they happy with their current performance) would be a key factor to determining if an individual f eels they are constrained. If an individual feels they play well enough, or does not feel they need to improve their golf game then it will impact how they rank their level of constraints to golf lesson participation. Practical C ontributions This research has contributed to the current literature on sport participation, specifically by highlighting the importance of social factors when examining constraints to sport lesson participation. It has also made some practical contributions for golf professionals and golf course managers. For those golf professional and golf course managers looking to improve the number of lessons (and the number of rounds played) there are a few suggestions from p, providing more golf participants to meet others of their ability leve l and find partners to play golf with. Adjusting the price of golf lessons would improve the ability of those who made between $40,001 and $60,000 dollars as well those individuals who are in between 26

PAGE 72

72 40 years of age. Both these groups reported that the cost of a lesson was a major reason for not participating in golf lessons. This demographic category also represents the younger generation, who will be the ones to pass the sport down to their children, and who will be contributing to golf for some time to come. By assisting this demographic golf professionals can work toward ensuring the future of golf through improved gol f games and access to lessons for more people. the most difficult constraint to assist people in negotiating, since golf lessons are already structured into half hour and hour long sessions. Shorter lesson periods may not be a viable option to consider for assisting the negotiation of this constraint. Therefore, providing a blocked session where an instructor is available to assist anyone who walks up could improve the negotiation of this constraint. Structuring the block as a clinic where the instructor(s) will spend a short amount of time with each in dividual would work for this time block. It gives more people the chance to have their swing critiqued and can allow the instructor to work with more individuals. The current study sought to identify the constraints to golf lesson participation. Specifical ly, the constraints as they relate to a persons age, gender, skill level, and socio economic status. Age, skill level, and socio economic status were found to be related to how an individual is constrained in their golf lesson participation. This research has contributed new insight to golf lesson participation and constraints research and paved the way for future research into sport lesson participation constraints. Further it has provided golf professionals with some suggestions for improving the number of lesson participants and how people are constrained in their

PAGE 73

73 lesson participation so that they may come up with other possibilities for negotiated those constraints. Figure 5 1. How demographic variables influence constraints Structural Constraints Interpersonal Constraints Age Socio economic status Skill Level

PAGE 74

74 APPENDI X QUESTIONNAIRE Golf Lesson Participation Questionnaire Thank you for agreeing to participate in this survey regarding golf lesson frequency of participation and the constraints that are faced in the choice to participate or not to participate. Plea se indicate in the following questions your level of participation in golf lessons by circling a number on the scale from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Twice a week or more). 1. How often do you participate in golf lessons? Not at all Once a year 2 6 times a year Onc e a Month Twice a month Once a week Twice a week or more 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Whether you have participated or not, please rate your interest in taking lessons by circling a number on the scale from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Very interested). Not at all Uninterest ed Somewhat uninterested Neutral Somewhat interested Interested Very interested 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 **If you have not participated in golf lessons, please move on to Question 5 3. If you have participated in golf lessons, please indicate how long your average lesson lasts by circling a number on the scale from 1 (Less than 20 minutes) to 6 (More than 60 Minutes). Less than 20 minutes 21 to 30 minutes 31 to 40 minutes 41 to 50 minutes 51 to 60 minutes More than 60 minutes 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. In your opinion, do your golf lessons last a sufficient length of time? (Please check the answer that best applies to you) Yes No If no, should your golf lesson be longer or shorter? Longer Shorter The next section of questions will address potential factors that constrain yo u from either participating in golf lessons or participating more often in golf lessons.

PAGE 75

75 5. To what extent does cost influence your choice to participate in golf lessons? Not at all Always 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Please indicate the price you would be wi lling to pay for golf lessons by checking the most appropriate box below. I would not pay for golf lessons $10 to $20 $21 to $30 $31 to $40 $41 to $50 $51 to $60 $61 to $70 $71 or more 7. If you have taken golf lessons, what price range did you last pay for golf lessons? I have not taken golf lessons $10 to $20 $21 to $30 $31 to $40 $41 to $50 $51 to $60 $61 to $70 $71 or more 8. Please rank the frequency that each of the following items constrains your ability and/or desire to participate in golf lessons by ci rcling a number from 1 (Not Important ) to 7 ( Very Important ). Not Important Neutral Very Important Not having time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not liking golf facility 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not liking weather conditions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not feeling welcome on the course 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No other choices except golfing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It makes me feel tired 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Feel too tired to participate in golf lessons 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 76

