Citation
The leisure preferences of older adults

Material Information

Title:
The leisure preferences of older adults
Creator:
Tango, Robert Anthony, 1946-
Copyright Date:
1986
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Abstractionism ( jstor )
Art collecting ( jstor )
Cooperative games ( jstor )
Crafts ( jstor )
Entertainment ( jstor )
Exertion ( jstor )
Mathematical dependent variables ( jstor )
Older adults ( jstor )
Recreation ( jstor )
Sports ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
AEQ8978 ( ltuf )
16865073 ( oclc )
0030367711 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












THE LEISURE PREFERENCES OF OLDER ADULTS


by

ROBERT ANTHONY TANGO
















A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY




UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1986
































Copyright 1986

by

Robert Anthony Tango


































To my Family
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


This study would have not been possible without the support, encouragement, guidance, and cooperation of many faculty members, many administrators of a variety of both public and private centers for older adults, and friends and associates of mine. I would like to thank Dr. Harold Riker for introducing me to the need for research on older adults and for helping me define the scope and form of this dissertation, and Dr. Larry Loesch for helping me get started. I would like to acknowledge the computer programming of Silom Horwitz, my older adult neighbor without whose lavish patience and understanding this study would have floundered. I would like to thank Dr. Charles Dzubian and my friend Roy Reber whose patience and encouragement helped me through various dilemmas and doldrums I encountered along the way. I appreciate the encouragement and information given to me by Dr. Robert Bland. Without the guidance, structure, and patience of all of these people, I might have never finished.

Thanks are also due to the many professionals at the District VII Office of the State of Florida Department of










Health and Rehabilitative Services, the Jewish Community Center in Maitland, FL, the Casselberry Senior Center, Seminole County Mental Health Association, and other agencies and individuals who encouraged their clients to participate in this study.

To Marilyn, my wife, I extend my love in appreciation for countless hours she spent alone facing three creative children while I worked on this study.

To my delightful children, Lisa, Robert, and Lindsay,

whose faces are a source of honest joy for me; to my father, Anthony Tango, whose desire for me to succeed at this project was a continuous source of courage for me; and, to the hundreds of older adults who took a good deal of their time patiently waiting for me to get my equipment set up and answering my many questions, I express my gratitude.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . iv LIST OF TABLES . viii ABSTRACT . x i CHAPTER

I INTRODUCTION . I

The Need for Leisure Preference Research . 2 Rationale for This Study . 5 Purpose of the Study . 6 Theoretical Basis for Study . 6 Definition of Terms . 8
Organization of the Remainder of the
S tudy . 9

II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . 10

Introduction . 10
Descriptions of Older Adults in the United
States . 1i
Leisure Defined . 16 Quality of Life and Leisure . 18 Research on Older Adult Leisure . 23 Studies on Leisure Choice Determinants . 29 A Paradigm for Leisure Preference . 30 Summary . 33

III METHODOLOGY . 35

Hypotheses . 35 Procedures . 36 Instrumentation . 40 Subjects . 43 Data Collection Procedures . 46 Data Analyses . 49 Limitations . 52

IV RESULTS . 55

Data Transformations . 56 Sample Characteristics . 56
Descriptions of General and Intermediate
Dependent Variables . 57









Explanation of the Cluster Analysis of 28
General Leisure Activities . 63
Discriminating Gender, Race, and Age by
Using Unique Clusters of Variables . 93
Analysis of Intermediate Dependent
Variable Components in Relationship to
Significant Predictor Variables . 97
Analyses of Specific Level Leisure
Preferences Statements in Terms of
Race, Gender, and Age Demographics . 99

V DISCUSSION . 125

Hypotheses . 126 Patterns . 129 Conclusions . 129 Implications . . 131
Suggestions for Further Research . 134 Summary . 139

APPENDICES

A AVOCATIONAL ACTIVITIES INVENTORY . 140
B DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL
FACTORS AND EXERTION FACTORS . 154

REFERENCES . 156

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . 164


vii
















LIST OF TABLES


TABLE Page

I Description and Range of Predictor Variables . 38

2 Component Activity Totals in Leisure Hierarchy for Each Level . 39 3 Sites Where Subjects Were Surveyed . 45 4 Symbols and Explanations Printed on Computer Screen . 48

5 Projected and Actual Number Totals for Sample Representation . 59

6 Mean, Standard Deviation, Range, Skewness, and Kurtosis for General Level Leisure Activities . 60

7 Mean, Standard Deviation, Range, Skewness, and Kurtosis for Intermediate Level Leisure
Activities . 61

8 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Gender Subgroup Men . 69

9 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Gender Subgroup Women . 70 10 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Education Subgroup Elementary . 71 11 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Education Subgroup High School . 72 12 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Education Subgroup College . 73 13 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Race Subgroup White . 74 14 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Race Subgroup Black . 75 15 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Occupation Subgroup Data . 76


viii










16 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Occupation Subgroup People . 77

17 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Occupation Subgroup Things . 78

18 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Occupation Subgroup Ideas . 79

19 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Physical Subgroup Not Restricted . 80

20 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Physical Subgroup Restricted . 81

21 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Household Type Subgroup Living With Spouse . 82

22 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Living Conditions Alone . 83

23 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Household Type Subgroup Group Quarters . 84

24 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Household Type Subgroup Relatives . 85

25 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Income Subgroup Sufficient . 86

26 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Income Subgroup Not Sufficient . 87

27 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Age Subgroup 60/64 . 88

28 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Age Subgroup 65/69 . 89

29 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Age Subgroup 70/74 . 90

30 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Age Subgroup 75/79 . 91

31 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for
Age Subgroup 80/up . 92

32 Discriminant Analysis of Age by Selected General
Activities . 95

33 Discriminant Analysis of Gender by Selected General
Activities . 95










34 Discriminant Analysis of Race by Selected General
Activities . 96

35 Mean, Standard Deviation, and F and P Value for
Intermediate Activities Related to Race . 100

36 Mean, Standard Deviation, and F and P Value for
Intermediate Activities Related to Gender . 102

37 Mean, Standard Deviation, and F and P Value for
Intermediate Activities Related to Age . 104

38 Frequency Counts and Chi-Square Statistics for
Specific Level Preferences in Relation to Gender . III

39 Frequency Counts and Chi-Square Statistics for
Specific Level Preferences in Relation to Age . 114

40 Frequency Counts and Chi-Square Statistics for
Specific Level Preferences in Relation to Race . 120
















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of
the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy



THE LEISURE PREFERENCES OF OLDER ADULTS


By


Robert Anthony Tango


December, 1986


Chair: Harold C. Riker
Co-Chair: Larry C. Loesch
Major Department: Counselor Education


This study examined the relationship between the

leisure preferences of older adults and their environmental and demographic characteristics. Previous researchers have generally supported the thesis that leisure preferences relate to psychosocial and demographic factors. This study was intended to determine whether it was possible to associate the leisure preferences of older adults with personal characteristics and environmental factors; further, a preference profile of a representative sample of American older adults was developed.

Subjects (N= 303) were asked to evaluate their

preferences for leisure activities by responding to an










interactive, microcomputer based version of the Avocational Activities Inventory (AAI). Results were reported on General, Intermediate, and Specific levels. Significant differences (p = <.05) were found in the leisure preferences of older adults by age, race, and gender, but not by household type, income, physical limitations, work history, and level of education.

Three themes were found to be associated with the age, gender, and race of an older adult. Utilitarian activities were attractive to 60 - 64 year olds, but not to adults who were 80 years old and older. Pre-patterned activities were attractive to older adult men more than they were to older adult women. Structured activities were attractive to whites more so than to blacks. An overall preference profile established for this sample ranged from preferences for industrious, productive, and self-improvement activities to preferences for passive and pensive activities. For adults 80 years old and older, depression was discussed as a factor which might be blocking gratification of needs; thus suggesting that more needs to be done to facilitate a healthful life for these people.

Suggestions were offered for further research on older adult activity preferences. The use of interactive computing with older adults was also discussed.


xii
















CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION


Older adult leisure preferences are so varied that to

try to isolate their patterns seems an exceedingly difficult effort; however, discovering the linkages between the personal characteristics of older adults and their leisure activity preferences appears worth the effort. With the aid of such research, older adults may be better able to reduce or eliminate blocks to activity and to gain new perspectives on healthful living.

Leisure preferences are different from vocational

interests. They do not relate to the demands of employers, school curricula, or other achievement hurdles imposed from without. They relate to the attainment of a satisfying quality of life and how individuals define pleasure for themselves. By exploring leisure "favorites," older adults can get a sense of just how willing they may be to try a given activity.

The goals of leisure counseling are to find the "most

effective and most appropriate" leisure activities within an individual's own personal, social, behavioral, and linguistic contexts (Loesch and Wheeler, 1982, pp. 61-62).










A way to do this is to learn what is "interesting" to an individual and to determine the magnitude of that interest. Genuine leisure preferences are personal predictions regarding the potential best uses of free (i.e., discretionary) time. As projections about the future, preferences are a hope that activity will lead to satisfaction.


The Need for Leisure Preference Research


Leisure research is needed because parameters are

needed for the interpretation of leisure preferences by both counselors and older adults. Counselors need effective ways to help older adults for whom an image of themselves at leisure is elusive and for whom enjoyment expectations are often not met and depressive boredom ensues. Gerontologists also need to develop the techniques and theory of leisure counseling. Doing basic research may therefore lead to the development of psychometric instruments for older adults which relate specifically to leisure time (Wiggins, 1982).

Lack of objective analyses of leisure services has

often resulted in poor planning of leisure activities for older adults. Relying on traditional "participation patterns," leisure services providers have typically based their activity schedules on ritualized views of older adult leisure preference. Service providers have developed "type" impressions. For example, Kelly (1982) reports participation grouping labels such as "active-diversionary,"









"iadolescent-social," "aesthetic-sophisticate," and "slow living." He comments that such labels are not stable and are often accompanied by unscientifically adopted methods and results. Staff of human service organizations, private recreation centers, and therapeutic service centers need to become what Vacc and Loesch (1984, p. 127) call "scientific practitioners"--practitioners who are dynamic and who can react to the needs of their clients. Scientific inquiry into the preferences of older adults therefore may uncover ways to make better counseling, planning, and resource allocation decisions.

Unlike the structured demands of worker roles which face younger adults, unstructured demands face the older adult in the shape of large blocks of free time. Lack of insight and planning are immature reactions to aging (Johnson and Riker, 1981) which impede the assertion of leisure preferences and the pursuit of a healthful life. Lack of self-knowledge, poor self-concept, and lack of knowledge about alternatives and community resources also block life satisfaction. "Leisure immaturity" in old age may intensify emotional reactions to aging and become debilitating when not understood.

Older persons' needs for feeling involved and connected in later years are increasing because the life expectancy of Americans is at an all time high and the age-adjusted death rate is at a record low (National Center for Health Statistics, 1980). More time and more leisure alternatives










exist for modern older adults than in the past. Leisure in later years involves older adults in an American culture which extols activity and fears boredom. In epidemiological terms, helping older adults achieve a leisurely life is a form of "primary prevention" (D'Andrea, 1984) of mental illness.

Perhaps more than any other age group, older adults rely on leisure activity as a way to relax and enjoy life (Osgood, 1982). Leisure offers the opportunity for social,. personal, and health benefits. Older adults gain self-respect and identity from leisure participation, just as work offers these benefits to younger people (Kleiber and Thompson, 1980). Anderson and Burdman (1981) found that health personnel ranked improving quality of life as a primary treatment goal for older adults because it mitigates against the effects of illness in aging. Social service personnel and educational planners realize and emphasize the need for meaningful leisure activity in"the reduction of later life stress and the maintenance of the health and welfare of the older adult (Lawton, 1978). Research is needed to stop the rapidly increasing population of older adults from turning into a demographic disaster in the future.










Rationale for This Study


Throughout the U.S. older adults have many lifestyles and also frequently have flexible societal roles by virtue of having large blocks of free time. In order to obtain an adequate sample of these variations, large older adult congregations of tourists and residents in East Central Florida were chosen. Local senior centers, small home parties, health fairs, congregate living facilities, and congregate meal centers were populated by mostly local residents. Shopping malls and retirement exhibitions had a mixture of older adult tourists and local residents.

In order to understand how different lifestyles might be predictive of leisure preferences, a wide range of leisure activity options needed to be presented for their evaluation. The advent of low cost computers provided an "appliance" with which a wide range of options could be displayed to participants without inconveniencing them. A microcomputer program was therefore written which allowed older adults to skip through leisure activity preference choices with as much or as little specificity as they might desire. In this way, literally hundreds of specific activity choices were presented uniformly.










Purpose of the Study


Because older adults differ from one another in many ways and to remarkable extents, the purpose of this study was to determine the leisure preferences of older adults in selected lifestyles and demographic combinations. it followed that in order to understand older adults and their leisure preference, it was necessary to observe and analyze specific sets of preferences as they interacted in association with specific demographic and lifestyle factors. Two research questions were addressed:


1. What are the leisure activity preferences of older adults in various life settings; e.g., living alone, in congregate living facilities, living with spouse, living with relatives?


2. How are leisure preferences related to the gender, age, race, previous work history, physical condition, household type, and income level of older adults?


Theoretical Basis for Study


As a theoretical basis for the study of older adult leisure preference, an ecological model (Lewin, 1951) was followed. Lewin (1935) believed that rigid cause-and-effect relationships do not exist in preference data. He stated that psychological events are "temporally extended wholes (of the type, for example, of a melody .)" (p. 44).










Studied as "temporally extended wholes," leisure

preferences are defined as personal value judgments. These judgments evolve in a "multitude of highly individual arrangements and life-styles" (Gelatt, 1984, p. 134). Leisure preference represents an impression about what may be an enjoyable use of free time, and such impressions may have started as a purpose, a need, or a "half-finished" activity. Leisure preference therefore can be assessed in terms of an expressed attraction (or repulsion) in the life settings of older adults.

Assessing these attractions (or repulsions), which

Lewin (1935) describes as valences, is a functional approach to understanding attitudes about leisure. For example, a negative response to a given leisure category must be assessed according to an individual's perceptual field. A negative response may expose latent connections; e.g., older adults who may really be interested in playing golf will probably not express that interest if a sharp pain cuts across their back every time they swing a club.

Lewin's field theory illustrates the important forces present in the preference assertion process. These forces steer preference according to individualized "laws" by which older adults translate their impulses and perceptions into preference. Relatedly, the concept of life setting or lifestyle provides a useful bridge between personal value judgments and surrounding social systems connecting individual leisure preference to larger, societal events.











Definition of Terms


Leisure: "Leisure is any activity an individual knowingly

(i.e. consciously) chooses to define as leisure"

(Loesch and Wheeler, 1982, p. 36); as activity beyond

that necessary for physical or personal maintenance

which the participant defines as pleasurable and

satisfying (Kelly, 1982); and "discretionary personal

activity in which expressive meanings have primacy over

instrumental themes" (Gordon, Gaitz, and Scott, 1976,

pp. 314-15).

Leisure Preference: "The observable organization of an

individual's choice of activity in terms of use of

time, investment of energy, and choice of interpersonal

objects" (Bengston, 1973, p. 37).

Leisure Counseling: A process for helping someone utilize

options for enjoying leisure time (Loesch and Wheeler,

1982, P. 205).

Recreation: The refreshment of strength and spirit after

work or apart from work (Morris, 1973).

Older Adults: Individuals in the later period of human life

during which some capacities increase and others

diminish. In this study, the ages associated with this

period are 60 and above.

Life Satisfaction: The degree to which one is presently

pleased or content with one's general life situation;










one component of individual well-being (George and

Bearon, 1980).

Leisure Setting: A small scale social system which includes

people and inanimate objects, and, within whose time

and space various components interact in an

orderly, established way (Wicker, 1981).

Microcomputer: A desk-top sized computer, commonly

available for 1,000 to 5,000 dollars, and capable of

processing and printing data (Heiserman, 1981).

METs: Standard units of metabolic activity equal to the

amount of oxygen used per kilo of bodyweight by

a 154 pound man each minute while at rest. (Schwartz,

1984).


Organization of the Remainder of the Study


Four chapters comprise the remainder of the study.

Chapter II provides a review of the literature related to what is known about leisure preference. The methodology of instrumentation via a computer-interactive model is discussed in Chapter III. This chapter also includes information on the Overs' Avocational Activities Inventory (Overs, Taylor, and Adkins, 1977), sampling techniques, procedures, data analyses, and potential limitations. Chapter IV presents the tables of results of the cluster analyses, discriminant analyses, and tests of significance. Chapter V presents conclusions, alternative explanations, results, and suggestions for further research.
















CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


Introduction


In 1900, when those 65 nd older numbered approximately

3.1 million, or 4.1% of the U.S. population, the societal impact of older adult leisure involvement was minimal. Today, older adults number approximately 26.5 million, or 11.7% of the population, and by the year 2000, this number will have grown to approximately 35 million, or 13.1% of the population (Faludi, 1984). The personal preferences of older Americans for leisure are, and will be, politically, medically, and economically potent. This trend is particularly evident in the State of Florida where approximately 17.5% of the current population is 65 years old or older (Defendorf, 1984); by the year 2020, nearly 60% of Florida's population will be over the age of 50 (Beland, 1982). Thus, in Florida, and in other population centers, the impact of how older adults enjoy themselves is and will continue to be be great.

Looking for leisure preference parameters follows

logically from trying to increase the pleasure that leisure participation brings. Relaxation, enjoyment, and challenge










are critically important parts of older adult life. Non-stressful, enjoyable, and freely selected activities are similar to the "relaxation response" discussed by Benson (1975) as being important in the reduction of diseases.

To isolate norms of older adults' preference for

leisure activities reliably and validly (taking into account the variety of their lifestyles) is indeed a research challenge. Researchers of older adult "pleasure" preferences face particularly subtle and complex phenomena because the developmental, social, and psychological relationships implicit in this group's preferences evolve through the experiences, fantasies, and hopes of a lifetime.

This chapter reviews literature on gerontological leisure and related studies in six sections. The first contains descriptions of older adults in the United States. The second section covers a variety of expert and older adult definitions of leisure. The third section reports on studies regarding leisure and quality of life. The fourth section reviews recent research on the leisure preferences of selected older adult populations. The fifth section explains a theoretical model of leisure preference as a function of person-environment interaction. The last section is a summary.


Descriptions of Older Adults in the United States


Living their later years in the midst of a powerful

gerontocracyy" which is healthier, richer, better educated,








12

and more politically powerful than ever before, older adults experience both the benefits and stresses of today's social and economic life. Within the variety of older adult populations, there is, on the average, more contentment than among younger people (Faludi, 1984). Their increasing resources also enable them to choose among more leisure options than have previous older generations, and they spend a larger proportion of their money for recreation than did older adults 30 years ago.

Older adults join in informal networks (family,

friends, co-workers) which mitigate against stress, and they continue to search for involvement. When surveyed by BoozAllen and Hamilton, Inc. (1981), older adults reported that their overriding, or fundamental, interest was to keep in touch with meaningful, "belonging-centered" social connections. An example of this interest is a finding by Defendorf (1984) that 80% of older adults were parents; 80% of the parents saw at least one of their children during the week of the survey, and 55% of them saw at least one of their children on the day that they answered the survey questions.

Volunteerism is popular with older adults. In 1981, approximately 25% of older adults surveyed by the Gallup Organization indicated that they were currently in a volunteer's role (Jusenius, 1983). Further, all levels of government have begun to encourage such volunteerism as a substitute for government's declining role. Volunteer work










is frequently engaged in by this group in the absence of part-time work opportunities and generally constricted access to paid employment.

Harris & Associates (1975) indicated that one-half of sampled retirees wished that they were working (for pay). Enhanced by modern advertising stimulation, spending power has become a major determinant of retirement satisfaction (Johnson and Riker, 1981). Living costs and fixed incomes make rigorous financial planning critically important for older adults (Hazard, 1981).

Although older adults indicate that they want

retirement to be a gradual process, they are most often faced with the advent of sudden retirement. Part-time work opportunities are not the norm for this group; older workers say that they would like to work, but they perceive that their current jobs are not available on a part-time basis, and that comparable part-time jobs are rare (Jondrew, Brechling, and Marcus, 1983).

Despite the many positive aspects of life for today's older adults, depression is frequent (Landreth and Berg, 1982), primarily because there are many dilemmas facing this group. Disabilities and a multitude of losses (e.g., job, sense of self-worth, loved ones, and friends) are frequently encountered (Hancock, 1982). Almost two-thirds of all women over 65 are single while only approximately 25% of male older adults are single (American Council on Life Insurance, 1984). Older adults aged 60 and above represent over 25% of










all recorded suicides in the.U.S. (Myers, 1983). Although fewer than 15% of the elderly are considered poor as compared to 35% of the elderly 25 years ago, poverty among the elderly is still a sizable problem. Women account for nearly 75% of the older adult poor and only 18% of women receive pensions. For 60% of women over 65 living alone, social security is their only income (Older Women's League, 1984).

Some diseases, although they may occur earlier in life, are much more likely to appear in the later years. An estimated 86% of all older persons have one or more chronic health problems that limit their daily activities (Myers, 1983). The diseases which appear with greatest frequency due to aging are Alzheimer's disease, arteriosclerosis, arthritis, bronchitis and lung disease, cancer, coronary disease, cataracts, diabetes mellitus, the later stages of hypertension, and neuritis (Silverstone and Hyman, 1982). However, despite these afflictions and a hospitalization rate greater than two and one-half times that for younger people (Millon, Green, and Meagher, 1982), illness took only fourth place (after crime, energy costs, and loneliness) in a 1981 survey of older adult concerns (Defendorf, 1984).

All senses tend to diminish in sensitivity over time. Sense of balance and psychomotor coordination may begin to decline after age 50 or 60. On the average, between the ages of 30 and 70 years, maximum lung capacity decreases 50%, blood pumped by a resting heart decreases 28%, maximum










heart rate decreases 25%, pumping efficiency of the heart decreases 30%, basal metabolic rate decreases 10%, muscle strength decreases 12%, muscle coordination decreases 26%, and hearing of high frequencies decreases 60% (Maranto, 1984).

The quality of routine maintenance of the body,

including diet, rest, exercise, and freedom from stress, has been shown to offset or delay the decline in acuity in seeing and hearing. Variation in the sensory decline of older adults is so great that a new term, "functional age," has been coined to refer to the ability level each person possesses (Van Every, 1983).

The demographics of aging illustrate that older adults are a resilient and diverse group. Different in physical and mental capacities, different in social and economic backgrounds, different in interests and experiences, older adults are similar only to the extent that each individual has had the opportunity to be the way he or she is for a long period of time. Butler (1981) advocates leisure activity to help put life in perspective, proving to older adults that their lives have been worthwhile, and encouraging them to face later years with a will to maximize their options for pleasure. Older adults need leisure activity and counselors assisting older adults need to know more about older adults at leisure.










Leisure Defined


Positive definitions of leisure result from an

individual's judgement of its usefulness within his or her own time and space, and not out of identification with group or "subcultural" norms (McClelland, 1982). McDowell and Clark (1982) described three interrelated dimensions of leisure opinion definitions: (a) expositive or anticipatory dimension, i.e., looking forward to leisure; (b) thematic dimension, i.e., the content or environmental configuration of the leisure activity; and (c) positive or reflective dimension, i.e., reminiscing about leisure experiences.

Definitions evolve against a backdrop of disengagement and continued engagement. Disengagement is defined as a lifestyle relatively uninvolved with society as a whole, encompassing within it a wide variety of options dependent upon health, personality, and socio-economic environment. The definition of leisure as continued engagement is pleasurable activity through the continuation of work or from a second career. For older adults, this definition is less frequent because of ageism and physical constraints (Metropoulous, 1980).

Leisure is a self-rewarding activity, sometimes called residual time or time which is left over after life work activities are finished (Bull, 1982). Neulinger (1974) provides a comprehensive psychological definition of leisure:











Leisure is a state of mind; it is a way of
being, of being at peace with oneself and
what one is doing. (p. xv)
Leisure has one and only one essential
criterion, and that is the condition of perceived
freedom. Any activity carried out freely,
without constraint or compulsion, may be
considered to be leisure. To leisure implies
being engaged in an activity as a free agent and
of one's own choice. (pp. 15-16)


In a study by the Booz-Allen and Hamilton Co., Inc.

(1981) older adults, who were generally at home and viewing TV well above the average during weekdays and mornings, did not define leisure as intellectual stimulation. This group constituted a sample of older adults of whom 67% were 60 years old or older, 12% of whom were black, and 71% of whom were female.

In a study by Stenrud (1977), institutionalized older adults conceptualized leisure in a practical way. These older adults did not separate leisure activity from daily living. Leisure was an event mixed in within a satisfying life. Work, family, and play were not viewed separately, but rather holistically as part of life. Meaningful activity to the majority of residents meant work, family, and religion. For many persons born 80 years ago, leisure as a distinct activity seemed peripheral. For many, leisure was linked to work in that it had to be earned; leisure without work was sinful. Many viewed their present, enforced leisure not as rest but as work aimed at recovery










from illness. This definition of leisure emphasizes its therapeutic benefits.

Interviews with older adults indicated that their

definitions of leisure were influenced by the type of job they held before retirement (Roadburg, 1981). Leisure was not seen in the way younger adults modeled it. The chance to be free from work was a positive or negative part of older adult leisure definitions based on whether the older adult was forced to retire or voluntarily retired. Historically, older adults have defined leisure in the context of work. Work is accepted as a responsibility and a privilege. Leisure as an "occupation" is held with less acceptance. However, Butler (1981) stated that older adults who value leisure as being less virtuous than work do not adequately define the total human life cycle.


Quality of Life and Leisure


Activity choices and life satisfaction, treated as correlates, have appeared in gerontological literature, particularly with reference to developmental activity theory. Social gerontologists have conducted considerable research geared toward answering the question, what is the relationship between social participation and life quality (George and Bearon, 1980)? Research findings generally support the belief that "something to do" contributes to the










life satisfaction of older adults (Ragheb and Griffith, 1982). Mancini and Orthner (1982) reported a substantial relationship between psychological well-being and participation in leisure activities. Satisfaction in later years was found to be closely related to the quality of leisure experiences. Seleen (1982) found a significant amount of variation in life satisfaction beyond that accounted for by demographic variables. Her results highlighted the role of activity type and format in satisfaction. Certain other demographic factors appear to predispose an older adult to satisfaction with life: gender, marital status, age, education, financial adequacy, and health (McClelland, 1982). Van Every (1983) reviewed several studies on aging and concluded that activity, income, positive self-perception, positive belief about physical well-being, and social participation contributed to a satisfying retirement. Dowd (1980) concluded that decisions to be active are an antidote to loneliness. This conclusion is found in a number of other studies based on activity theory (e.g., Elwell and Maltbie-Crannel, 1981; Liang, 1982) in which leisure activity is modeled as an intervening variable between an individual and life satisfaction. Johnson and Riker (1981) concluded that leisure interests are constricted when life satisfaction is low.

Leisure activity also has been found to promote

development of life coping skills, to decrease stress, and








20

to increase a sense of enjoyment within older adults (Adams, 1980). In order to enhance quality of life, Tedrick (1984) integrated older adults into recreational activities with younger age groups. The benefits found in this approach were a decrease in stereotypical thinking about the effects of aging and the learning of a more holistic view of life. Art therapy and poetry groups have helped older adults to gain life satisfaction. Capuzzi and Gross (1980) described an increase in life satisfaction from participation in music groups (sing-along, listening, or instrumental). These authors cited studies which report increased body movement, positive change in withdrawn older adults, benefit from opportunities to reminisce, and increased feelings of closeness to others.

The same authors demonstrated that satisfaction with

life increased with participation in groups which focused on exploring group members' individual concerns and also in other kinds of educational groups which focused on topic discussions or helping older adults organize their ideas. Older adults who experienced health anxieties reacted positively to topic group work procedures which focused on helping participants to relax while gaining information about topics of interest. It has been found that the chance to gain information in interaction with others is a subset of the human need for group affiliation (Shacter, 1959). Therefore, topic discussions appear to be effective leisure activities which clarify issues and reduce anxiety.








21

Activity is the most prominent variable in relation to the sense that older adults control their own lives. High activity level, a broader category than leisure, implies the potential for effective control and suggests energy levels and mobility consistent with personal effectiveness. Research on locus of control for all age groups suggests that a sense of personal control is important for the activity-life satisfaction linkage (Ziegler and Reid, 1983).

Keith (1978) tested the hypothesis that changes in older adults' lives would lead to lack of involvement in leisure activities and might precipitate a social breakdown syndrome among older adults. The syndrome was described as one in which persons eventually accepted a label as incompetent and defined themselves as sick or inadequate. The author asserted that increased leisure participation might intervene in the cycle and correlate with the reconstruction of a satisfying self-image. Data were collected and analyzed from interviews with 214 males and 354 females, aged 72+. Results indicated that life changes did not seem to trigger withdrawal from most leisure activities; that leisure involvement and satisfaction were (somewhat) gender-linked; and that participation differentially satisfied the needs of men and women.

Mellinger and Holt (1982) compared 145 participants

(aged 57-92) in three types of programs for older adults on leisure activities, attitudes toward leisure, social contacts, morale, and demographic variables. Results of










discriminant function analysis indicated that older adults in the Retired Senior Volunteer Programs (RSVP), recreation programs, and nutrition programs differed in significant ways in regard to activity levels, socioeconomic statuses, and morale. The RSVP volunteers were highly active, service-oriented individuals. Their activities gave them satisfaction because they offered a chance to be of service to others. Recreation group members were sociable, fairly active people, with stable living arrangements, who enjoyed the change of pace of social gatherings. Nutrition group members experienced more sensory-motor problems and appeared to have somewhat lower morale and lower socioeconomic status. They appeared satisfied to interact with the sponsoring organization mainly to satisfy the need to eat.

In a study of satisfaction and leisure activity, 18 modes of social participation through leisure activities were tested. One thousand six hundred and forty-nine older adults responded to 27 paragraphs defining satisfaction within leisure activities using the Paragraphs About Leisure-Form E (PAL-E). The eight satisfies indicated were self-expression, companionship, power, compensation, security, service, intellectual aestheticism, and solitude (Tinsley, 1982).

Three distinctly different research technologies have been associated with the measurement of leisure preferences and life satisfaction. The earliest research relied on judges' ratings concerning in what fashion and to what










extent an older adult was willing and/or able to engage in leisure. The second generation of research focused more precisely on empirical indicators of the leisure process, measuring what the older adult could and did do. The most recent developments emphasize measures of leisure preferences as related to need satisfies (Graney, 1982). A general conclusion concerning leisure and life satisfaction is that leisure is valuable to an older adult in as much as it helps him or her fulfill aspirations. A person who is satisfied finds that life activities are congruent with his or her values. Leisure leads to happiness when it helps a person maintain positive feelings in excess of negative feelings. Leisure relates to "satisfaction" in that it leads to the fulfillment of needs, expectations, wishes, or desires (George and Bearon, 1980).


Research on Older Adult Leisure


A large body of literature has been developed relating leisure to a variety of adaptive behaviors. Atchley (1980) indicated that "aging or changes associated with it cause activity patterns to change, if not in the type of activity, at least in the amount of activity" (p. 189). Leisure as an adaptation in later years has been studied as a function of 1) gender, 2) environment, 3) options available, 4) habit, and 5) reward values.










Leisure as a Function of Sex Difference

Kando (1980) summarized his findings with the

statement, "Men dominate nearly all areas of leisure and recreation" (p. 69). Payne and Whittington examined several stereotypes about the older woman as "a pleasantly plump granny who spends her time in a rocking chair knitting or sewing" (1980, p. 17). These authors claimed that the group with the most free time is women over the age of 60, and they stated that there were few studies supporting gender differences in the use of leisure time. Atchley (1980) found that, for both genders, reading and watching television were the most common participation activities, followed by talking and visiting. Older males (in rural retirement) expressed interests in passive activities that had some form of tangible return or product such as fishing, hunting, and investment. These individuals had few interests in vigorous, physical activities, the classical arts, or international affairs. Individuals surveyed in the Booz-Allen and Hamilton Co., Inc. (1981) study were seen as (somewhat) dormant, needing and wanting family contact and support. A conclusion which can be be drawn is that cultural/social norms tend to regulate leisure preferences:


More important than similarities and differences in the kinds of activities engaged in by men and women are the processes underlying the differences. From
childhood on, some kinds of activities are defined
as acceptable for one sex rather than the other.
(Kelly, 1982, p. 225)










Leisure as a Function of Environment

Romsa and Bondy (1983) studied older adults in the city of Windsor, Canada, to test the hypothesis that retired persons with the fewest housing constraints would exhibit more active leisure behavior patterns. Their results indicated that both location and dwelling type appeared to be related to quality of retirement leisure activity. Residents of privately operated apartments were found to be most active while respondents from public housing units were least active.

To determine whether musical activity preferences were related to residence or community size, Gilbert and Beal (1982) surveyed such preferences in relation to environment. They found that older adults (on the average) had definite music preferences, and that listening and observation of music for enjoyment were more common to sedentary older adults than they were to active ones.

One hundred and twenty-five older adults, between the ages of 45 and 93, were interviewed regarding how their environments enhance or constrain their leisure. Constraints identified by the younger respondents included lack of time, lack of money, and bad weather. Constraints of the older respondents included lack of companions, fear of crime, lack of transportation, and fear for health (McGuire, 1982).

Bland (1982) described the State of Florida as a leisure environment, which by virtue of climate and








26

reputation, enhances anticipation in older adults. In this sense, Florida is ecologically conducive to the development of leisure preferences. Initially, its format leads to relocation behaviors and then to "pervasive expectations about leisure that older adults typically bring with them to this state" (p.16). Swaim (1983) indicated that there is value in understanding the scope of older adults' leisure interests in relation to environmental pressures. Leisure as a Function of Options Available

What individuals do during their leisure time has been shown to relate to what is provided. Planners of leisure services therefore play a direct role in determining what people do during their leisure time (Morgan and Godbey, 1978). In a study on the Institutional policies of sheltered-care facilities, the Policy and Program Information Form (POLIF) was used to measure 10 conceptually unified dimensions (Lemke and Moos, 1980). The development of the POLIF was based on normative data from 93 representative facilities, and it was found useful in profiling and comparing the scope of adult care facilities. The authors concluded that facilities offering intensive care did not offer much choice of activity or encourage older adults to structure their own daily routine.

Myers (1983a) illustrated that older adults in nursing homes accepted leisure activities without expression of frustration or assertion of unmet needs. Lemke and Moos








27

(1980) indicated that larger facilities tended to screen out the most severe cases and offer more health services and social activities. These latter facilities had formal procedures for transmitting expectations and involving residents in decision making regarding daily routine and leisure activities.


Leisure as a Function of Habit

Hill (1981), in discussing the cognitive processes involved in personal preference, defined the concept of 18style" as a form of expressive behavior which manifests itself in consistent and predictable patterns. In a study of the stylistic qualities of older adult activity preferences, Petrakis and Hanson (1981) found that whether older adults chose passive or active kinds of leisure depended on whether the leisure activity selected followed traditional patterns of leisure activity which evolved from lifelong socializing experiences. Lawton (1978) indicated that older adults' leisure preferences were determined by the social values prevalent in their earlier years, their habits, biologically and socially determined competencies, evolving personal needs, and the external environment's impinging and facilitating influences.

An example of the influence of socialization on leisure preference is found in a survey of older adults who chose reading as a leisure activity (Ribovich and Erikson, 1980). Analysis revealed that reading was and historically had been










an important aspect of their lives. The behaviors of purchasing and borrowing books had become habits earlier in life. In this example, leisure preferences for reading evolved out of habit and continued opportunity to read.


Leisure as a Function of Reward Values

The reward values of leisure are important aspects of leisure preference. Many older adults like to shop, and Faludi (1984) found that the chance to be assertive in bargaining with store personnel when shopping seemed to be a reinforcer of self-esteem.

A random sampling of older adult residents of Pulaski County, Arkansas, was conducted to study learning as a positive, rewarding leisure activity. Telephone surveys were completed for 346 individuals. Findings showed that almost 85% of the respondents indicated a leisure interest in education. Two-thirds of the respondents were women, 62% were married, the majority were white (82%), more than 58% had incomes ranging between $5,000 and $30,000, and 26% were currently or recently involved in an educational program. The most common reward perceived was in learning new things for personal growth. Over 34% of the respondents expressed interest in teaching others (Graham et al., 1982).

This portion of the review of the literature emphasizes that there are few studies which set up a theoretical hypothesis in which leisure preferences are measured in terms of an overall theory. Bull (1982) states that











To the extent that theory about the leisure behavior of older adults has been developed,
it has stressed the relationships between constructs (e.g., activity and morale) and
ignored the relationships between the
empirical indicators and theoretical
constructs of leisure. (p. 483)


Preference still needs to be treated as a predictor variable which takes into account the diversity of older adult lifestyles. The functions of lifestyle and demographic variables also still need to be set into a predictable pattern of correspondence in a leisure theory, supported by valid, representative data on older adults.


Studies on Leisure Choice Determinants


Everyday, older adults sample various formal, informal, and solitary leisure activities in the hope of finding something to do which will be rewarding and meaningful (Lemon, Bengston, and Peterson, 1972); but how does it happen that they decide on one activity as having potential for satisfaction? Adler (1965) asserts that how a person evaluates a given environment depends upon the person's relationship to that environment. Kelly (1982) discusses the notion that the subjective reaction of an older adult to a given leisure activity must be taken into account in order to predict accurately whether an individual will engage in that activity. Metropoulous (1980) provides evidence that strong personal and environmental factors interact and








30

determine whether older adults will positively or negatively value a leisure activity.

A conclusion drawn from a series of articles reviewed

by Dunn (1981) is that older adults will probably be willing to participate in leisure which they believe they will handle successfully. He cited such factors as shifting work arrangements, family structures, women's roles, and immigration as environmental factors which influence whether an older adult views leisure optimistically and enthusiastically. The health, personality, meaningful relationships, and socioeconomic status of older adults are a small scale social system which make up the environmental, predisposing factors inherent in leisure choices (Butler, 1984). In making leisure choices, older adults interact with external, concrete things and adapt to geography, weather, and price and to all those physical conditions which in some way reinforce or extinguish participatory behavior.


A Paradigm for Leisure Preference


A model for consideration of leisure preference as a function of both personal and environmental factors is the field theory of Kurt Lewin (1951). Lewin (1951) indicated that people and their environment are parts of a dynamic field, or gestalt. The influence of environment on leisure preference does not limit the influence of personality; rather, it adds a dimension to choice which has as much importance as personality. "Only by the concrete whole








31

which comprises the object and the situation are the vectors which determine the dynamics of the event defined" (Lewin, 1935, p 30).

The basic statements of field theory are that: (a) behavior has to be derived from a totality of existing facts; and (b) these coexisting facts have a character of a dynamic field in so far as the state of any part of this field depends on every other part of the field. Lewin terms this dynamic field "life space," which includes the person and the psychosocial environment of the person. He stated "in principle it is everywhere accepted that behavior (B) is a function of the person (P) and the environment (E), B f(PE), and that (P) and (E), in this formula are interdependent variables" (p. 25). Using this life-space model, leisure preference can be studied as a personal, adaptive set of behaviors of definite character, chosen freely by an individual, within the limits of their life space.

in this study, the life space of an individual is pictured in the context of income, health status, work history, educational level, and marital status. This model of older adult leisure preference is an "ecologically oriented model that assesses human environments more directly and that seeks to understand environmental structures in terms of their own unique features" (Wicker, 1981, p. 24).








32

Which leisure preferences the older adult expresses are hypothesized as evolving out of an ecologically based predisposition. For example, Goodnow (1980) suggested that an excellent way to assess the desires of older adults for social, recreational, and educational services is to segment older adult groups into distinct lifestyle groupings. She stated that the needs and interests of various segments differ significantly because of different environmentally conditioned motivational orientations.

Focusing on environment allows for the fact that more than personal style is involved in leisure preference. Leisure preference occurs within a kind of "behavioral setting" whose determinants include both people and inanimate objects, and within whose time and space these various determinants interact (Wicker, 1981). Preference is not accidental and is always ecological (Barker, 1968). Preference statements are motivated, goal-directed, and occur within the context of some definable environment. For example, when a city places a park bench in a pleasant location some individuals reciprocate by sitting on it. Without the opportunity, the preference may not have surfaced.