76 Afraid of injury or getting hurt 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Perceived health problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not fe eling confident in my skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not happy in social situations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Time: work/studies commitments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Time: family commitments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Time: social commitments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Transportation problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C annot afford lessons 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Lessons are an expensive activity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Friends do not have time 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Nobody to participate in lessons with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Friends do not like golf lessons 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. Are there any other reasons that keep you from taking golf lessons more often? _______________________________________________________ 10. Do you have any other activities that keep you from participating in golf lessons? Yes No If yes, please list the activities. __________ _______________________________ In this last section of the questionnaire we would like to ask you some information about yourself. This information is for statistical purposes only and it will be kept confidential. 11. What is your average golf score for an 18 hole round? ___________ 12. What age range do you fall in? Under 18 19 to 25 26 40 41 60 Ov er 60 13. What is your gender? Male Female 14. Do you have family living with you? Yes

PAGE 77

77 No If yes, how many family members are in your household? _______________ 15. In wha t range would your household income fall? Less than $20,000 $20,001 to $40,000 $40,001 to $60,000 $60,001 to $80,000 $80,001 to $100,000 $100,001 to $120,000 More than $120,001 THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION

PAGE 78

78 LIST O F REFERENCES Alexandris, K., & Carroll, B. (1997a). An analysis of leisure constraints based on different recreational sport participation levels: results from a study in Greece. Leisure Sciences 19(1), 1 15. Alexandris, K., & Carroll, B. (1997b). Demogr aphic differences in the perception of constraints on recreational sport participation: results from a study in Greece. Leisure Studies, 16 107 125. Alexandris, K., & Carroll, B. (1999). Constraints on recreational sport participation in adults in Greece: Implications for providing and managing sport services. Journal of Sport Management, 13 317 332. Alexandris, K., Funk, D., & Pritchard, M. (2011). Impact of constraints on motivation, activity attachment, and skier intentions to continue. Journal of Lei sure Research 43(1 ), 56 79. Alexandris, K., Kouthouris, C., Funk, D., & Chatzigianni, E. (2008). Examining the relationships between leisure constraints, involvement and attitudinal loyalty among Greek recreational skiers. European Sport Management Quart erly, 8(3), 247 264. Alexandris, K., Tsorbatzoudis, C., & Grouios, G. (2002). Perceived constraints on recreational sport participation: investigating their relationship with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. Journal of Leisure Research 34(3), 233 252. Batt, M. E. (1992). A survey of golf injuries in amateur golfers. Br itish J ournal of Sp orts Med icine 26(1 ), 63 65. doi: 0.1136/bjsm.26.1.63 Bryman, A. (2008). S ocial rese a r ch methods. (third ed., pp. 183 184). New York, NY: Oxfo rd University Press. Cerin, E., & Leslie, E. (2008). How socio economic status contributes to participation in leisure time physical activity Social Science and Medicine, 66 2596 2609. Cote, J., Lidor, R., & Hackfort, D. (2009). ISSP position stand: To s ample or to specialize? Seven postulates about youth sport activities that lead to continued participation and elite performance International Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 9, 7 17. Crawford, D.W., & Godbey, G. (1987). Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 9 119 127. Crawford, D. W., Jackson, E. L., & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13 309 320