In order to simulate "opportunities" for leisure, a

checklist of leisure can be used to assess whether an older adult has an attraction to a given activity. A well done taxonomy makes it possible to consider leisure/person information at different levels of generalization because it










ranges from broad to highly specific groupings of leisure activity. Used as a checklist, a leisure taxonomy serves as an analog of actual leisure alternatives. It is a bridge between the state of one system (i.e., the person) relative to the state of a surrounding system (i.e., the leisure environment). Overs, O'Connor, and DeMarco (1974) and Overs, Taylor, and Adkins (1977) present categories of and individual leisure activities in a taxonomy of leisure alternatives. Although not empirically based, this classification system is the most comprehensive taxonomy appearing in the literature. Some evidence of the validity and usefulness of the taxonomy was developed by Tinsley, Teaff, Colbs, and Kaufman (1985).


Summary


In this review of recent research on leisure behavior, it becomes clear that there are few studies which set up a theoretical hypothesis in which leisure preference or personal evaluations are measured in terms of an overall theory. In the (mostly) correlational studies reviewed, it appears that leisure preference behavior frequently correlates with aspects of lifestyle which are defined in this study as work history, income, education, household type, and health. The personal values, social norms, environmental pressures, availability of leisure activity, and life history of older adults are assumed to be balanced and integrated in lifestyle factors. Demographic factors










which are uncontrollable by the individual older adult (i.e., race, gender, and age) appear to have a less direct influence on leisure preference.

This research is an effort to set lifestyle and demographic factors into a predictable pattern of correspondence with the environmental characteristics of Overs' et al. (1974, 1977) taxonomy of leisure activities. Since leisure preferences include an individual's personal projection of which leisure environments offer the best prospect for pleasure, the use of Overs' materials as a type of environmental simulator is a way to assess many of the trends and theories about what older adults like to do.
















CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY


Since older adults differ from one another in many ways and to remarkable extents, the purpose of this study was to determine a pattern in the leisure activity preferences of older adults in selected environments. It followed that in order to understand older adult leisure preferences, it was necessary to observe and analyze specific sets of preferences as they interacted with specified sets of environmental conditions.

This chapter first describes a microcomputer-based

design for collecting older adult leisure preference data. The second section then explains the instrumentation and procedures used to collect leisure preference data from selected older adult samples. The chapter ends with a discussion of the limitations of the design.


Hypotheses


In the absence of an explicit theoretical hypothesis concerning the leisure preferences of older adults, the following hypotheses about the relationships among older adult preferences and older adult lifestyles were designed to test the "best fit" of relationships in the observed










data. The null hypotheses tested in this study were as follows:


1. Ho: The leisure preferences of older adults are not correlated to the gender, age, and race of older adults.


2. Ho: The leisure preferences of older adults are not correlated to the lifestyle factors of education level, work history, self-reported income, self-reported health status, and household type of older adults.


Procedures


This causal comparative study hypothesized that

lifestyle and demographics do not significantly (p = <.05) associate with patterns of older adults' leisure preferences. In order to test these hypotheses, observations of preference were made by relating preferences to older adult lifestyle and demographic factors.

A sample of older adults was invited to review Overs, Taylor, and Adkins' (1977) Avocational Activities Inventory (AAI). An explanation was given that a review of leisure options might trigger ideas about activities that they might enjoy, or alert them to activities that they may not have considered. As further encouragement, older adults were offered a printed record of their leisure preferences among those listed in the AAI. The microcomputer version of the AAI was offered to subjects as an "easy path" to the many hundreds of AAI leisure activity listings.










Each older adult who elected to participate then

personally viewed and interacted with a microcomputer-based exposition of the AAI. Each AAI leisure activity chosen served as a variable label used for measuring the intensity and direction of leisure preference. Each participant's age, gender, race, marital status, work history, self-reported health status, income, and educational level were also recorded for use as predictor variables.

After the data were collected, the AAI leisure

preferences of older adults were "scored" as described below. Subject responses to AAI items were tallied on three levels of specificity - General, Intermediate, and Specific. This was done by adding together the responses to Specific items (e.g, Flower Gardening, Vegetable Gardening) in order to "score" preferences at an Intermediate level (e.g. Gardening) (See Fig. 1.). Intermediate scores were summed to "score" General level preferences (e.g., Nature). This was done for approximately 565 Specific, 72 Intermediate, and 28 General categories of leisure activity.











General Level Activities: e.g., Nature Activities
/
/


Intermediate Level Activities:


Specific Level Activities: Figure I
Hierarchical Structure of Data


Table 1
Description and Ranae of


Demographic Labels

Age
Self-Reported Income Gender
Work History Code Race
Self-Report of Health Household Type

Education


e.g., Gardening







e.g., Flower Gardening


Predictor Variables


Range


60 and above
Sufficient/Not-sufficient Male, Female
Data, People, Things, Ideas White, Black, Other Restricting/Not-restricting Living with Spouse, Alone, in Group Quarters, or with Relatives Elementary, High School, College










Table 2
Component Activity Totals in Leisure Hierarchy for Each
Level


General Intermediate Specific

1. Games 9 45
2. Sports 9 66
3. Nature 9 79
4. Crafts 9 71
5. Art and Music 9 77
6. Collecting 9 72
7. Educat./Entertain./Culture 9 80
8. Organizational 9 75
9. METs 5 Exertion 17 137
10. METs 4 Exertion 27 204
11. METs 3 Exertion 37 296
12. METs 2 Exertion 47 364
13. 'METs 1 Exertion 33 274
14. Aesthetic 61 624
15. Utilitarian 25 210
16. Creative 33 258
17. Pre-Patterned 52 390
18. Abstract 21 265
19. Concrete 55 434
20. Group Effort 33 257
21. Individual Effort 60 463
22. Structured 43 304
23. Unstructured 32 264
24. Supervised 31 246
25. Unsupervised 43 345
26. Recognition 52 404
27. Indoor 57 453
28. Outdoor 38 303


Note. See Appendix A for the names of Intermediate and Specific leisure activities attributed to each General group of leisure activities (from Overs et al., 1977, 1974).








40

After data were collected, all three score levels were analyzed in order to determine any significant associations between predictor variables (i.e., the demographic variables) and dependent variables (i.e., the General, Intermediate, and Specific leisure categories).


Instrumentation


The device used to collect data in this study was Tandy Corporation's (Fort Worth, Texas) Model 3 microcomputer. The microcomputer was programmed to display leisure activity descriptions and to record preferences for the 565 specific items in the AAI taxonomy of leisure activities.

Patterned after the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (U.S. Department of Labor Emplyment and Traikning Division, 1977), the AAI is not an assessment device itself, but it is used as a systematic grouping of leisure activities. The AAI is a result of a 1974 research and demonstration grant (15-P-5521/5-03) from the Social and Rehabilitation Service, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington D.C. The AAI divides leisure activities into nine areas which associate with separate activities and/or physical settings: games, sports, nature, collecting, crafts, art and music, educational/entertainment/culture, volunteering, and organizational activities. Overs, Taylor, and Adkins published a "final" version of the AAI in 1977. AAI's "1800"1 category (Volunteer Activities) was dropped from use in this study because as a separate category it included too many unrealistic options; e.g., processing metal ores and motor










freight. It was merged with the Organizational activity, 11900" category. The entire text of the modified version of the AAI appears in Appendix A.

Intermediate levels of the AAI activity groups were created by modifying the AAI list of activities; e.g., "Active Games" was changed to "PLAYING - Active Games." Syllable length was kept short to make reading easier, and 1/4" typeface was used to form the letters on each microcomputer screen.

Programmed with the AAI as a (leisure activities)

database, the microcomputer enabled older adults to decide what they liked or disliked among a panorama of leisure activity alternatives. When the older adult chose a leisure category to investigate, the microcomputer displayed more information on that category. Thus, by interacting with the microcomputer presentation, the adult directed a comprehensive leisure preference selection process.

This interactive search provided each participant a

view of each leisure category for as long as necessary for comprehension and comfort. Each participant personally determined the rate at which the categories changed. If the adult wanted to review or reconsider a leisure category, they simply touched one key. An older adult was therefore able to change a response or skip areas of disinterest by simply touching a key. The farther older adults wanted to search into any leisure category, the longer the review took to complete. It took these older adults about 30 minutes on










the average to complete the activity, and the longest time was about 40 minutes. The shortest time was about five minutes.

The possible need for extra assistance was satisfied by employing aides to facilitate the exposition and data collection functions of the microcomputer. The aide helped the older adult feel at ease with a possible first exposure to microcomputer technology. For older adults who wanted to complete the survey, but also wanted to avoid the use of the computer, the aide entered the data for them. In these cases the aide read information off the screen, as needed, for the older adult to understand the screen display. This help did not bias the data because aides were instructed not to add extemporaneously to the displays, to offer encouragement for some activity choices as opposed to others, or to express opinions about the project.

The microcomputer data collection model enhanced the random, non-intended occurrence of positive responses because participants had three chances to say no to a category and only one chance to say yes. Using this data collection paradigm, the number of positive responses was tallied by recording only responses to specific (i.e., Specific level) AAI activity list items; and participants accessed these items only after passing, by positive responding, two (i.e., General and Intermediate) "bail out" levels which contained synopses of what could be expected on the Specific level of activities from the AAI leisure list.










Each General level activity which appeared on the microcomputer's screen included an approximately 50 word synopsis of that group of leisure activities.

For example, if participants wanted to express an

interest in "Games," they could only do this preference on the Specific level. Participants developed scores by first selecting "Games" (General level), then "Target Games" (Intermediate level), and then on a Specific level (dart games, horseshoes, etc.). Only the responses to Specific level items were tallied.


Subjects


Three hundred and three older adults were sampled

across a representative spectrum of individuals 60 years old and older who were residents of the Orlando Statistical Management Survey Area (SMSA) in Florida. In order to develop a large, representative sample of older adults, subjects were selected from typical older adult life situations. Each subgroup was large enough to isolate differences in that group's pattern of chosen AAI leisure preferences from the sample taken as a whole. The basis of inferences about a given subgroup's preferences depended on the magnitude or intensity of that subgroup's preference statements. To the extent that members of a given demographic or lifestyle group significantly differed from subjects who did not populate that given group, this was










taken as evidence of preference associated with a given lifestyle or demographic statistic.

This research was conducted exclusively in the Orlando, FL, SMSA. Non-responders were those individuals who were invited, but who did not participate. Their decisions could have been a result of beliefs that they did not want or need any review or clarification of leisure options. They also might have felt that leisure was not a significant or an attractive enough topic on which to spend their time. There were no systematic reasons for exclusion of any potential older adult who wished to participate. Some were met in activities centers funded by the Older Americans Act (as amended in 1978) and others were from non-government sponsored centers of older adult activity; e.g., shopping malls, private housing areas, "Retirement Expo." Table 3 indicates the number of subjects obtained in the data collection process during which various groups of older adults participated in the study. The list includes the reason why the older adults had gathered and the attraction which drew them. Each entry on the list indicates approximately an eight-hour daytime period during which older adults had the opportunity to participate.










Table 3
Sites Where Subjects Were Surveyed


# Sbi. Attraction


Site


Reason


Health Fair Health Fair Health Fair Health Fair Health Fair Health Fair Congregate Meals Congregate Meals Congregate Meals Varied Activity Luncheon Education Varied Activity Varied Activity Congregate Meals Congregate Meals Recreation Senior Expo Senior Expo Senior Expo Retirement Expo Retirement Expo Retirement Expo Recreation Recreation Congregate Care Congregate Care Congregate Care Congregate Care Congregate Care Congregate Care Recreation Recreation Recreation Employment Employment Social Social


Mall
Hospital Mall
Civic Center Civic Center Civic Center Senior Center Senior Center Senior Center Senior Center Civic Center Mall
Senior Center Senior Center Senior Center Senior Center Jewish Center Expo Center Expo Center Expo Center Civic Center Civic Center Civic Center Jewish Center Jewish Center Cent Park Ldg. Cent Park Ldg. Cent Park Ldg. Cent Park Ldg. Howell Place Howell Place Public Housing Public Housing Public Housing Job Service Job Service Private Home Private Home


Health Screenings Health Screenings Health Screenings Health Screenings Health Screenings Health Screenings Nourishment Nourishment Nourishment Socializing Lunch and Activity Education Fair Socializing Socializing Nourishment Nourishment Socializing Exhibits Exhibits Exhibits Retirement Info. Retirement Info. Retirement Info. Socializing Socializing Retirement Living Retirement Living Retirement Living Retirement Living Retirement Living Retirement Living Recreation Recreation Recreation Job Seeking Job Seeking Socializing Socializing










Sample Characteristics Necessary for Representativeness


The sample was intended to be a stratified,

representative sample of the Orlando, FL, SMSA older adult community. Orlando is highly similar to older adult population concentrations throughout the U.S. (East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, 1983; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1983). The 1980 U.S. Census for Orlando for age, gender, and race of older adults was used to establish the proportions necessary for a representative sample. For example, if the Census indicated that half of the population of 60 - 64 year old adults was male and white, then an attempt was made to obtain 50% of the sample who were white males.

Based on formulae presented in Meister (1985), the

number of subjects required to produce a confidence level of 5% within the parameters of the General level variables in this study is approximately 152 subjects; however, in order to obtain enough subjects who were black in the sample, over 300 subjects were interviewed.


Data Collection Procedures


Data were collected at each site as follows:

Step 1: A variety of older adult oriented organizations in the Orlando, FL, SMSA were asked to assist in obtaining subjects in this study. Community center or other organizational managers were contacted by phone to arrange










for an appointment to discuss using the leisure survey at their site. Site administrators were asked to introduce the researcher and to play a facilitating role in his explanation of the study to the older adults at the site. The explanation covered the following points:

1. There are a variety of leisure alternatives for older

adults.

2. Enjoyment of leisure starts with selecting an activity

which makes personal sense, and then trying it out.

3. Participation in this survey is a good idea because of

the ease and innovation of using a microcomputer to

select personal leisure preferences.

4. Participation will result in obtaining a personalized,

printed list of leisure choices.

5. No names or other personally identifying information

would be stored in any format that would threaten the

anonymity of those who chose to participate.

Step 2: At the expositions (e.g., Altamonte Mall, Orlando Expo Center, and Orange County Civic Center) posters highlighted a booth containing the microcomputer equipment. Subjects were invited to participate as they passed the booth. The researcher explained the study and the benefits of leisure exploration to those who chose to stop and find out more.

Step 3: The date(s) for the survey was (were) announced to the group. Site administrators were encouraged to facilitate their group's awareness of the activity. Any older adult was offered an opportunity to participate.








48

Step 4: On the day(s) of the survey, a comfortable location or booth was set up with six chairs, a 10 foot long folding table, one to three microcomputer terminals, and a printer. The location was staffed by the researcher who functioned as an aide or by aides (only) when the researcher was absent. Aides were compensated at a rate of four dollars per hour. Step 5: After introduction to the equipment, the staff at each site keyed in data in the participants' records about the demographics of each participant; e.g., income, marital status, gender, age, educational level, site location, case number, perceived health status, and work history code. Step 6: Although the staff was ready to assist the participant at any point in the process, the instructions shown in Table 4 appeared at the bottom of each screen in order to give a written reminder to the participant about how to operate the keyboard.


Table 4
Symbols and Explanations Printed on Computer Screen


Symbol Explanation

VIXII To pass over all the leisure
activities on the screen
right arrow To select an activity preference
down arrow To skip a specific leisure activity
To make a change in a selection These steps were followed carefully in order to improve the comparability of responses across older adult subjects in this study. These steps were designed to accommodate both those subjects who may have had a need for considerable










encouragement and help to complete their answers and those others who would be able and prefer to work on their own. Standardization of helping interventions also was intended to limit the potential biasing impact of the help given. Training of Aides: Aides for this study were present or former paraprofessional staff members of Seminole Community College's Employability Evaluation Unit. Because these individuals have had experience as psychometrists, training only involved familiarization with the equipment and procedures unique to this study. Rimmer and Myers' (1982) article on testing older adults was given to each aide in order for each to develop increased sensitivity to the special characteristics of older adults. A copy of the World of Work Map (Prediger, 1981) also was given and explained to the aides for use in coding work history into data, people, things, and ideas categories. An orientation to the administration and coding procedures provided an informal question and answer training format.


Data Analyses


Overs et al. (1974, 1977) served as a uniform, content valid paradigm for frequency counting of preferences (dependent variables) in relation to group membership (independent or predictor variables). The dependent variables were scored by tallying the number of positive responses of older adults who populated the various predictor variable groupings (i.e., self-reported adequacy










of income, gender, age, educational level, self-reported health status, work history code, race, and household type).

Because there are 565 individual activities listed in the AAI, the analyses of data were hierarchical. Step 1: All the General and Intermediate scores were analyzed in order to calculate the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis for each. Step 2: The higher level in the hierarchies was analyzed first by cluster analyzing the dependent variables in reference to individual predictor variables; e.g., games, sports,., utilitarian activities, prepatterned activities. in reference to membership in the adequate income group. Step 3: The objective of this step was to find the most tightly packed clusters of activity variables; further, a procedure was set up to eliminate those variables which were tightly packed for the poles of each dependent variable. For example, the poles for the income predictor variable were self-reported adequate income and self-reported inadequate income. The activity clusters associated with both poles of the income variable were compared. Activities which were tightly associated with both poles were eliminated from further analysis against income; however, activities which were tightly packed with one polar dimension of a predictor variable were kept for further analysis.









Step 4: The remaining high level activity variables were entered into a stepwise discriminant analysis in order to determine the "better than chance" predictor-dependent variable relationships in this study. In order to avoid a possible overestimation of the predictive strength of the groupings in the study, the following formula was used to determine the number of subjects needed to develop an unbiased discriminant function S = 50 + 10(x + c - 1), where x is the number of variables used, and c is the number of predictor groupings (Reiss, 1984). Through use of this formula, it was found that the sample of 300 older adults (which also was necessary in order to have enough subjects in various subgroupings) was adequate for the number of activity variables established in Step 2. Step 5: The demographic predictor variables which remained as significant predictors (p = <.06), based on Step 4 results, were defined in terms of their Intermediate dependent variables. Next, these significant Intermediate scores were studied using the Levene W test (Brown and Forsythe, 1974) because it is not greatly affected by abnormally distributed group means. For example, male Intermediate preference scores found to be significant in Step 4 were compared to female Intermediate preference scores. Intermediate scores which significantly separated the dimensions of a predictor variable were retained for further analysis.

Step 6: The Intermediate activities remaining after Step 5 were then defined into their Specific components. For







52

example, the Gardening Intermediate became Flower Gardening or Vegetable Gardening. These Specific preference scores were compared for each dimension for each significant predictor variable using the chi-square statistic. The remaining significant (p = <.05) group discriminators became the final results of this study.


Limitations


Because each individual's preferences are unique, only a partial explanation of older adult leisure preference is available by associating group status with leisure preferences. The actual, personal meaning of leisure for a person is more Intricate than any classification system. The precision of the leisure questioning on the microcomputer is therefore limited because it represents only a sample of all the possible questions that could be asked, and because variation in response may occur for reasons unrelated to the characteristics of the AAI itself.

Although it is appropriate to classify older adults as a group on the basis of the physical or interpersonal environmental facets of their leisure preferences, older adults live in their own personal world, which may in some ways be different from the world of others, even when environmental circumstances seem to be identical (Elmore and Roberge, 1982). The statistical model used to explain anything limits the meaning of the explanation. The precision of this leisure classification represents only one









way that leisure can be presented. Causal comparative, cross-sectional studies, like this one, do not capture the dynamics of change. They cannot completely resolve issues of causality without experimental, follow-up research. Although many variables were studied by use of the clustering, stepwise discriminant analysis, and chi-square statistics, there were not enough subjects in this study to allow for the study of any interaction effects which might exist among lifestyle variables and older adult leisure preferences. This limits the specificity of the conclusions which can be drawn. For example, the chi-square analyses performed on Specific level data indicated that blacks preferred to collect books more than did whites; however, although this appears to be a virtually uninterpretable phenomenon, when it is noted that several black female subjects were teachers, the interaction of occupation, race, and preference defines the meaning of the data more clearly.

Finally, since the "domains of interest activities are as a rule well understood by people in general" (Kuder, 1977, p. 16), an assumption was made that Overs' et al. (1977) AAI represents a listing of well understood leisure activities. It was further assumed that bringing together microcomputers, older adults, and the AAI resulted in an easy, yet comprehensive experience in which older adults







64

meaningfully expressed their leisure preferences. Those older adults who did not participate were a source of bias in the data collected because they removed a perspective on leisure common to an entire group who share an aversion to participation and/or the use of computers.















CHAPTER IV
RESULTS


The transformations performed on the data from this

study are described first in this chapter. Next, the actual versus the ideal breakdown of the sample is detailed by demographic characteristics. Statistics concerning the distributive characteristics of the General and Intermediate level dependent variables are then presented. The results of the cluster analyses of the 28 General level dependent variables also are presented separately for each of the predictor variables in this study. Third, the stepwise discriminant analyses of General level leisure clusters are presented for each predictor variable in this study. Fourth, the procedure used to break down the significantly discriminating (p = <.05) General dependent variables into their Intermediate components is explained. Fifth, the results of a series of Levene W tests of the significance of Intermediate components of significant General level dependent variables are presented. Finally, the results of the chi-square analyses of the discrete Specific dependent variable components of the Intermediate level dependent variables are presented in relation to demographic (i.e., predictor) variable subgroupings.










Data Transformations


In order to test the two hypotheses in this study effectively, the following data transformations were performed.

Specific, discrete preference responses were summed on two levels - General and Intermediate. The groupings were determined according to Overs' et al. (1974, 1977) taxonomy groupings. Since the resulting General dependent variables are composed of widely varying numbers of Intermediate level components, transformations were performed to make their means more readily comparable. Each General dependent variable was divided by a number equal to its Intermediate components.


Sample Characteristics


Prior to the testing of the hypotheses, analyses were conducted to determine whether the data were collected in accordance with the representative sample of older adults required for this study. The totals for Age, Race, and Gender are reported in Table 5. The sample deviates from a true representative form in all categories. The samples deviate most in the 70 - 79 age ranges and least in the 60 64 age ranges. There are also discrepancies in all of the subcategories (i.e., age, race, and gender).

Following the protocol described in the procedures

section, attempts were made to find representative groupings







57

of older adults by contacting diverse centers of older adult activities; however, as the data collection procedures progressed, over-coverage and under-coverage of certain categories resulted. The deviations are small and the sample does (very closely) approximate a true representative sample of older adults in the Orlando, FL, SMSA.


Descriptions of General and Intermediate Dependent Variables


Tables 6 and 7 contain statistics describing the

distributive characteristics for General dependent variables (Table 6) and for Intermediate dependent variables (Table 7). When a distribution is symmetric, the expected values of the skewness and kurtosis statistics are zero. For both the General and Intermediate dependent variables in this study, skewness is higher than can be normally expected. Also, both General and Intermediate responses tend to be consistently negative. The low frequency of positive responding is seen in the kurtosis statistics which are abnormally high for both General and Intermediate level responses. The negative tendency in the data is partially the result of the measurement technique itself, and it is seen primarily as a statistical disparity which does not impact on the results of the study because the measurement model biases all data collection categories in this study.

Since the means of the General variables (Table 6) were transformed to make them more visually comparable, it is readily observable that the differences between them are







58

small. The larger standard deviations and range values of the eight General categories of Games, Sports, Nature, Collection, Craft, Art and Music, Cultural, and Organizational are indicative of wider individual variations among the subjects' preferences for activities in these categories; further, these same categories were those which actually appeared on the computer screen during the survey process. The other variables are summations of patterns inherent in preferences for these basic eight categories.

The top, or favorite, General categories, defined as those activities with a 1.3 or greater preference rating, appear in the following order: Cultural, Nature, Individual, Mets 1 Exertion, Supervised, and Mets 3 Exertion. On an Intermediate level (Table 7), these translate into favorite, defined as ratings above 1.9, activities ordered as religion, self-development, art and music appreciation, gardening, reading, miscellaneous cultural, traveling, and TV watching. On a Specific level, the top 10 favorites were any type of TV watching, newspaper reading, visiting friends and relatives, interstate travel, church membership, flower gardening, photo collecting, baseball watching, swimming, and church participation.





Table 5
Projected and Actual Number Totals for Sample Representation


Total
Act. Proj.


Aqe Group Act. Proj.


Gender
Act. Proj.


Race
Act. Proj.


60 - 64: 65 - 69: 300 303 70 - 74:





75 - 79:





80 and up:


87 91 Male:

Female:




Female:




Female:


Male:

3 9 4 9 F em a le :



Male: 39 49<

Female:


White: 41 40 < Black:
Other:
White: 46 51'c Black:
Other:
White: 33 36 < Black:
Other:
White: 41 374E -< Black:
Other:
SWhite: 25 2 3 SOther:
White: 33 26 < ~ Black:
Other:.White: 15 19 <~:~~z Black:
Other:
Whi te: 24 30 E- Black:
SOther:
White: 14 15hL Black:
Other:
White: 28 26E5< Black:
Other:


Total















Table 6
Mean, Standard Deviation,
General Level Leisure


Ranqe, Skewness, and Kurtosis for
Activities


N=303


Standard
Mean Deviation Range Skewness Kurtosis


Activities Variable


1.90 1.16 0.87 0.29
1.04 1.40 0.88 2.96 3.11
0.42 1.26
3.34 2.71 1.63
2.94 1.08 1.33 0.75 1.19 1.23 1.13 0.95 1.67 1.37 1.17 1.51 0.82
1.12


METs 1 METs 2 METs 3 METs 4 METs 5 Indoor Outdoor Games


Exertion Exertion Exertion Exertion Exertion


1.32 1.23 1.31 1.23 1.23 1.29
1.29 1.17 1.11 1.36
1.22 1.09 1.01
1.74 1.06
1.24 1.24 1.21 1.32 1.25 1.17 1.31 1.25 1.19 1.29 1.29 1.26 1.28


0.92 0.80
0.84 0.84 0.95 0.82
0.84 1.18 1.33 1.35
1.24 1.23 1.16
1.74 1.01 0.93 0.78 0.83
0.84 0.81 0.86 0.90 0.85 0.77 0.82 0.89 0.87 0.82


5.12
4.51 4.62 4.07 4.70 4.56 4.55 6.75 6.15 6.05
5.84 6.84 6.00 8.18 5.75
4.90 4.34 4.03 4.55 4.18 4.40 4.45 4.69 4.32 4.44 5.32 4.87
4.42


1.22 0.98 0.98 0.83
1.14 1.09
1.04 1.55 1.66 1.06 1.25 1.71
1.64 1.43 1.62 1.07 1.06 0.97 1.03 1.08 1.08
1.04 1.14 1.09
1.04 1.09 0.90 1.03


Sports Nature
Collection Craf t
Art and Music Cultural Organizational Abstract Concrete Group Individual Structured Unstructured Supervised Unsupervised Recognition Aesthetic Utilitarian Creative Pre-Patterned













Table 7
Mean, Standard Deviation, Ranqe, Skewness, and Kurtosis for
Intermediate Level Leisure Activities


Standard
Activities Variable Mean Deviation Range Skewness Kurtosis

Active Games 1.63 2.30 9.00 1.63 2.04
Target/Skill Games 1.18 2.07 9.00 2.24 4.57
Table/Board Games 1.08 2.08 9.00 2.26 4.57
Card Games 1.47 2.21 9.00 1.62 2.06
Knowledge/Word Games 1.40 2.17 9.00 1.79 2.58
Puzzle 1.05 1.98 9.00 2.34 5.29
Model Racing Games 1.37 2.28 9.00 1.83 2.39
Computer Games 1.11 1.96 9.00 2.15 4.51
Miscellaneous Games 1.25 2.16 9.00 2.08 3.74
Observe Sport Event 1.42 2.17 9.00 1.56 1.58
Individual Sport 1.27 2.12 9.00 1.92 3.18
Competitive Sport 1.01 1.81 9.00 2.26 5.25
Dual Active Sport 1.36 2.19 9.00 1.65 1.93
Combative Sport 1.25 2.11 9.00 1.87 2.81
Team Participation 1.09 1.89 9.00 2.21 4.87
Racing Sport 1.36 2.15 9.00 1.78 2.65
Special Olympics 1.08 1.85 9.00 1.94 3.36
Miscellaneous Sport 1.12 2.03 9.00 2.21 4.72
View Scenery/Life 1.75 2.42 9.00 1.19 0.15
Exploring/Discovery 1.37 2.11 9.00 1.54 1.54
Gathering Plants 1.30 2.39 9.00 1.92 2.64
Camping 1.91 2.68 9.00 1.32 0.55
Fishing 1.47 2.16 9.00 1.53 1.76
Hunting 1.11 1.93 9.00 1.97 3.47
Gardening 1.97 2.69 9.00 1.16 0.06
Animal Care/Exhibit 1.36 2.10 9.00 1.52 1.36
Miscellaneous Nature 1.15 2.09 9.00 2.13 4.10
Photo Collection 1.72 2.42 9.00 1.33 0.72
Coin Collection 1.33 2.08 9.00 1.66 2.09
Stamp Collection 1.05 1.95 9.00 2.17 4.27
Natural Objects 1.69 2.33 9.00 1.25 0.35
Model Collection 1.33 2.24 9.00 1.79 2.33
Doll Collection 1.10 2.11 9.00 2.06 3.41
Art Objects 1.52 2.39 9.00 1.53 1.22
Antique Collection 1.41 2.31 9.00 1.61 1.44
Misc. Collection 0.89 1.80 9.00 2.26 4.70
Cooking 1.40 2.29 9.00 1.66 1.70
Decorating 1.23 2.06 9.00 1.84 2.67
Weaving/Needlework 1.19 2.19 9.00 1.94 2.88
Toy/Model Building 1.44 2.33 9.00 1.64 1.74
Paper Crafts 1.16 2.05 9.00 1.83 2.57
Leather and Textile 0.99 1.95 9.00 2.27 4.80
Wood/Metal Working 1.22 2.12 9.00 1.87 2.72













Table 7--continued

Handyman 1.08 2.04 9.00 2.10 3.73
Miscellaneous Crafts 0.98 1.91 9.00 2.32 4.99 Photography 1.28 2.20 9.00 1.81 2.50
Drawing 1.36 2.21 9.00 1.65 1.75
Painting 1.04 1.94 9.00 2.18 4.54
Sculpture 1.11 1.95 9.00 1.88 2.79
Dramatics 1.11 1.99 9.00 1.98 3.31
Dance 0.96 1.80 9.00 2.02 3.31
Music 1.13 2.08 9.00 2.09 3.75
Writing 1.09 1.97 9.00 2.16 4.47
Misc. Art and Music 1.00 1.98 9.00 2.25 4.38 Radio Listening 1.74 2.61 9.00 1.45 0.96
Television Watching 1.91 2.82 9.00 1.35 0.47 Entertainment/Plays 1.23 2.18 9.00 1.87 2.63 Reading 1.96 2.70 9.00 1.24 0.32
Art/Music Apprecia. 2.04 2.77 9.00 1.19 0.13 Traveling 1.92 2.67 9.00 1.30 0.46
Religious 2.12 2.67 9.00 1.04 -0.08
Self-development 2.06 2.74 9.00 1.08 -0.17 Misc. Cultural 1.94 2.66 9.00 1.27 0.35
Athletic/Sport Club 1.37 2.28 9.00 1.65 1.72 Hobby Club 1.26 2.23 9.00 1.86 2.69
Political Group 1.20 2.21 9.00 2.09 3.73
Religious Group 1.60 2.56 9.00 1.57 1.41
Cultural Group 1.10 2.22 9.00 2.24 4.23
Social Group 1.22 2.21 9.00 2.02 3.39
Ethnic Organization 1.43 2.47 9.00 1.75 1.97 Volunteer Service 1.36 2.35 9.00 1.79 2.19 Misc. Org./Volunteer 1.22 2.35 9.00 2.05 3.18

N=303











Explanation of the Cluster Analysis of 28 General Leisure Activities


A cluster analysis of variables was used to measure the similarity of the 28 General dependent variables. Similarity was defined as variables for which the patterns of responses were highly equivalent. The pattern of response of each General dependent was compared so that "clusters" of response variance patterns could be formed.

Initially, each cluster had only one variable. At each successive step, similarly patterned variables were joined into larger and successively more loosely packed clusters. The analysis of variables stopped when all 28 variables were entered. The algorithm for linking variables into clusters is the calculation of a hierarchical list of variables ordered from the correlation matrix of the variables. The first two variables linked are those with highest correlations. The linkage of these first two results in the first centering of variance on a given response pattern. This pattern, used as a centering point in the analysis, is called the centroid. The linkage of further variables to this center depends on both the distance and angle of successive centroids (i.e., centered clusters of correlations) uncovered in the correlation matrix.










This analysis was completed for the 28 General

dependent variables for each subgroup in the sample. A cluster pattern was derived for each of the 24 demographic subgroups used as predictor variables in this study: race white, race black, gender female, gender male, age (60 64), age (65 - 69), age (70 - 74), age (75 - 79), age (80 and up), occupational history in data oriented jobs, occupational history in things oriented jobs, occupational history in ideas oriented jobs, and occupational history in people oriented jobs, no self reported health limitations, self reported activity inhibiting health limitations, self reported sufficient income, self reported insufficient income, living alone, living with spouse, living with family, living in group quarters, self report of elementary education, self report of high school education, and self report of college education.

The tables for the cluster analyses (Tables 8 - 31)

list the number of variables in each successively discovered cluster and each numerical representation of the distance between or similarity of the variables joined in that cluster. A 0 - 100 numerical representation of the degree of similarity of the subgroup response pattern was used. For example, variables with 0.0 correlation were recorded to zero (i.e., minimum similarity).

The criterion used to assess which dependent variable clusters should be analyzed further was as follows:







65

Clusters with approximately 10 or less variables and with a similarity rating of .95 or greater were considered tightest, most similarly patterned, and warranting further analysis. Those tightest and most similarly patterned dependent variable clusters for each sample subgroup (e.g., white subgroup clusters versus black subgroup clusters) were compared as follows. Those General dependent variables which clustered tightly and were similarly patterned in relation to the various subsets of a given demographic grouping were rejected from further study. This was done in order to retain only those General dependent variables which had unique associative patterns within subsets of a given demographic variable. For example, a variable found in tight and similar clusters on both the female and male cluster lists was rejected; however, a variable which clustered for females only or for males only was retained for further analysis.

For Tables 8 and 9 (which present the results of the

Gender clustering procedures) the General leisure dependent variables labeled Indoor, Aesthetic, Individual Effort, Concrete, Outdoor, and Recognition met the criterion for tightness and similarity, but they also appeared in both the male and female clusters; therefore, they were eliminated from further analysis. The General dependent variables METs

1 Exertion, Structured, Unstructured, Prepatterned, METs 2 Exertion, Unsupervised, and METs 3 Exertion did not appear









in both clusters for Gender and were retained for further stepwise discriminant analysis.

For Tables 10, 11, and 12 (which present the results of the cluster analysis of the Education predictor variable categories of Elementary, High School, and College), the General dependent variables labeled Recognition, Unsupervised, Outdoor, Pre-patterned, METs 3 Exertion, METs

2 Exertion, METs I Exertion, Structured, and Group Effort met the criterion for tightness and similarity and did not appear in all three of the categories for Education. These General dependent variables were retained for further stepwise discriminant analysis in relation to the Education predictor variable.

For Tables 13 and 14 (which present the results of the two categories of Race cluster analyses), the General dependent variables labeled Structured, METs I Exertion, METs 5 Exertion, METs 3 Exertion, Unsupervised, and Creative met the criterion for tightness and similarity; however, they did not appear in both the White and Black race tables. These General level variables were retained for further stepwise discriminant analysis.

Tables 15, 16, 17, and 18 present the results of the

cluster analyses of the four dimensions of the Work History predictor variable. These dimensions were Data Oriented Work History, People Oriented Work History, Things Oriented Work History, and Ideas Oriented Work History. The variance of the General dependent variables labeled METs 2 Exertion,









Pre-patterned, METs 3 Exertion, Unstructured, Structured, METs I Exertion, Group Effort, Utilitarian, Creative, and Abstract clustered tightly around Work History. Since these General dependent variables clustered around Work History, but did not cluster around all four dimensions of Work History in the same pattern, they warranted more study using stepwise discriminant analysis.

Tables 19 and 20 present the results of the cluster

analyses for the two categories of the Self Report of Health predictor variable - Restricting and Not Restricting. The variance of the General dependent variables labeled METs 2 Exertion, Structured, METs I Exertion, METs 3 Exertion, Pre-patterned clustered tightly around the Restricting Health predictor variable. Since these General dependent variables did not cluster around both categories (i.e., Restricting and Not Restricting) of the self-reported Health variable, they warranted more study using stepwise discriminant analysis.

Tables 21, 22, 23, and 24 present the results of the cluster analyses for the four categories of the Household Type predictor variable - Living with Spouse, Alone, in Group Quarters, and with Relatives. The variance of the General dependent variables labeled Outdoor, Pre-patterned, METs 1 Exertion, METs 2 Exertion, METs 3 Exertion, Group Effort, Structured, Unstructured, Creative, and Unsupervised clustered around the predictor variable Household Type. Since these General dependent variables did not cluster









around the four categories of Household Type in the same pattern, they warranted more study using stepwise discriminant analysis.

Tables 25 and 26 present the results of the cluster

analyses for the two categories of the Self Reported Income predictor variable - Sufficient and Not Sufficient. The variance of the General dependent variables labeled Recognition, Structure, Pre-patterned, METs I Exertion, METs

3 Exertion, and Unstructured clustered around the Income predictor variable. Since these General dependent variables did not cluster around the two categories of Income in the same pattern, they warranted more study using the stepwise discriminant analysis.

Tables 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 present the results of the cluster analyses for the five categories of the predictor variable Age (ages 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, and 80 - up). The variance of the General dependent variables labeled METs 3 Exertion, Unsupervised, Unstructured, Utilitarian, Pre-patterned, Group Effort, Structured, METS 2 Exertion, and Creative clustered around the Age predictor variable. Since these General dependent variables did not cluster around the 60-64 and the 80 - up categories of Age in the same pattern, they warranted more study using stepwise discriminant analysis.