PAGE 79

79 Jackson, E. L., Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1993). Negotiation of leisure constraints Leisure Sciences, 15(1), 1 11. Jackson, E. L., & Henderson, K. A. (1995). Gender based analysis of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 17(1 ), 31 51. Devellis, F. (1991). Scale development. Theory and applications. Applied social research me thods series Vol. 26. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49 725 747. Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch Rmer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate pra ctice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100 363 406. Funk, D., Alexandris, K., & Ping, Y. (2009). To go or stay home and watch: exploring the balance between motives and perceived constraints for major events. Internation al j ournal of Tourism Research, 11 41 53. doi: 10.1002/jtr.682 Garton, A., & Pratt, C. (1991). Leisure activities of adolescent students: Predictors of participation and interest. Journal of Adolescence, 14, 305 321. Gibson, J., (1998): Active sport tourism: who participates?, Leisure Studies, 17( 2 ) 155 170 Gobster, P. (1998). Explanations for minority "underparticipation" in outdoor recreation: a look at golf. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 16(1) 46 64. Golf 20/20. (2008). The 2005 golf econ omy report. Golf 20/20 Google Maps. (2012). [Gainesville, Florida] [Street map]. Retrieved from http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl Jackson, E.L. (1988) Leisure constraints: a survey of past research Leisure sciences, 10, 203 215. Jackson, E.L., & Du nn, E., (1991) Is constrained leisure an internally homogeneous concept? Leisure Sciences 13 167 184. Johnson, C, Bowker, J, & Cordell, H. (2001). Outdoor recreation constraints: and examination of race, gender, and rural dwelling. Southern rural sociolo gy, 17 111 113 Kremarik, F. (2000). A family affair: Children's participation in sports. Canadian social trends, 11(8)

PAGE 80

80 McGinnis, L, & Gentry, J. (2006). Getting past the red tees: Constraints women face in golf and strategies to help them stay. Journal of Sport Management, 20 218 247. McGinnis, L, Gentry, J, & McQ uillan, J. (2009). Ritual based behavior that reinforces Leisure Sciences, 31 19 36. McGinnis, L, McQuillan, J, & Chapple, C. (2005). I just want to play: women, sexism, and persistence in golf. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 29 314 337. McGuire, R. T., & Cook, D. L. (1983). The influence of others and the decision to participate in youth sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 6 9 16. McGuire, F., Dottavio, D., & O'Leary, J. (1986). Constraints to participation in outdoor recreation across the life span: a nationwide study of limitors and prohibitors. The Gerontologist, 26(5) 538 544. National Golf Foundation. (1998). Golf pa rticipation remains steady. http://www.ngf.org/whatsnew/OLD/story60.html National Golf Foundation. (2009). Golf's supply during the last decade. National Golf Foundation, National Golf Foundation Rounds Played report, (2007). National Golf Foundation. Rounds Played Report, (2008). National Golf Foundation. Rounds Played Report, (2009). Onboard Informatics. (2011).Gainesville Florida. Retrieved from http://www.city data.com/city/Gainesville Florid a.html Parkkari J, Natri A, Kannus P, Mnttri A, Laukkanen R, Haapasalo H, Nenonen A, Pasanen M, Oja P, Vuori I. 2000. A controlled trial of the health benefits of regular walking on a golf course. American Journal of Medicine 109 102 108 Raymore, L., G odbey, G., & Crawford, D. (1994). Self esteem, gender, and socioeconomic status: their relation to perceptions of constraint on leisure among adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(2) 99 118. Raymore, L., Godbey, G., Crawford, D., & Eye, A, V. (1993 ) Nature and process of leisure constraints: an empirical test. Leisure Sciences, 15 99 113 Samdahl, D., & Jekubovich, N. (1997). A critique of leisure constraints: comparative analyses and understanding. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(4) 430 452.

PAGE 81

81 Son, J., Kerstetter, D., & Mowen, A. (2008). Do gender and age matter in the constraint negotiation of physically active leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 40(2), 267 289. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics, 5th ed. Bost on, MA: Pearson Education. USGA. (2008, August 5). Usga announces rules changes on golf club grooves. Retrieved from http://www.usga.org/news.aspx?id=24795 Australian Parks and Leisure, 26 28. Weber, M. (1978). Max Weber: Selections in translation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Won, D., Hwang, S., & Kleiber, D. (2009). How do golfers choose a course? a conjoint factor analysis of influencing factors. Journal of Park and Recreati on Administration, 27(9) 1 16. Wood, L. (2011) Continued sport participation and the negotiation of constraints. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Ontario London, Ontario, Canada

PAGE 82

82 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Philip Somersall attended Concord University where he was a member of the golf team for four years. He graduated in 2009 with a degree in recreation and tourism management. After graduating from Concord University he obtained a golf instructor certification and pursued golf instruction be fore being accepted to the University of Florida to obtain his m