Table 8
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables for Gender Subaroun Men


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items Distance or Similarity
in Cluster When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion Indoor Aesthetic Individual Structured Concrete Outdoor Unstructured Recognition Prepatterned. METs 3 Exertion Unsupervised METs 2 Exertion Utilitarian Supervised Abstract METs 4 Exertion Group
Creative METs 5 Exertion Entertainment Arts
Sports Games
Crafts Collecting Nature organizational


74.87 97.09 99 .07 98.95 98 .03 97.90 95.83 95.68 95.53 95.21
94.31 94. 23 93.47 93.28 92.80 92.53 92.37 91.56 91.32 89.55 85 .74
81.11 80.31 77.94 76.19 76.09
74 .50
71.88

















72.71 95.75 98.89 98.92 99.18
98.49 98.20 97.95 97.69 97.60 96.86
94.45 94.44 94.39 94.93 94.05 94.29 92.57 89.16 87.64 85.74 83.86 82.90 79.22 78.47 76.97 75.09 72.71
0


Table 9
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables for Gender Subgroup Women


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items Distance or Similarity
in Cluster When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion Indoor Concrete Individual Aesthetic Recognition Unsupervised METs 3 Exertion Pre-patterned Outdoor Utilitarian Unstructured Group
Structured Supervised METs 4 Exertion Abstract METs 5 Exertion Creative Nature Collecting Arts
Sports Crafts Entertainment Organizational Games









Table 10
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables for Education Subqroup Elementary


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items
in Cluster


Distance or Similarity When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion METs 3 Exertion Indoor Individual Aesthetic Pre-patterned Structured Concrete Outdoor Group
Recognition Unsupervised METs 4 Exertion Unstructured Supervised Creative METs 5 Exertion Utilitarian Abstract Sports Nature Entertainment Games
Collecting Arts
Organizational Crafts


62 .63
95.78
98.42 98.75 99.38 99.01 98 .56
98.25 98.26 98.38 97 .85 97 .49
97.19
96.24 95 .38
94.27 93.55 92.97
92.41 92.44 85 .09
84. 49 83. 37
79 .40
77.40 77.36 69.70 62 .63








Table 11
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables for Education Subaroup Hiah School


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items
in Cluster


Distance or Similarity When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion METs 3 Exertion Indoor Concrete Individual Aesthetic Outdoor Unsupervised Unstructured Recognition Utilitarian METs 4 Exertion Structured Supervised Pre-pat terned METs 2 Exertion Abstract Creative Group
METs 5 Exertion Arts
Entertainment Collecting Sports Nature Crafts organizational Games


73.96 94.37 95.31 99. 11
99 .24 98 .67
96.41 95.71 95.16 94.86
94.23 93.99 95.27
94 .04
93.45 93.31 93.13 89. 25 89 .07 88. 10 85 .85 82 .38 80.06 79.52 78.87
76.24 74 .61 73 .96








Table 12
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables for Education Subciroun Colleae


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items Distance or Similarity
in Cluster When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion Indoor Aesthetic Pre-pat terned Individual Recognition Concrete METs 3 Exertion Outdoor Structured Utilitarian Unsupervised Unstructured Group
Abstract Supervised METs 4 Exertion METs 5 Exertion Creative Crafts Collecting Sports Nature Entertainment Arts
Games
Organizational


74 .60 96.43 98.03 99. 29 99.27 99 .00 98.21 98.12 97.26 97.61
96.40 95.84 95.55 95.23
94 .36
92.60 91.71 91.39 89 .53 88 .54 83 .62
81.38 80. 63 80 .66
80.44 78 .96
77.15
74.60


Leisure Variables for Education Subaroun Colleae





Table 13
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables for Race Subgroup White


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items Distance or Similarity
in Cluster When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion Indoor Concrete Individual Aesthetic Unsupervised METs 3 Exertion Creative Recognition Outdoor Pre-patterned METs 5 Exertion Unstructured Abstract Supervised Nature Utilitarian Collecting Group
Structured METs 4 Exertion Entertainment Crafts Games
Sports Arts
Organizational


61.60 95.79 99.52 99.65 99.62 98.29 98.22 98.23 97.32 96.50 96.11 95.76 95.58
93.48 91.69 92.08 91.55 89.84 87.65
90.14 89.64 87.00 85.73 79.94 76.50 72.10 71.47 61.60









Table 14
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables for Race Subgroup Black


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items Distance or Similarity
in Cluster When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion Indoor Concrete Individual Aesthetic Unsupervised METs 3 Exertion Creative Recognition Outdoor Pre-patterned METs 5 Exertion Unstructured Abstract Supervised Nature Utilitarian Collec t ing Group
Structured METs 4 Exertion Entertainment Crafts Games
Sports Arts
Organizational


14 15 16 17 18
3
2' 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28


61 .60 95.79 99.52 99 .65 99 .62
98.29 98.22 98.23 97.32 96. 50 96.11 95.76 95.58
93.48 91.69 92.08 91 .55 89 .84 87. 65
90.14 89. 64 87 .00 85. 73 79 .94 76. 50 72.10 71.47 61.60 I











Leisure Variables for Occupation Subqroup Data


Table 15
Cluster of General Level


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items Distance or Similarity
in Cluster When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion Indoor Concrete Individual Aesthetic Pre-patterned Recognition METs 3 Exertion Unstructured Unsupervised Outdoor METs 4 Exertion Group
Structured Supervised Abstract Utilitarian Creative METs 5 Exertion Arts
Entertainment Nature Collecting Games
Sports Organizational Crafts


74.31 94.04 99.39 99.59 99.85 98.57 98.56
98.40 98.22 98.27 97.51 96.57 95.12 97.89 98.02
94.50 93.98 93.15 91.75 87.74
84.89 83.36 82.25 79.28 78.28 76.79 75.30
74.31





Table 16
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables for Occupation Subarouv People


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items Distance or Similarity
in Cluster When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion Utilitarian METs 2 Exertion METs 3 Exertion Outdoor Indoor Individual Aesthetic Unsupervised Concrete Pre-patterned Recognition Structured METs 4 Exertion Supervised Unstructured Abstract Group
METs 5 Exertion Creative Nature Collecting Crafts Arts
Entertainment Sports Organizational Games


75.44 94.70 94.75 96.06
97.42 97.54 99.11 98.85 97.71 97.59 96.81 96.76 95.77 95.63
94.10 92.73 90.76
89.94 89.84
84.46 84.21 83.38 79.30
79.14 77.57 77.24
76.04 75.44








Table 17
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables f or OccuDation Subaroun Thinas


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items Distance or Similarity
in Cluster When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion Indoor Individual Concrete Aesthetic Outdoor Unstructured Recognition Structured Utilitarian Supervised METs 3 Exertion Unsupervised Pre-patterned METs 2 Exertion Creative Abstract Group
METs 4 Exertion METs 5 Exertion Entertainment Sports Arts
Crafts Collecting Games
Nature Organizational


70.36 95.81 99 .07
99. 24 98 .02 97.29 96.67 95.88
95.44 95.01
94 .55
94.09 94.43 93.92 93.66 93.73 93 .05 92.82 92.86 90.16 85.25 85.02 83.78 78.40 78 .33 76.17 75.61 70. 36


Leisure Variables for Occupation Subqroup Thinqs









Table 18
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables for Occupation


SubarouD Ideas


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items
in Cluster


Distance or Similarity When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion Group
METs 2 Exertion Recognition Indoor Individual Aesthetic Pre-pat terned Concrete Structured Utilitarian Creative METs 3 Exertion Outdoor Abstract Unstructured Entertainment METs 5 Exertion METs 4 Exertion Unsupervised Sports Arts
Crafts Organizational Supervised Games
Nature Collecting


65 .58
98.94 98 .39
98.96 98 .34 99 .80
99.74 99 .60 99 .50
98.47 98.23 98 .06
97.93 96.98
96.41 95.80
94. 23 90. 50 90.60 95. 20
90.49 86 .90
80.94 83.81 73.98 72.20 67. 28 65 .58





Table 19
Cluster of General Level


Distance or Similarity When Cluster Formed


Leisure Variables for Physical Subqroup Not Restricted


General Variable Activity Name Number

METs 1 Exertion 1 METs 3 Exertion 3 Indoor 6
Individual 19
Aesthetic 25
Structured 20
Concrete 17
Recognition 24
Outdoor 7
METs 2 Exertion 2 Unsupervised 23
Unstructured 21
Pre-patterned 28
METs 4 Exertion 4 Abstract 16
Utilitarian 26
Supervised 22
Group 18
METs 5 Exertion 5 Entertainment 14
Creative 27
Arts 13
Crafts 12
Sports 9
Collecting 11
Nature 10
Games 8
Organizational 15


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items
in Cluster


74.75 97.56
99.14 99.51 98.29 97.62 97.63 97.32
97.24 97.05
96.94 95.55 95.13 94.37
94.17 93.41 92.46 91.50 89.83 85.00 84.66
84.54 82.19 81.18 79.84 79.79 78.15 74.75 CD
0





Table 20
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables for Physical Subgroup Restricted


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items
in Cluster


Distance or Similarity When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion METs 3 Exertion Indoor Concrete Individual Aesthetic Pre-patterned Outdoor Recognition Unsupervised Unstructured Utilitarian Group
Structured Supervised Creative METs 4 Exertion Abstract METs 5 Exertion Nature Collecting Arts
Sports Entertainment Crafts Games
Organizational


73.49
94.23 95.29 95.13 98.93 98.76 98.89 97.60 96.89 96.36 95.25 95.19 95.31
95.43 94.84 93.73 92.92 92.59 91.51 89.07
81.14 80.89 80.52 79.70
79.42 74.90 74.41 73.49







Table 21 Cluster of General Level
With Spouse


Leisure Variables for Household


Tv~e SubarouD Livina


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items
in Cluster


Distance or Similarity When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion METs 3 Exertion Indoor Individual Aesthetic Concrete Outdoor Recognition Pre-patterned Structured Unsupervised Utilitarian Unstructured METs 4 Exertion Supervised Abstract Group
METs 5 Exertion Creative Entertainment Arts
Nature Sports Col11e ct ing Crafts Games
Organizational


72.37 95.21
95.24 95 .80 98 .88 99 .00 98.18 96.81 96. 19 96.08
95 .04 94 .66 94.43 94. 35 92.84 91.99 92.09 91.17 88.41 86.73 82.51
82.24 79. 70 79.48 78.93 78.17 72.62 72.37 C










Leisure Variables for Living Conditions Alone


Table 22
Cluster of General Level


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items Distance or Similarity
in Cluster When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion Concrete Individual Aesthetic Indoor Pre-patterned METs 3 Exertion Recognition Outdoor Group
Structured Unstructured Unsupervised Utilitarian Creative Abstract METs 5 Exertion METs 4 Exertion Supervised Arts
Games
Sports Entertainment Organizational Collecting Nature Crafts


72.98 96.91 99.61 99.65 99.22 98.64 98.25 97.89 97.69 97.61 97.31 97.39 97.09 96.83
96.44 95.42 94.95 93.34 92.96 92.59 86.95 83.26 82.35 81.52 79.61 78.58 78.55 72.98









Quarters


Table 23
Cluster of General Level


Distance or Similarity When Cluster Formed


Leisure Variables for Household Type Subqroup Group


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items
in Cluster


METs 1 Exertion METs 3 Exertion Indoor Individual Aesthetic Recognition Concrete Structured Group
Unstructured Creative Unsupervised Pre-patterned Supervised Outdoor METs 4 Exertion METs 5 Exertion Collecting METs 2 Exertion Games
Abstract Utilitarian Sports Nature organizational Entertainment Arts
Crafts


67.26 96.06
98.74 99.87 99.56 99.32 99.18 98.53 97.89 97.94 98.87 97.50 96.39 96.13 95.96 95.52 92.51
91.94 91.32 90.82 90.82 90.58 84.39
84.10 81.01 75.68 73.50 67.26





Table 24
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables for Household Type Subqroup Relatives


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items Distance or Similarity
in Cluster When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion METs 3 Exertion Indoor Individual Aesthetic Concrete Recognition Pre-patterned Outdoor Structured Unsupervised Unstructured Utilitarian Group
METs 4 Exertion Supervised Abstract Creative METs 5 Exertion Entertainment Arts
Sports Collecting Nature Crafts Games
Organizational


73.36
94.50 95.54 96.11 98.71 98.97 98.32 97.13 96.65
96.54 95.79 95.27 94.79
94.69 93.67
93.54 92.39 92.21 91.37 89.01 82.08 81.19 80.79 80.55 79.20 78.27 73.63 73.36









Table 25
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables for Income Subgroup Sufficient


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items Distance or Simila7 "Y
in Cluster When Cluster Forwmeq


METs 1 Exertion Entertainment METs 2 Exertion Recognition Creative Indoor Pre-patterned Individual Concrete Unstructured Unsupervised METs 3 Exertion Aesthetic Outdoor Supervised METs 4 Exertion Utilitarian Crafts METs 5 Exertion Nature Games
Abstract Group
Structured Sports Co011e ct ing Arts
organizational


69.55
87.44 87.72 98.85 98.66 98.31 99. 56 99. 50 99 .08 98. 59 97 .84 97.71 97.82 96.57 94 .85
94.84 94 .34
89.18 88.53 87.03 90. 70 85 .68
98 .44 84. 70
82.18 76 .95
70.27 69. 55








Table 26
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables for Income Subqroup Not Sufficient


General Variable Activity Name Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items
in Cluster


Distance or Similarity When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion METs 3 Exertion Indoor Aesthetic Individual Concrete Outdoor Unsupervised Unstructured Pre-patterned METs 2 Exertion Recognition Supervised Abstract Structured Utilitarian METs 4 Exertion METs 5 Exertion Games
Arts
Nature Group
Creative Entertainment Organizational Co011e ct ing Sports Crafts


73.15 97.01 98.61 99 .75 99 .67 99 .63
98.21 98 .05 97 .97
97.13 98 .45
96 .40 94 .93
94.57
94.42 94.09 92.50 91.38 88.08 86.62 85. 18 85 .85
84.38 83 .70 78 .04 76. 17 74 .89
73.15









Table 27
Cluster of General Level


Leisure Variables for Aae Subaroun 60/64


General
Variable Name


Variable Number


Other Boundary
of Cluster


Number of Items Distance or Similarity
in Cluster When Cluster Formed


METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion METs 3 Exertion Outdoor Indoor Individual Concrete Aesthetic Unsupervised Pre-Patterned Recognition Creative Utilitarian Unstructured Abstract Group
Structured Supervised METs 4 Exertion Entertainment Organizational Arts
METs 5 Exertion Nature Co011ec t ing Crafts Games
Sports


68 .20 93 .98
94.27 96.73 98 .99 99.28 99 .08 96.72 96.32
95 .04 93 .58
92.80 92.89 91.85 90. 80 91.58
90.46 91.09
90. 24 79.65
78.92 78. 10 82.88 77.34 76. 57 72.87 72.73 68. 20




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE LEISURE PREFERENCES OF OLDER ADULTS by ROBERT ANTHONY TANGO A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1986

PAGE 2

Copyright 1986 by Robert Anthony Tango

PAGE 3

To my Family

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study would have not been possible without the support, encouragement, guidance, and cooperation of many faculty members, many administrators of a variety of both public and private centers for older adults, and friends and associates of mine. I would like to thank Dr. Harold Riker for introducing me to the need for research on older adults and for helping me define the scope and form of this dissertation, and Dr. Larry Loesch for helping me get started. I would like to acknowledge the computer programming of Silom Horwitz, my older adult neighbor without whose lavish patience and understanding this study would have floundered. I would like to thank Dr. Charles Dzubian and my friend Roy Reber whose patience and encouragement helped me through various dilemmas and doldrums I encountered along the way . I appreciate the encouragement and information given to me by Dr. Robert Beland. Without the guidance, structure, and patience of all of these people, I might have never finished. Thanks are also due to the many professionals at the District VII Office of the State of Florida Department of iv

PAGE 5

Health and Rehabilitative Services, the Jewish Community Center in Maitland, FL, the Casselberry Senior Center, Seminole County Mental Health Association, and other agencies and individuals who encouraged their clients to participate in this study. To Marilyn, my wife, I extend my love in appreciation for countless hours she spent alone facing three creative children while I worked on this study. To my delightful children, Lisa, Robert, and Lindsay, whose faces are a source of honest joy for me; to my father, Anthony Tango, whose desire for me to succeed at this project was a continuous source of courage for me; and, to the hundreds of older adults who took a good deal of their time patiently waiting for me to get my equipment set up and answering my many questions, I express my gratitude. V

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ...................................... viii ABSTRACT .............................................. xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ................................. 1 The Need for Leisure Preference Research ..... 2 Rationale for This Study ..................... 5 Purpose of the Study ......................... 6 Theoretical Basis for Study .................. 6 Definition of Terms .......................... 8 Organization of the Remainder of the Study ...................................... 9 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................... 10 Introduction ................................ 10 Descriptions of Older Adults in the United States .................................... 11 Leisure Defined ............................. 16 Quality of Life and Leisure ................. 18 Research on Older Adult Leisure ............. 23 Studies on Leisure Choice Determinants ...... 29 A Paradigm for Leisure Preference ........... 30 Summary ..................................... 33 I I I METHODOLOGY ................................. 3 5 Hypotheses .................................. 35 Procedures .................................. 36 Instrumentation ............................. 40 Subjects .................................... 43 Data Collection Procedures .................. 46 Data Analyses ............................... 49 Limitations ................................. 52 IV RESULTS ..................................... 55 Data Transformations ........................ 56 Sample Characteristics ...................... 56 Descriptions of General and Intermediate Dependent Variables ....................... 57 vi

PAGE 7

Explanation of the Cluster Analysis of 28 General Leisure Activities ................ 63 Discriminating Gender, Race, and Age by Using Unique Clusters of Variables ........ 93 Analysis of Intermediate Dependent Variable Components in Relationship to Significant Predictor Variables ........... 97 Analyses of Specific Level Leisure Preferences Statements in Terms of Race, Gender, and Age Demographics ........ 99 V DISCUSSION ................................. 125 Hypotheses ................................. 126 Patterns ................................... 129 Cone 1 us ions ................................ 129 Implications ............................... 131 Suggestions for Further Research ......... .. 134 Summary . ................................... 139 APPENDICES A AVOCATIONAL ACTIVITIES INVENTORY ........... 140 B DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS AND EXERTION FACTORS ............. 154 REFERENCES ........................................... 156 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .................................. 164 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Description and Range of Predictor Variables .......... 38 2 Component Activity Totals in Leisure Hierarchy for Each Leve] ...................................... 39 3 Sites Where Subjects Were Surveyed .................... 45 4 Symbols and Explanations Printed on Computer Screen ... 48 5 Projected and Actual Number Totals for Sample Representation ...................................... 59 6 Mean, Standard Deviation, Range, Skewness, and Kurtosis for General Level Leisure Activities ....... 60 7 Mean, Standard Deviation, Range, Skewness, and Kurtosis for Intermediate Level Leisure Activities .......................................... 61 8 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Gender Subgroup Men ................................. 69 9 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Gender Subgroup Women ............................... 70 10 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Education Subgroup Elementary ....................... 71 11 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Education Subgroup High School ...................... 72 12 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Education Subgroup College .......................... 73 13 Cluster of Genera] Level Leisure Variables for Race Subgroup White ................................. 7 4 14 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Race Subgroup Black ................................. 75 15 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Occupation Subgroup Data ............................ 76 v.iii

PAGE 9

16 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Occupation Subgroup People .......................... 77 17 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Occupation Subgroup Things .......................... 78 18 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Occupation Subgroup Ideas ........................... 79 19 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Physical Subgroup Not Restricted .................... 80 20 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Physical Subgroup Restricted ........................ 81 21 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Household Type Subgroup Living With Spouse .......... 82 22 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Living Conditions Alone ............................. 83 23 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Household Type Subgroup Group Quarters .............. 84 24 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Household Type Subgroup Relatives ................... 85 25 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Income Subgroup Sufficient .......................... 86 26 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Income Subgroup Not Sufficient ...................... 87 27 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Age Subgroup 60/64 .................................. 88 28 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Age Subgroup 65/69 .................................. 89 29 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Age Subgroup 70/74 .................................. 90 30 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Age Subgroup 75/79 .................................. 91 31 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Age Subgroup 80/up .................................. 92 32 Discriminant Analysis of Age by Selected General Activities .......................................... 95 33 Discriminant Analysis of Gender by Selected General Activities .......................................... 95 ix

PAGE 10

34 Discriminant Analysis of Race by Selected General Activities .......................................... 96 35 Mean, Standard Deviation, and F and P Value for Intermediate Activities Related to Race ............ 100 36 Mean, Standard Deviation, and F and P Value for Intermediate Activities Related to Gender .......... 102 37 Mean, Standard Deviation, and F and P Value for Intermediate Activities Related to Age ............. 104 38 Frequency Counts and Chi-Square Statistics for Specific Level Preferences in Relation to Gender ... 111 39 Frequency Counts and Chi-Square Statistics for Specific Level Preferences in Relation to Age ...... 114 40 Frequency Counts and Chi-Square Statistics for Specific Level Preferences in Relation to Race ..... 120 X

PAGE 11

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE LEISURE PREFERENCES OF OLDER ADULTS By Robert Anthony Tango December, 1986 Chair: Harold C. Riker Co-Chair: Larry C. Loesch Major Department: Counselor Education This study examined the relationship between the leisure preferences of older adults and their environmental and demographic characteristics. Previous researchers have generally supported the thesis that leisure preferences relate to psychosocial and demographic factors. This study was intended to determine whether it was possible to associate the leisure preferences of older adults with personal characteristics and environmental factors; further, a preference profile of a representative sample of American older adults was developed. Subjects (N= 303) were asked to evaluate their preferences for leisure activities by responding to an xi

PAGE 12

interactive, microcomputer based version of the Avocational Activities Inventory (AAI). Results were reported on General, Intermediate, and Specific levels. Significant differences (p = <.05) were found in the leisure preferences of older adults by age, race, and gender, but not by household type, income, physical limitations, work history, and level of education. Three themes were found to be associated with the age, gender, and race of an older adult. Utilitarian activities were attractive to 60 64 year olds, but not to adults who were 80 years old and older. Pre-patterned activities were attractive to older adult men more than they were to older adult women. Structured activities were attractive to whites more so than to blacks. An overall preference profile established for this sample ranged from preferences for industrious, productive, and self-improvement activities to preferences for passive and pensive activities. For adults 80 years old and older, depression was discussed as a factor which might be blocking gratification of needs; thus suggesting that more needs to be done to facilitate a healthful life for these people. Suggestions were offered for further research on older adult activity preferences. The use of interactive computing with older adults was also discussed. xii

PAGE 13

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Older adult leisure preferences are so varied that to try to isolate their patterns seems an exceedingly difficult effort; however, discovering the linkages between the personal characteristics of older adults and their leisure activity preferences appears worth the effort. With the aid of such research, older adults may be better able to reduce or eliminate blocks to activity and to gain new perspectives on healthful living. Leisure preferences are different from vocational interests. They do not relate to the demands of employers, school curricula, or other achievement hurdles imposed from without. They relate to the attainment of a satisfying quality of life and how individuals define pleasure for themselves. By exploring leisure "favorites," older adults can get a sense of just how willing they may be to try a given activity. The goals of leisure counseling are to find the "most effective and most appropriate" leisure activities within an individual's own personal, social, behavioral, and linguistic contexts (Loesch and Wheeler, 1982, pp. 61-62). 1

PAGE 14

A way to do this is to learn what is "interesting" to an individual and to determine the magnitude of that interest. Genuine leisure preferences are personal predictions regarding the potential best uses of free (i.e., discretionary) time. As projections about the future, preferences are a hope that activity will lead to satisfaction. The Need for Leisure Preference Research 2 Leisure research is needed because parameters are needed for the interpretation of leisure preferences by both counselors and older adults. Counselors need effective ways to help older adults for whom an image of themselves at leisure is elusive and for whom enjoyment expectations are often not met and depressive boredom ensues. Gerontologists also need to develop the techniques and theory of leisure counseling. Doing basic research may therefore lead to the development of psychometric instruments for older adults which relate specifically to leisure time (Wiggins, 1982). Lack of objective analyses of leisure services has often resulted in poor planning of leisure activities for older adults. Relying on traditional "participation patterns," leisure services providers have typically based their activity schedules on ritualized views of older adult leisure preference. Service providers have developed "type" impressions. For example, Kelly (1982) reports participation grouping labels such as "active-diversionary,"

PAGE 15

"adolescent-social," "aesthetic-sophisticate," and "slow living." He comments that such labels are not stable and are often accompanied by unscientifically adopted methods and results. Staff of human service organizations, private recreation centers, and therapeutic service centers need to become what Vacc and Loesch (1984, p. 127) call "scientific practitioners"--practitioners who are dynamic and who can react to the needs of their clients. Scientific inquiry into the preferences of older adults therefore may uncover ways to make better counseling, planning, and resource allocation decisions. Unlike the structured demands of worker roles which face younger adults, unstructured demands face the older adult in the shape of large blocks of free time. Lack of insight and planning are immature reactions to aging (Johnson and Riker, 1981) which impede the assertion of leisure preferences and the pursuit of a healthful life. Lack of self-knowledge, poor self-concept, and lack of knowledge about alternatives and community resources also block life satisfaction. "Leisure immaturity" in old age may intensify emotional reactions to aging and become debilitating when not understood. 3 Older persons' needs for feeling involved and connected in later years are increasing because the life expectancy of Americans is at an all time high and the age-adjusted death rate is at a record low (National Center for Health Statistics, 1980). More time and more leisure alternatives

PAGE 16

4 exist for modern older adults than in the past. Leisure in later years involves older adults in an American culture which extols activity and fears boredom. In epidemiological terms, helping older adults achieve a leisurely life is a form of "primary prevention" (D'Andrea, 1984) of mental illness. Perhaps more than any other age group, older adults rely on leisure activity as a way to relax and enjoy life (Osgood, 1982). Leisure offers the opportunity for social,. personal, and health benefits. Older adults gain self-respect and identity from leisure participation, just as work offers these benefits to younger people (Kleiber and Thompson, 1980). Anderson and Burdman (1981) found that health personnel ranked improving quality of life as a primary treatment goal for older adults because it mitigates against the effects of illness in aging. Social service personnel and educational planners realize and emphasize the need for meaningful leisure activity inAthe reduction of ' later life stress and the maintenance of the health and welfare of the older adult (Lawton, 1978). Research is needed to stop the rapidly increasing population of older adults from turning into a demographic disaster in the future.

PAGE 17

Rationale for This Study Throughout the U.S. older adults have many lifestyles and also frequently have flexible societal roles by virtue of having large blocks of free time. In order to obtain an adequate sample of these variations, large older adult congregations of tourists and residents in East Central Florida were chosen. Local senior centers, small home parties, health fairs, congregate living facilities, and congregate meal centers were populated by mostly local residents. Shopping malls and retirement exhibitions had a mixture of older adult tourists and local residents. 5 In order to understand how different lifestyles might be predictive of leisure preferences, a wide range of leisure activity options needed to be presented for their evaluation. The advent of low cost computers provided an "appliance" with which a wide range of options could be displayed to participants without inconveniencing them. A microcomputer program was therefore written which allowed older adults to skip through leisure activity preference choices with as much or as little specificity as they might desire. In this way, literally hundreds of specific activity choices were presented uniformly.

PAGE 18

6 Purpose of the Study Because older adults differ from one another in many ways and to remarkable extents, the purpose of this study was to determine the leisure preferences of older adults in selected lifestyles and demographic combinations. It followed that in order to understand older adults and their leisure preference, it was necessary to observe and analyze specific sets of preferences as they interacted in association with specific demographic and lifestyle factors. Two research questions were addressed: 1. What are the leisure activity preferences of older adults in various life settings; e.g., living alone, in congregate living facilities, living with spouse, living with relatives? 2. How are leisure preferences related to the gender, age, race, previous work history, physical condition, household type, and income level of older adults? Theoretical Basis for Study As a theoretical basis for the study of older adult leisure preference, an ecological model (Lewin, 1951) was followed. Lewin (1935) believed that rigid cause-and-effect relationships do not exist in preference data. He stated that psychological events are "temporally extended wholes (of the type, for example, of a melody ... ) 11 (p. 44).

PAGE 19

Studied as "temporally extended wholes," leisure preferences are defined as personal value judgments. These judgments evolve in a "multitude of highly individual arrangements and life-styles" (Gelatt, 1984, p. 134). Leisure preference represents an impression about what may be an enjoyable use of free time, and such impressions may have started as a purpose, a need, or a "half-finished" activity. Leisure preference therefore can be assessed in terms of an expressed attraction (or repulsion) in the life settings of older adults. 7 Assessing these attractions (or repulsions), which Lewin (1935) describes as valences, is a functional approach to understanding attitudes about leisure. For example, a negative response to a given leisure category must be assessed according to an individual's perceptual field. A negative response may expose latent connections; e.g., older adults who may really be interested in playing golf will probably not express that interest if a sharp pain cuts across their back every time they swing a club. Lewin's field theory illustrates the important forces present in the preference assertion process. These forces steer preference according to individualized "laws" by which older adults translate their impulses and perceptions into preference. Relatedly, the concept of life setting or lifestyle provides a useful bridge between personal value judgments and surrounding social systems connecting individual leisure preference to larger, societal events.

PAGE 20

8 Definition of Terms Leisure: "Leisure is any activity an individual knowingly (i.e. consciously) chooses to define as leisure" (Loesch and Wheeler, 1982, p. 36); as activity beyond that necessary for physical or personal maintenance which the participant defines as pleasurable and satisfying (Kelly, 1982); and "discretionary personal activity in which expressive meanings have primacy over instrumental themes" (Gordon, Gaitz, and Scott, 1976, pp. 314-15). Leisure Preference: "The observable organization of an individual's choice of activity in terms of use of time, investment of energy, and choice of interpersonal objects" (Bengston, 1973, p. 37). Leisure Counseling: A process for helping someone utilize options for enjoying leisure time (Loesch and Wheeler, 1982, p. 205). Recreation: The refreshment of strength and spirit after work or apart from work (Morris, 1973). Older Adults: Individuals in the later period of human life during which some capacities increase and others diminish. In this study, the ages associated with this period are 60 and above. Life Satisfaction: The degree to which one is presently pleased or content with one's general life situation;

PAGE 21

9 one component of individual well-being (George and Bearon, 1980). Leisure Setting: A small scale social system which includes people and inanimate objects, and, within whose time and space various components interact in an orderly, established way (Wicker, 1981). Microcomputer: A desk-top sized computer, commonly available for 1,000 to 5,000 dollars, and capable of processing and printing data (Heiserman, 1981). METs: Standard units of metabolic activity equal to the amount of oxygen used per kilo of bodyweight by a 154 pound man each minute while at rest. (Schwartz, 1984). Organization of the Remainder of the Study Four chapters comprise the remainder of the study. Chapter II provides a review of the literature related to what is known about leisure preference. The methodology of instrumentation via a computer-interactive model is discussed in Chapter III. This chapter also includes information on the Overs' Avocational Activities Inventory (Overs, Taylor, and Adkins, 1977), sampling techniques, procedures, data analyses, and potential limitations. Chapter IV presents the tables of results of the cluster analyses, discriminant analyses, and tests of significance. Chapter V presents conclusions, alternative explanations, results, and suggestions for further research.

PAGE 22

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction In 1900, when those 65 and older numbered approximately 3.1 million, or 4.1% of the U.S. population, the societal impact of older adult leisure involvement was minimal. Today, older adults number approximately 26.5 million, or 11.7% of the population, and by the year 2000, this number will have grown to approximately 35 million, or 13.1% of the population (Faludi, 1984). The personal preferences of older Americans for leisure are, and will be, politically, medically, and economically potent. This trend is particularly evident in the State of Florida where approximately 17.5% of the current population is 65 years old or older (Defendorf, 1984); by the year 2020, nearly 60% of Florida's population will be over the age of 50 (Beland, 1982). Thus, in Florida, and in other population centers, the impact of how older adults enjoy themselves is and will continue to be be great. Looking for leisure preference parameters follows logically from trying to increase the pleasure that leisure participation brings. Relaxation, enjoyment, and challenge 10

PAGE 23

11 are critically important parts of older adult life. Non-stressful, enjoyable, and freely selected activities are similar to the "relaxation response" discussed by Benson (1975) as being important in the reduction of diseases. To isolate norms of older adults' preference for ' leisure activities reliably and validly (taking into account the variety of their lifestyles) is indeed a research challenge. Researchers of older adult "pleasure" preferences face particularly subtle and complex phenomena because the developmental, social, and psychological relationships implicit in this group's preferences evolve through the experiences, fantasies, and hopes of a lifetime. This chapter reviews literature on gerontological leisure and related studies in six sections. The first contains descrptions of older adults in the United States. The second section covers a variety of expert and older adult definitions of leisure. The third section reports on studies regarding leisure and quality of life. The fourth section reviews recent research on the leisure preferences of selected older adult populations. The fifth section explains a theoretical model of leisure preference as a function of person-environment interaction. The last section is a summary. Descriptions of Older Adults in the United States Living their later years in the midst of a powerful "gerontocracy'' which is healthier, richer, better educated,

PAGE 24

12 and more politically powerful than ever before, older adults experience both the benefits and stresses of today's social and economic life. Within the variety of older adult populations, there is, on the average, more contentment than among younger people (Faludi, 1984). Their increasing resources also enable them to choose among more leisure options than have previous older generations, and they spend a larger proportion of their money for recreation than did older adults 30 years ago. Older adults join in informal networks (family, friends, co-workers) which mitigate against stress, and they continue to search for involvement. When surveyed by Booz Allen and Hamilton, Inc . (1981), older adults reported that their overriding, or fundamental, interest was to keep in touch with meaningful, ''belonging-centered" social connections. An example of this interest is a finding by Defendorf (1984) that 80% of older adults were parents; 80% of the parents saw at least one of their children during the week of the survey, and 55% of them saw at least one of their children on the day that they answered the survey questions. Volunteerism is popular with older adults. In 1981, approximately 25% of older adults surveyed by the Gallup Organization indicated that they were currently in a volunteer's role (Jusenius, 1983). Further, all levels of government have begun to encourage such volunteerism as a substitute for government's declining role. Volunteer work

PAGE 25

13 is frequently engaged in by this group in the absence of part-time work opportunities and generally constricted access to paid employment. Harris & Associates (1975) indicated that one-half of sampled retirees wished that they were working (for pay). Enhanced by modern advertising stimulation, spending power has become a major determinant of retirement satisfaction (Johnson and Riker, 1981). Living costs and fixed incomes make rigorous financial planning critically important for older adults (Hazard, 1981). Although older adults indicate that they want retirement to be a gradual process, they are most often faced with the advent of sudden retirement. Part-time work opportunities are not the norm for this group; older workers say that they would like to work, but they perceive that their current jobs are not available on a part-time basis, and that comparable part-time jobs are rare (Jondrew, Brechling, and Marcus, 1983). Despite the many positive aspects of life for today's older adults, depression is frequent (Landreth and Berg, 1982), primarily because there are many dilemmas facing this group. Disabilities and a multitude of losses (e.g., job, sense of self-worth, loved ones, and friends) are frequently encountered (Hancock, 1982). Almost two-thirds of all women over 65 are single while only approximately 25% of male older adults are single (American Council on Life Insurance, 1984). Older adults aged 60 and above represent over 25% of

PAGE 26

14 all recorded suicides in the . U.S. (Myers, 1983). Although fewer than 15% of the elderly are considered poor as compared to 35% of the elderly 25 years ago, poverty among the elderly is still a sizable problem. Women account for nearly 75% of the older adult poor and only 18% of women receive pensions. For 60% of women over 65 living alone, social security is their only income (Older Women's League, 1984). Some diseases, although they may occur earlier in life, are much more likely to appear in the later years. An estimated 86% of all older persons have one or more chronic health problems that limit their daily activities (Myers, 1983). The diseases which appear with greatest frequency due to aging are Alzheimer's disease, arteriosclerosis, arthritis, bronchitis and lung disease, cancer, coronary disease, cataracts, diabetes mellitus, the later stages of hypertension, and neuritis (Silverstone and Hyman, 1982). However, despite these afflictions and a hospitalization rate greater than two and one-half times that for younger people (Millon, Green, and Meagher, 1982), illness took only fourth place (after crime, energy costs, and loneliness) in a 1981 survey of older adult concerns (Defendorf, 1984). All senses tend to diminish in sensitivity over time. Sense of balance and psychomotor coordination may begin to decline after age 50 or 60. On the average, between the ages of 30 and 70 years, maximum lung capacity decreases 50%, blood pumped by a resting heart decreases 28%, maximum

PAGE 27

heart rate decreases 25%, pumping efficiency of the heart decreases 30%, basal metabolic rate decreases 10%, muscle strength decreases 12%, muscle coordination decreases 26%, and hearing of high frequencies decreases 60% (Maranto, 1984). 15 The quality of routine maintenance of the body, including diet, rest, exercise, and freedom from stress, has been shown to offset or delay the decline in acuity in seeing and hearing. Variation in the sensory decline of older adults is so great that a new term, "functional age," has been coined to refer to the ability level each person possesses (Van Every, 1983). The demographics of aging illustrate that older adults are a resilient and diverse group. Different in physical and mental capacities, different in social and economic backgrounds, different in interests and experiences, older adults are similar only to the extent that each individual has had the opportunity to be the way he or she is for a long period of time. Butler (1981) advocates leisure activity to help put life in perspective, proving to older adults that their lives have been worthwhile, and encouraging them to face later years with a will to maximize their options for pleasure. Older adults need leisure activity and counselors assisting older adults need to know more about older adults at leisure.

PAGE 28

16 Leisure Defined Positive definitions of leisure result from an individual's judgement of its usefulness within his or her own time and space, and not out of identification with group or "subcultural" norms (McClelland, 1982). McDowell and Clark (1982) described three interrelated dimensions of leisure opinion definitions: (a) expositive or anticipatory dimension, i.e., looking forward to leisure; (b) thematic dimension, i.e., the content or environmental configuration of the leisure activity; and (c) rapositive or reflective dimension, i.e., reminiscing about leisure experiences. Definitions evolve against a backdrop of disengagement and continued engagement. Disengagement is defined as a lifestyle relatively uninvolved with society as a whole, encompassing within it a wide variety of options dependent upon health, personality, and socio-economic environment. The definition of leisure as continued engagement is pleasurable activity through the continuation of work or from a second career. For older adults, this definition is less frequent because of ageism and physical constraints (Metropoulous, 1980). Leisure is a self-rewarding activity, sometimes called residual time or time which is left over after life work activities are finished (Bull, 1982). Neulinger (1974) provides a comprehensive psychological definition of leisure:

PAGE 29

Leisure is a state of mind; it is a way of being, of being at peace with oneself and what one is doing. (p. xv) Leisure has one and only one essential criterion, and that is the condition of perceived freedom. Any activity carried out freely, without constraint or compulsion, may be considered to be leisure. To leisure implies being engaged in an activity as a free agent and of one's own choice. (pp. 15-16) 17 In a study by the Boaz-Allen and Hamilton Co., Inc. (1981) older adults, who were generally at home and viewing TV well above the average during weekdays and mornings, did not define leisure as intellectual stimulation. This group constituted a sample of older adults of whom 67% were 60 years old or older, 12% of whom were black, and 71% of whom were female. In a study by Stenrud (1977), institutionalized older adults conceptualized leisure in a practical way. These older adults did not separate leisure activity from daily living. Leisure was an event mixed in within a satisfying life. Work, family, and play were not viewed separately, but rather holistically as part of life. Meaningful activity to the majority of residents meant work, family, and religion. For many persons born 80 years ago, leisure as a distinct activity seemed peripheral. For many, leisure was linked to work in that it had to be earned; leisure without work was sinful. Many viewed their present, enforced leisure not as rest but as work aimed at recovery

PAGE 30

18 from illness. This definition of leisure emphasizes its therapeutic benefits. Interviews with older adults indicated that their definitions of leisure were influenced by the type of job they held before retirement (Roadburg, 1981). Leisure was not seen in the way younger adults modeled it. The chance to be free from work was a positive or negative part of older adult leisure definitions based on whether the older adult was forced to retire or voluntarily retired. Historically, older adults have defined leisure in the context of work. Work is accepted as a responsibility and a privilege. Leisure as an "occupation" is held with less acceptance. However, Butler (1981) stated that older adults who value leisure as being less virtuous than work do not adequately define the total human life cycle. Quality of Life and Leisure Activity choices and life satisfaction, treated as correlates, have appeared in gerontological literature, particularly with reference to developmental activity theory. Social gerontologists have conducted considerable research geared toward answering the question, what is the relationship between social participation and life quality (George and Bearon, 1980)? Research findings generally support the belief that "something to do" contributes to the

PAGE 31

19 life satisfaction of older adults (Ragheb and Griffith, 1982). Mancini and Orthner (1982) reported a substantial relationship between psychological well-being and participation in leisure activities. Satisfaction in later years was found to be closely related to the quality of leisure experiences. Seleen (1982} found a significant amount of variation in life satisfaction beyond that accounted for by demographic variables. Her results highlighted the role of activity type and format in satisfaction. Certain other demographic factors appear to predispose an older adult to satisfaction with life: gender, marital status, age, education, financial adequacy, and health (McClelland, 1982). Van Every (1983) reviewed several studies on aging and concluded that activity, income, positive self-perception, positive belief about physical well-being, and social participation contributed to a satisfying retirement. Dowd (1980) concluded that decisions to be active are an antidote to loneliness. This conclusion is found in a number of other studies based on activity theory (e.g., Elwell and Maltbie-Crannel, 1981; Liang, 1982) in which leisure activity is modeled as an intervening variable between an individual and life satisfaction. Johnson and Riker (1981) concluded that leisure interests are constricted when life satisfaction is low. Leisure activity also has been found to promote development of life coping skills, to decrease stress, and

PAGE 32

20 to increase a sense of enjoyment within older adults (Adams, 1980). In order to enhance quality of life, Tedrick (1984) integrated older adults into recreational activities with younger age groups. The benefits found in this approach were a decrease in stereotypical thinking about the effects of aging and the learning of a more holistic view of life. Art therapy and poetry groups have helped older adults to gain life satisfaction. Capuzzi and Gross (1980) described an increase in life satisfaction from participation in music groups (sing-along, listening, or instrumental). These authors cited studies which report increased body movement, positive change in withdrawn older adults, benefit from opportunities to reminisce, and increased feelings of closeness to others. The same authors demonstrated that satisfaction with life increased with participation in groups which focused on exploring group members' individual concerns and also in other kinds of educational groups which focused on topic discussions or helping older adults organize th~ir ideas. Older adults who experienced health anxieties reacted positively to topic group work procedures which focused on helping participants to relax while gaining information about topics of interest. It has been found that the chance to gain information in interaction with others is a subset of the human need for group affiliation (Shacter, 1959). Therefore, topic discussions appear to be effective leisure activities which clarify issues and reduce anxiety.

PAGE 33

21 Activity is the most prominent variable in relation to the sense that older adults control their own lives. High activity level, a broader category than leisure, implies the potential for effective control and suggests energy levels and mobility consistent with personal effectiveness. Research on locus of control for all age groups suggests that a sense of personal control is important for the activity-life satisfaction linkage (Ziegler and Reid, 1983). Keith (1978) tested the hypothesis that changes in older adults' lives would lead to lack of involvement 1n leisure activities and might precipitate a social breakdown syndrome among older adults. The syndrome was described as one in which persons eventually accepted a label as incompetent and defined themselves as sick or inadequate. The author asserted that increased leisure participation might intervene in the cycle and correlate with the reconstruction of a satisfying self-image. Data were collected and analyzed from interviews with 214 males and 354 females, aged 72+. Results indicated that life changes did not seem to trigger withdrawal from most leisure activities; that leisure involvement and satisfaction were (somewhat) gender-linked; and that participation differentially satisfied the needs of men and women. Mellinger and Holt (1982) compared 145 participants (aged 57-92) in three types of programs for older adults on leisure activities, attitudes toward leisure, social contacts, morale, and demographic variables. Results of

PAGE 34

22 discriminant function analysis indicated that older adults in the Retired Senior Volunteer Programs (RSVP), recreation programs, and nutrition programs differed in significant ways in regard to activity levels, socioeconomic statuses, and morale. The RSVP volunteers were highly active, service-oriented individuals. Their activities gave them satisfaction because they offered a chance to be of service to others. Recreation group members were sociable, fairly active people, with stable living arrangements, who enjoyed the change of pace of social gatherings. Nutrition group members experienced more sensory-motor problems and appeared to have somewhat lower morale and lower socioeconomic status. They appeared satisfied to interact with the sponsoring organization mainly to satisfy the need to eat. In a study of satisfaction and leisure activity, 18 modes of social participation through leisure activities were tested. One thousand six hundred and forty-nine older adults responded to 27 paragraphs defining satisfaction within leisure activities using the Paragraphs About Leisure-Form E {PAL-E). The eight satisfiers indicated were self-expression, companionship, power, compensation, security, service, intellectual aestheticism, and solitude (Tinsley, 1982). Three distinctly different research technologies have been associated with the measurement of leisure preferences and life satisfaction. The earliest research relied on judges' ratings concerning in what fashion and to what

PAGE 35

23 extent an older adult was willing and/or able to engage in leisure. The second generation of research focused more precisely on empirical indicators of the leisure process, measuring what the older adult could and did do. The most recent developments emphasize measures of leisure preferences as related to need satisfiers (Graney, 1982). A general conclusion concerning leisure and life satisfaction is that leisure is valuable to an older adult in as much as it helps him or her fulfill aspirations. A person who is satisfied finds that life activities are congruent with his or her values. Leisure leads to happiness when it helps a person maintain positive feelings in excess of negative feelings. Leisure relates to "satisfaction" in that it leads to the fulfillment of needs, expectations, wishes, or desires (George and Bearon, 1980). Research on Older Adult Leisure A large body of literature has been developed relating leisure to a variety of adaptive behaviors. Atchley (1980) indicated that "aging or changes associated with it cause activity patterns to change, if not in the type of activity, at least in the amount of activity" (p. 189). Leisure as an adaptation in later years has been studied as a function of 1) gender, 2) environment, 3) options available, 4) habit, and 5) reward values.

PAGE 36

24 Leisure as a Function of Sex Difference Kando (1980) summarized his findings with the statement, ''Men dominate nearly all areas of leisure and recreation" (p. 69). Payne and Whittington examined several stereotypes about the older woman as "a pleasantly plump granny who spends her time in a rocking chair knitting or sewing" (1980, p. 17). These authors claimed that the group with the most free time is women over the age of 60, and they stated that there were few studies supporting gender differences in the use of leisure time. Atchley (1980) found that, for both genders, reading and watching television were the most common participation activities, followed by talking and visiting. Older males (in rural retirement) expressed interests in passive activities that had some form of tangible return or product such as fishing, hunting, and investment. These individuals had few interests in vigorous, physical activities, the classical arts, or international affairs. Individuals surveyed in the Booz-Allen and Hamilton Co., Inc. (1981) study were seen as (somewhat) dormant, needing and wanting family contact and support. A conclusion which can be be drawn is that cultural/social norms tend to regulate leisure preferences: More important than similarities and differences in the kinds of activities engaged in by men and women are the processes underlying the differences. From childhood on, some kinds of activities are defined as acceptable for one sex rather than the other. (Kelly, 1982, p. 225)

PAGE 37

25 Leisure as a Function of Environment Romsa and Bondy (1983) studied older adults in the city of Windsor, Canada, to test the hypothesis that retired persons with the fewest housing constraints would exhibit more active leisure behavior patterns. Their results indicated that both location and dwelling type appeared to be related to quality of retirement leisure activity. Residents of privately operated apartments were found to be most active while respondents from public housing units were least active. To determine whether musical activity preferences were related to residence or community size, Gilbert and Beal (1982) surveyed such preferences in relation to environment. They found that older adults (on the average) had definite music preferences, and that listening and observation of music for enjoyment were more common to sedentary older adults than they were to active ones. One hundred and twenty-five older adults, between the ages of 45 and 93, were interviewed regarding how their environments enhance or constrain their leisure. Constraints identified by the younger respondents included lack of time, lack of money, and bad weather. Constraints of the older respondents included lack of companions, fear of crime, lack of transportation, and fear for health (McGuire, 1982). Beland (1982) described the State of Florida as a leisure environment, which by virtue of climate and

PAGE 38

26 reputation, enhances anticipation in older adults. In this sense, Florida is ecologically conducive to the development of leisure preferences. Initially, its format leads to relocation behaviors and then to "pervasive expectations about leisure that older adults typically bring with them to this state" (p.16). Swaim (1983) indicated that there is value in understanding the scope of older adults' leisure interests in relation to environmental pressures. Leisure as a Function of Options Available What individuals do during their leisure time has been shown to relate to what is provided. Planners of leisure services therefore play a direct role in determining what people do during their leisure time (Morgan and Godbey, 1978). In a study on the institutional policies of sheltered-care facilities, the Policy and Program Information Form (POLIF) was used to measure 10 conceptually unified dimensions (Lemke and Moos, 1980). The development of the POLIF was based on normative data from 93 representative facilities, and it was found useful in profiling and comparing the scope of adult care facilities. The authors concluded that facilities offering intensive care did not offer much choice of activity or encourage older adults to structure their own daily routine. Myers (1983a) illustrated that older adults in nursing homes accepted leisure activities without expression of frustration or assertion of unmet needs. Lemke and Moos

PAGE 39

27 (1980) indicated that larger facilities tended to screen out the most severe cases and offer more health services and social activities. These latter facilities had formal procedures for transmitting expectations and involving residents in decision making regarding daily routine and leisure activities. Leisure as a Function of Habit Hill (1981), in discussing the cognitive processes involved in personal preference, defined the concept of 11 style" as a form of expressive behavior which manifests itself in consistent and predictable patterns. In a study of the stylistic qualities of older adult activity preferences, Petrakis and Hanson (1981) found that whether older adults chose passive or active kinds of leisure depended on whether the leisure activity selected followed traditional patterns of leisure activity which evolved from lifelong socializing experiences. Lawton (1978) indicated that older adults' leisure preferences were determined by the social values prevalent in their earlier years, their habits, biologically and socially determined competencies, evolving personal needs, and the external environment's impinging and facilitating influences. An example of the influence of socialization on leisure preference is found in a survey of older adults who chose reading as a leisure activity (Ribovich and Erikson, 1980). Analysis revealed that reading was and historically had been

PAGE 40

28 an important aspect of their lives. The behaviors of purchasing and borrowing books had become habits earlier in life, In this example, leisure preferences for reading evolved out of habit and continued opportunity to read. Leisure as a Function of Reward Values The reward values of leisure are important aspects of leisure preference. Many older adults like to shop, and Faludi (1984) found that the chance to be assertive in bargaining with store personnel when shopping seemed to be a reinforcer of self-esteem. A random sampling of older adult residents of Pulaski County, Arkansas, was conducted to study learning as a positive, rewarding leisure activity. were completed for 346 individuals. Telephone surveys Findings showed that almost 85% of the respondents indicated a leisure interest in education. Two-thirds of the respondents were women, 62% were married, the majority were white (82%), more than 58% had incomes ranging between $5,000 and $30,000, and 26% were currently or recently involved in an educational program. The most common reward perceived was in learning new things for personal growth. Over 34% of the respondents expressed interest in teaching others (Graham et al., 1982). This portion of the review of the literature emphasizes that there are few studies which set up a theoretical hypothesis in which leisure preferences are measured in terms of an overall theory. Bull (1982) states that

PAGE 41

To the extent that theory about the leisure behavior of older adults has been developed, it has stressed the relationships between constructs (e.g., activity and morale) and ignored the relationships between the empirical indicators and theoretical constructs of leisure. (p. 483) 29 Preference still needs to be treated as a predictor variable which takes into account the diversity of older adult lifestyles. The functions of lifestyle and demographic variables also still need to be set into a predictable pattern of correspondence in a leisure theory, supported by valid, representative data on older adults. Studies on Leisure Choice Determinants Everyday, older adults sample various formal, informal, and solitary leisure activities in the hope of finding something to do which will be rewarding and meaningful (Lemon, Bengston, and Peterson, 1972); but how does it happen that they decide on one activity as having potential for satisfaction? Adler (1965) asserts that how a person evaluates a given environment depends upon the person's relationship to that environment. Kelly (1982) discusses the notion that the subjective reaction of an older adult to a given leisure activity must be taken into account in order to predict accurately whether an individual will engage in that activity. Metropoulous (1980) provides evidence that strong personal and environmental factors interact and

PAGE 42

30 determine whether older adults will positively or negatively value a leisure activity. A conclusion drawn from a series of articles reviewed by Dunn (1981) is that older adults will probably be willing to participate in leisure which they believe they will handle successfully. He cited such factors as shifting work arrangements, family structures, women's roles, and immigration as environmental factors which influence whether an older adult views leisure optimistically and enthusiastically. The health, personality, meaningful relationships, and socioeconomic status of older adults are a small scale social system which make up the environmental, predisposing factors inherent in leisure choices (Butler, 1984). In making leisure choices, older adults interact with external, concrete things and adapt to geography, weather, and price and to all those physical conditions which in some way reinforce or extinguish participatory behavior. A Paradigm for Leisure Preference A model for consideration of leisure preference as a function of both personal and environmental factors is the field theory of Kurt Lewin (1951). Lewin (1951) indicated that people and their environment are parts of a dynamic field, or gestalt. The influence of environment on leisure preference does not limit the influence of personality; rather, it adds a dimension to choice which has as much importance as personality. "Only by the concrete whole

PAGE 43

31 which comprises the object and the situation are the vectors which determine the dynamics of the event defined" (Lewin, 1935, p 30). The basic statements of field theory are that: (a) behavior has to be derived from a totality of existing facts; and {b) these coexisting facts have a character of a dynamic field in so far as the state of any part of this field depends on every other part of the field. Lewin terms this dynamic field "life space," which includes the person and the psychosocial environment of the person. He stated "in principle it is everywhere accepted that behavior {B) is a function of the person (P) and the environment {E), B = f{P,E), and that {P) and (E), in this formula are interdependent variables" (p. 25). Using this life-space model, leisure preference can be studied as a personal, adaptive set of behaviors of definite character, chosen freely by an individual, within the limits of their life space. In this study, the life space of an individual is pictured in the context of income, health status, work history, educational level, and marital status. This model of older adult leisure preference is an "ecologically oriented model that assesses human environments more directly and that seeks to understand environmental structures in terms of their own unique features" {Wicker, 1981, p. 24).

PAGE 44

32 Which leisure preferences the older adult expresses are hypothesized as evolving out of an ecologically based predisposition. For example, Goodnow (1980) suggested that an excellent way to assess the desires of older adults for social, recreational, and educational services is to segment older adult groups into distinct lifestyle groupings. She stated that the needs and interests of various segments differ significantly because of different environmentally conditioned motivational orientations. Focusing on environment allows for the fact that more than personal style is involved in leisure preference. Leisure preference occurs within a kind of "behavioral setting" whose determinants include both people and inanimate objects, and within whose time and space these various determinants interact (Wicker, 1981). Preference is not accidental and is always ecological (Barker, 1968). Preference statements are motivated, goal-directed, and occur within the context of some definable environment. For example, when a city places a park bench in a pleasant location some individuals reciprocate by sitting on it. Without the opportunity, the preference may not have surfaced. In order to simulate "opportunities" for leisure, a checklist of leisure can be used to assess whether an older adult has an attraction to a given activity. A well done taxonomy makes it possible to consider leisure/person information at different levels of generalization because it

PAGE 45

33 ranges from broad to highly specific groupings of leisure activity. Used as a checklist, a leisure taxonomy serves as an analog of actual leisure alternatives. It is a bridge between the state of one system (i.e., the person) relative to the state of a surrounding system (i.e., the leisure environment). Overs, O'Connor, and DeMarco (1974) and Overs, Taylor, and Adkins (1977) present categories of and individual leisure activities in a taxonomy of leisure alternatives. Although not empirically based, this classification system is the most comprehensive taxonomy appearing in the literature. Some evidence of the validity and usefulness of the taxonomy was developed by Tinsley, Teaff, Colbs, and Kaufman (1985). Summary In this review of recent research on leisure behavior, it becomes clear that there are few studies which set up a theoretical hypothesis in which leisure preference or personal evaluations are measured in terms of an overall theory. In the (mostly) correlational studies reviewed, it appears that leisure preference behavior frequently correlates with aspects of lifestyle which are defined in this study as work history, income, education, household type, and health. The personal values, social norms, environmental pressures, availability of leisure activity, and life history of older adults are assumed to be balanced and integrated in lifestyle factors. Demographic factors

PAGE 46

which are uncontrollable by the individual older adult (i.e., race, gender, and age) appear to have a less direct influence on leisure preference. 34 This research is an effort to set lifestyle and demographic factors into a predictable pattern of correspondence with the environmental characteristics of Overs' et al. (1974, 1977) taxonomy of leisure activities. Since leisure preferences include an individual's personal projection of which leisure environments offer the best prospect for pleasure, the use of Overs' materials as a type of environmental simulator is a way to assess many of the trends and theories about what older adults like to do.

PAGE 47

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Since older adults differ from one another in many ways and to remarkable extents, the purpose of this study was to determine a pattern in the leisure activity preferences of older adults in selected environments. It followed that in order to understand older adult leisure preferences, it was necessary to observe and analyze specific sets of preferences as they interacted with specified sets of environmental conditions. This chapter first describes a microcomputer-based design for collecting older adult leisure preference data. The second section then explains the instrumentation and procedures used to collect leisure preference data from selected older adult samples. The chapter ends with a discussion of the limitations of the design. Hypotheses In the absence of an explicit theoretical hypothesis concerning the leisure preferences of older adults, the following hypotheses about the relationships among older adult preferences and older adult lifestyles were designed to test the "best fit'' of relationships in the observed 35

PAGE 48

data. The null hypotheses tested in this study were as follows: 1. Ho: The leisure preferences of older adults are not correlated to the gender, age, and race of older adults. 36 2. Ho: The leisure preferences of older adults are not correlated to the lifestyle factors of education level, work history, self-reported income, self-reported health status, and household type of older adults. Procedures This causal comparative study hypothesized that lifestyle and demographics do not significantly (p = <.05) associate with patterns of older adults• leisure preferences. In order to test these hypotheses, observations of preference were made by relating preferences to older adult lifestyle and demographic factors. A sample of older adults was invited to review Overs, Taylor, and Adkins• (1977) Avocational Activities Inventory (AAI). An explanation was given that a review of leisure options might trigger ideas about activities that they might enjoy, or alert them to activities that they may not have considered. As further encouragement, older adults were offered a printed record of their leisure preferences among those listed in the AAI. The microcomputer version of the AAI was offered to subjects as an "easy path" to the many hundreds of AAI leisure activity listings.

PAGE 49

37 Each older adult who elected to participate then personally viewed and interacted with a microcomputer-based exposition of the AAI. Each AAI leisure activity chosen served as a variable label used for measuring the intensity and direction of leisure preference. Each participant's age, gender, race, marital status, work history, self-reported health status, income, and educational level were also recorded for use as predictor variables. After the data were collected, the AAI leisure preferences of older adults were "scored" as described below. Subject responses to AAI items were tallied on three levels of specificity General, Intermediate, and Specific. This was done by adding together the responses to Specific items (e.g, Flower Gardening, Vegetable Gardening) in order to "score" preferences at an Intermediate level (e.g. Gardening) (See Fig. 1.). Intermediate scores were summed to "score" General level preferences (e.g., Nature). This was done for approximately 565 Specific, 72 Intermediate, and 28 General categories of leisure activity.

PAGE 50

38 General Level Activities: e.g., Nature Activities /\ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ I \ Intermediate Level Activities: e.g., Gardening \ I I I I I I I Specific Level Activities: Figure 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ e.g., Flower Gardening Hierarchical Structure of Data Table 1 Description and Range of Predictor Variables Demographic Labels Age Self-Reported Income Gender Work History Code Race Self-Report of Health Household Type Education Range 60 and above Sufficient/Not-sufficient Male, Female Data, People, Things, Ideas White, Black, Other Restricting/Not-restricting Living with Spouse, Alone, in Group Quarters, or with Relatives Elementary, High School, College

PAGE 51

Table 2 Component Activity Totals in Leisure Hierarchy for Each Level General Intermediate 1. Games 9 2. Sports 9 3. Nature 9 4. Crafts 9 5. Art and Music 9 6. Collecting 9 7. Educat./Entertain./Culture 9 8. Organizational 9 9. METs 5 Exertion 17 10. METs 4 Exertion 27 11. METs 3 Exertion 37 12. METs 2 Exertion 47 13. ' METs 1 Exertion 33 14. Aesthetic 61 15. Utilitarian 25 16. Creative 33 17. Pre-Patterned 52 18. Abstract 21 19. Concrete 55 20. Group Effort 33 21. Individual Effort 60 22. Structured 43 23. Unstructured 32 24. Supervised 31 25. Unsupervised 43 26. Recognition 52 27. Indoor 57 28. Outdoor 38 Specific 45 66 79 71 77 72 80 75 137 204 296 364 274 624 210 258 390 265 434 257 463 304 264 246 345 404 453 303 39 Note. See Appendix A for the names of Intermediate and Specific leisure activities attributed to each General group of leisure activities (from Overs et al., 1977, 1974).

PAGE 52

40 After data were collected, all three score levels were analyzed in order to determine any significant associations between predictor variables (i.e., the demographic variables) and dependent variables (i.e., the General, Intermediate, and Specific leisure categories). Instrumentation The device used to collect data in this study was Tandy Corporation's (Fort Worth, Texas) Model 3 microcomputer. The microcomputer was programmed to display leisure activity descriptions and to record preferences for the 565 specific items in the AAI taxonomy of leisure activities. Patterned after the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (U.S. Department of Labor Emplyment and Traikning Division, 1977), the AAI is not an assessment device itself, but it is used as a systematic grouping of leisure activities. The AAI is a result of a 1974 research and demonstration grant (15-P-5521/5-03) from the Social and Rehabilitation Service, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington D.C. The AAI divides leisure activities into nine areas which associate with separate activities and/or physical settings: games, sports, nature, collecting, crafts, art and music, educational/entertainment/culture, volunteering, and organizational activities. Overs, Taylor, and Adkins published a "final" version of the AAI in 1977. AAI's "800" category (Volunteer Activities) was dropped from use in this study because as a separate category it included too many unrealistic options; e.g., processing metal ores and motor

PAGE 53

freight. It was merged with the Organizational activity, 11 900 11 category. The entire text of the modified version of the AAI appears in Appendix A. Intermediate levels of the AAI activity groups were created by modifying the AAI list of activities; e.g., "Active Games" was changed to "PLAYING Active Games." Syllable length was kept short to make reading easier, and 1/4 11 typeface was used to form the letters on each microcomputer screen. 41 Programmed with the AAI as a (leisure activities) database, the microcomputer enabled older adults to decide what they liked or disliked among a panorama of leisure activity alternatives. When the older adult chose a leisure category to investigate, the microcomputer displayed more information on that category. Thus, by interacting with the microcomputer presentation, the adult directed a comprehensive leisure preference selection process. This interactive search provided each participant a view of each leisure category for as long as necessary for comprehension and comfort. Each participant personally determined the rate at which the categories changed. If the adult wanted to review or reconsider a leisure category, they simply touched one key. An older adult was therefore able to change a response or skip areas of disinterest by simply touching a key. The farther older adults wanted to search into any leisure category, the longer the review took to complete. It took these older adults about 30 minutes on

PAGE 54

the average to complete the activity, and the longest time was about 40 minutes. The shortest time was about five minutes. 42 The possible need for extra assistance was satisfied by employing aides to facilitate the exposition and data collection functions of the microcomputer. The aide helped the older adult feel at ease with a possible first exposure to microcomputer technology. For older adults who wanted to complete the survey, but also wanted to avoid the use of the computer, the aide entered the data for them. In these cases the aide read information off the screen, as needed, for the older adult to understand the screen display. This help did not bias the data because aides were instructed not to add extemporaneously to the displays, to offer encouragement for some activity choices as opposed to others, or to express opinions about the project. The microcomputer data collection model enhanced the random, non-intended occurrence of positive responses because participants had three chances to say no to a category and only one chance to say yes. Using this data collection paradigm, the number of positive responses was tallied by recording only responses to specific (i.e., Specific level) AAI activity list items; and participants accessed these items only after passing, by positive responding, two (i.e., General and Intermediate) ''bail out" levels which contained synopses of what could be expected on the Specific level of activities from the AAI leisure list.

PAGE 55

43 Ea~h General level activity which appeared on the microcomputer's screen included an approximately 50 word synopsis of that group of leisure activities. For example, if participants wanted to express an interest in "Games," they could only do this preference on the Specific level. Participants developed scores by first selecting "Games" (General level), then "Target Games" (Intermediate level), and then on a Specific level (dart games, horseshoes, etc.). Only the responses to Specific level items were tallied. Subjects Three hundred and three older adults were sampled across a representative spectrum of individuals 60 years old and older who were residents of the Orlando Statistical Management Survey Area (SMSA) in Florida. In order to develop a large, representative sample of older adults, subjects were selected from typical older adult life situations. Each subgroup was large enough to isolate differences in that group's pattern of chosen AAI leisure preferences from the sample taken as a whole. The basis of inferences about a given subgroup 1 s preferences depended on the magnitude or intensity of that subgroup's preference statements. To the extent that members of a given demographic or lifestyle group significantly differed from subjects who did not populate that given group, this was

PAGE 56

taken as evidence ot preference associated with a given lifestyle or demographic statistic. 44 This research was conducted exclusively in the Orlando, FL, SMSA. Non-responders were those individuals who were invited, but who did not participate . Their decisions could have been a result of beliefs that they did not want or need any review or clarification of leisure options. They also might have felt that leisure was not a significant or an attractive enough topic on which to spend their time. There were no systematic reasons for exclusion of any potential older adult who wished to participate. Some were met in activities centers funded by the Older Americans Act (as amended in 1978) and others were from non-government sponsored centers of older adult activity; e.g., shopping malls, private housing areas, "Retirement Expo." Table 3 indicates the number of subjects obtained in the data collection process during which various groups of older adults participated in the study. The list includes the reason why the older adults had gathered and the attraction which drew them. Each entry on the list indicates approximately an eight-hour daytime period during which older adults had the opportunity to participate.

PAGE 57

Table 3 Sites Where Subjects Were Surveyed # Sbj. Attraction 13 10 12 7 9 12 7 6 4 19 3 3 3 9 5 6 17 12 9 5 11 17 13 2 3 6 7 8 4 3 4 4 16 3 15 3 8 5 Health Fair Health Fair Health Fair Health Fair Health Fair Health Fair Congregate Meals Congregate Meals Congregate Meals Varied Activity Luncheon Education Varied Activity Varied Activity Congregate Meals Congregate Meals Recreation Senior Expo Senior Expo Senior Expo Retirement Expo Retirement Expo Retirement Expo Recreation Recreation Congregate Care Congregate Care Congregate Care Congregate Care Congregate Care Congregate Care Recreation Recreation Recreation Employment Employment Social Social Site Mall Hospital Mall Civic Center Civic Center Civic Center Senior Center Senior Center Senior Center Senior Center Civic Center Mall Senior Center Senior Center Senior Center Senior Center Jewish Center Expo Center Expo Center Expo Center Civic Center Civic Center Civic Center Jewish Center Jewish Center Cent Park Ldg. Cent Park Ldg. Cent Park Ldg. Cent Park Ldg. Howell Place Howell Place Public Housing Public Housing Public Housing Job Service Job Service Private Home Private Home Reason Health Screenings Health Screenings Health Screenings Health Screenings Health Screenings Health Screenings Nourishment Nourishment Nourishment Socializing Lunch and Activity Education Fair Socializing Socializing Nourishment Nourishment Socializing Exhibits Exhibits Exhibits Retirement Info. Retirement Info. Retirement Info. Socializing Socializing Retirement Living Retirement Living Retirement Living Retirement Living Retirement Living Retirement Living Recreation Recreation Recreation Job Seeking Job Seeking Socializing Socializing 45

PAGE 58

46 Sample Characteristics Necessary for Representativeness The sample was intended to be a stratified, representative sample of the Orlando, FL, SMSA older adult community. Orlando is highly similar to older adult population concentrations throughout the U.S. (East Central Florida Regional Planning Council, 1983; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1983). The 1980 U.S. Census for Orlando for age, gender, and race of older adults was used to establish the proportions necessary for a representative sample. For example, if the Census indicated that half of the population of 60 64 year old adults was male and white, then an attempt was made to obtain 50% of the sample who were white males. Based on formulae presented in Meister (1985), the number of subjects required to produce a confidence level of 5% within the parameters of the General level variables in this study is approximately 152 subjects; however, in order to obtain enough subjects who were black in the sample, over 300 subjects were interviewed. Data Collection Procedures Data were collected at each site as follows: Step 1: A variety of older adult oriented organizations in the Orlando, FL, SMSA were asked to assist in obtaining subjects in this study. Community center or other organizational managers were contacted by phone to arrange

PAGE 59

47 for an appointment to discuss using the leisure survey at their site. Site administrators were asked to introduce the researcher and to play a facilitating role in his explanation of the study to the older adults at the site. The explanation covered the following points: 1. There are a variety of leisure alternatives for older adults. 2. Enjoyment of leisure starts with selecting an activity which makes personal sense, and then trying it out. 3. Participation in this survey is a good idea because of the ease and innovation of using a microcomputer to select personal leisure preferences. 4. Participation will result in obtaining a personalized, printed list of leisure choices. 5. No names or other personally identifying information would be stored in any format that would threaten the anonymity of those who chose to participate. Step 2: At the expositions (e.g., Altamonte Mall, Orlando Expo Center, and Orange County Civic Center) posters highlighted a booth containing the microcomputer equipment. Subjects were invited to participate as they passed the booth. The researcher explained the study and the benefits of leisure exploration to those who chose to stop and find out more. Step 3: The date(s) for the survey was (were) announced to the group. Site administrators were encouraged to facilitate their group's awareness of the activity. Any older adult was offered an opportunity to participate.

PAGE 60

48 Step 4: On the day(s) of the survey, a comfortable location or booth was set up with six chairs, a 10 foot long folding table, one to three microcomputer terminals, and a printer. The location was staffed by the researcher who functioned as an aide or by aides (only) when the researcher was absent. Aides were compensated at a rate of four dollars per hour. Step 5: After introduction to the equipment, the staff at each site keyed in data in the participants' records about the demographics of each participant; e.g., income, marital status, gender, age, educational level, site location, case number, perceived health status, and work history code. Step 6: Although the staff was ready to assist the participant at any point in the process, the instructions shown in Table 4 appeared at the bottom of each screen in order to give a written reminder to the participant about how to operate the keyboard. Table 4 Symbols and Explanations Printed on Computer Screen Symbol "X" right arrow down arrow "@11 Explanation To pass over all the leisure activities on the screen To select an activity preference To skip a specific leisure activity To make a change in a selection These steps were followed carefully in order to improve the comparability of responses across older adult subjects in this study. These steps were designed to accommodate both those subjects who may have had a need for considerable

PAGE 61

encouragement and help to complete their answers and those others who would be able and prefer to work on their own . Standardization of helping interventions also was intended to limit the potential biasing impact of the help given. Training of Aides: Aides for this study were present or 49 former paraprofessional staff members of Seminole Community College's Employability Evaluation Unit. Because these individuals have had experience as psychometrists, training only involved familiarization with the equipment and procedures unique to this study. Rimmer and Myers' (1982) article on testing older adults was given to each aide in order for each to develop increased sensitivity to the special characteristics of older adults. A copy of the World of Work Map (Prediger, 1981) also was given and explained to the aides for use in coding work history into data, people, things, and ideas categories. An orientation to the administration and coding procedures provided an informal question and answer training format. Data Analyses Overs et al. (1974, 1977) served as a uniform, content valid paradigm for frequency counting of preferences (dependent variables) in relation to group membership (independent or predictor variables). The dependent variables were scored by tallying the number of positive responses of older adults who populated the various predictor variable groupings (i.e., self-reported adequacy

PAGE 62

50 of income, gender, age, educational level, self-reported health status, work history code, race, and household type). Because there are 565 individual activities listed in the AAI, the analyses of data were hierarchical. Step 1: All the General and Intermediate scores were analyzed in order to calculate the mean, median, mode, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis for each. Step 2: The higher level in the hierarchies was analyzed first by cluster analyzing the dependent variables in reference to individual predictor variables; e.g., games, sports, ... , utilitarian activities, prepatterned activities. in reference to membership in the adequate income group. Step 3: The objective of this step was to find the most tightly packed clusters of activity variables; further, a procedure was set up to eliminate those variables which were tightly packed for the poles of each dependent variable. For example, the poles for the income predictor variable were self-reported adequate income and self-reported inadequate income. The activity clusters associated with both poles of the income variable were compared. Activities which were tightly associated with both poles were eliminated from further analysis against income; however, activities which were tightly packed with one polar dimension of a predictor variable were kept for further analysis.

PAGE 63

51 Step 4: The remaining high level activity variables were entered into a stepwise discriminant analysis in order to determine the "better than chance" predictor-dependent variable relationships in this study. In order to avoid a possible overestimation of the predictive strength of the groupings in the study, the following formula was used to determine the number of subjects needed to develop an unbiased discriminant function s = 50 + lO(x + c 1), where xis the number of variables used, and c is the number of predictor groupings (Reiss, 1984). Through use of this formula, it was found that the sample of 300 older adults (which also was necessary in order to have enough subjects in various subgroupings) was adequate for the number of activity variables established in Step 2. Step 5: The demographic predictor variables which remained as significant predictors (p = <.05), based on Step 4 results, were defined in terms of their Intermediate dependent variables. Next, these significant Intermediate scores were studied using the Levene W test (Brown and Forsythe, 1974) because it is not greatly affected by abnormally distributed group means . For example, male Intermediate preference scores found to be significant in Step 4 were compared to female Intermediate preference scores. Intermediate scores which significantly separated the dimensions of a predictor variable were retained for further analysis. Step 6: The Intermediate activities remaining after Step 5 were then defined into their Specific components. For

PAGE 64

52 example, the Gardening Intermediate became Flower Gardening or Vegetable Gardening. These Specific preference scores were compared for each dimension for each significant predictor variable using the chi-square statistic. The remaining significant (p = <.05) group discriminators became the final results of this study. Limitations Because each individual's preferences are unique, only a partial explanation of older adult leisure preference is available by associating group status with leisure preferences. The actual, personal meaning of leisure for a person is more intricate than any classification system. The precision of the leisure questioning on the microcomputer is therefore limited because it represents only a sample of all the possible questions that could be asked, and because variation in response may occur for reasons unrelated to the characteristics of the AAI itself. Although it is appropriate to classify older adults as a group on the basis of the physical or interpersonal environmental facets of their leisure preferences, older adults live in their own personal world, which may in some ways be different from the world of others, even when environmental circumstances seem to be identical (Elmore and Roberge, 1982). The statistical model used to explain anything limits the meaning of the explanation. The precision of this leisure classification represents only one

PAGE 65

53 way that leisure can be presented. Causal comparative, cross-sectional studies, like this one, do not capture the dynamics of change. They cannot completely resolve issues of causality without experimental, follow-up research. Although many variables were studied by use of the clustering, stepwise discriminant analysis, and chi-square statistics, there were not enough subjects in this study to allow for the study of any interaction effects which might exist among lifestyle variables and older adult leisure preferences. This limits the specificity of the conclusions which can be drawn. For example, the chi-square analyses performed on Specific level data indicated that blacks preferred to collect books more than did whites; however, although this appears to be a virtually uninterpretable phenomenon, when it is noted that several black female subjects were teachers, the interaction of occupation, race, and preference defines the meaning of the data more clearly. Finally, since the ''domains of interest activities are as a rule well understood by people in general" (Kuder, 1977, p. 16), an assumption was made that Overs' et al. (1977) AAI represents a listing of well understood leisure activities. It was further assumed that bringing together microcomputers, older adults, and the AAI resulted in an easy, yet comprehensive experience in which older adults

PAGE 66

54 meaningfully expressed their leisure preferences. Those older adults who did not participate were a source of bias in the data collected because they removed a perspective on leisure common to an entire group who share an aversion to participation and/or the use of computers.

PAGE 67

CHAPTER IV RESULTS The transformations performed on the data from this study are described first in this chapter. Next, the actual versus the ideal breakdown of the sample is detailed by demographic characteristics. Statistics concerning the distributive characteristics of the General and Intermediate level dependent variables are then presented. The results of the cluster analyses of the 28 General level dependent variables also are presented separately for each of the predictor variables in this study. Third, the stepwise discriminant analyses of General level leisure clusters are presented for each predictor variable in this study. Fourth, the procedure used to break down the significantly discriminating (p = <.05) General dependent variables into their Intermediate components is explained. Fifth, the results of a series of Levene W tests of the significance of Intermediate components of significant General level dependent variables are presented. Finally, the results of the chi-square analyses of the discrete Specific dependent variable components of the Intermediate level dependent variables are presented in relation to demographic (i.e., predictor) variable subgroupings. 55

PAGE 68

Data Transformations In order to test the two hypotheses in this study effectively, the following data transformations were performed. 56 Specific, discrete preference responses were summed on two levels General and Intermediate. The groupings were determined according to Overs' et al. (1974, 1977) taxonomy groupings. Since the resulting General dependent variables are composed of widely varying numbers of Intermediate level components, transformations were performed to make their means more readily comparable. Each General dependent variable was divided by a number equal to its Intermediate components. Sample Characteristics Prior to the testing of the hypotheses, analyses were conducted to determine whether the data were collected in accordance with the representative sample of older adults required for this study. The totals for Age, Race, and Gender are reported in Table 5. The sample deviates from a true representative form in all categories. The samples deviate most in the 70 79 age ranges and least in the 60 64 age ranges. There are also discrepancies in all of the subcategories (i.e., age, race, and gender). Following the protocol described in the procedures section, attempts were made to find representative groupings

PAGE 69

57 of older adults by contacting diverse centers of older adult activities; however, as the data collection procedures progressed, over-coverage and under-coverage of certain categories resulted. The deviations are small and the sample does (very closely) approximate a true representative sample of older adults in the Orlando, FL, SMSA. Descriptions of General and Intermediate Dependent Variables Tables 6 and 7 contain statistics describing the distributive characteristics for General dependent variables (Table 6) and for Intermediate dependent variables (Table 7}. When a distribution is symmetric, the expected values of the skewness and kurtosis statistics are zero. For both the General and Intermediate dependent variables in this study, skewness is higher than can be normally expected. Also, both General and Intermediate responses tend to be consistently negative. The low frequency of positive responding is seen in the kurtosis statistics which are abnormally high for both General and Intermediate level responses. The negative tendency in the data is partially the result of the measurement technique itself, and it is seen primarily as a statistical disparity which does not impact on the results of the study because the measurement model biases all data collection categories in this study. Since the means of the General variables (Table 6) were transformed to make them more visually comparable, it is readily observable that the differences between them are

PAGE 70

58 small. The larger standard deviations and range values of the eight General categories of Games, Sports, Nature, Collection, Craft, Art and Music, Cultural, and Organizational are indicative of wider individual variations among the subjects' preferences for activities in these categories: further, these same categories were those which actually appeared on the computer screen during the survey process. The other variables are summations of patterns inherent in preferences for these basic eight categories. The top, or favorite, General categories, defined as those activities wi~h a 1.3 or greater preference rating, appear in the following order: Cultural, Nature, Individual, Mets 1 Exertion, Supervised, and Mets 3 Exertion. On an Intermediate level (Table 7), these translate into favorite, defined as ratings above 1 . 9, activities ordered as religion, self-development, art and music appreciation, gardening, reading, miscellaneous cultural, traveling, and TV watching. On a Specific level, the top 10 favorites were any type of TV watching, newspaper reading, visiting friends and relatives, interstate travel, church membership, flower gardening, photo collecting, baseball watching, swimming, and church participation.

PAGE 71

Table 5 Projected and Actual Number Totals for Sam12le Re12resentation Total Age GrOUE! Gender Race Act. Proj. Act. Proj. Act. Proj. Act. Proj. ~White: 37 36
PAGE 72

60 Table 6 Mean, Standard Deviation, Range, Skewness, and Kurtosis for General Level Leisure Activities Standard Activities Variable Mean Deviation Range Skewness Kurtosis METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion METs 3 Exertion METs 4 Exertion METs 5 Exertion Indoor Outdoor Games Sports Nature Collection Craft Art and Music Cultural Organizational Abstract Concrete Group Individual Structured Unstructured Supervised Unsupervised Recognition Aesthetic Utilitarian Creative Pre-Patterned M=303 1. 32 1.23 1. 31 1. 23 1. 23 1.29 1.29 1.17 1. 11 1.36 1.22 1.09 1.01 1.74 1.06 1. 24 1. 24 1. 21 1.32 1. 25 1.17 1. 31 1. 25 1.19 1. 29 1. 29 1. 26 1. 28 0.92 0.80 0.84 0.84 0.95 0.82 0.84 1.18 1. 33 1. 35 1.24 1. 23 1.16 1. 74 1.01 0.93 0.78 0.83 0.84 0.81 0.86 0.90 0.85 0.77 0.82 0.89 0.87 0.82 5.12 4.51 4.62 4.07 4 . 70 4.56 4.55 6.75 6 .15 6.05 5.84 6.84 6.00 8.18 5.75 4.90 4.34 4.03 4.55 4.18 4.40 4.45 4.69 4.32 4.44 5.32 4.87 4.42 1. 22 0.98 0,98 0.83 1.14 1.09 1.04 1. 55 1. 66 1.06 1. 25 1. 71 1. 64 1.43 1.62 1.07 1.06 0.97 1.03 1.08 1.08 1.04 1.14 1.09 1.04 1.09 0.90 1.03 1.90 1.16 0.87 0.29 1.04 1.40 0.88 2.96 3.11 0.42 1. 26 3.34 2.71 1.63 2.94 1.08 1. 33 0.75 1.19 1. 23 1. 13 0.95 1. 67 1. 37 1.17 1. 51 0.82 1.12

PAGE 73

61 Table 7 Mean, Standard Deviation, Range, Skewness, and Kurtosis for Intermediate Level Leisure Activities Standard Activities Variable Mean Deviation Range Skewness Kurtosis Active Games Target/Skill Games Table/Board Games Card Games Knowledge/Word Games Puzzle Model Racing Games Computer Games Miscellaneous Games Observe Sport Event Individual Sport Competitive Sport Dual Active Sport Combative Sport Team Participation Racing Sport Special Olympics Miscellaneous Sport View Scenery/Life Exploring/Discovery Gathering Plants Camping Fishing Hunting Gardening Animal Care/Exhibit Miscellaneous Nature Photo Collection Coin Collection Stamp Collection Natural Objects Model Collection Doll Collection Art Objects Antique Collection Misc. Collection Cooking Decorating Weaving/Needlework Toy/Model Building Paper Crafts Leather and Textile Wood/Metal Working 1. 63 1.18 1.08 1.47 1.40 1.05 1. 37 1.11 1. 25 1.42 1. 27 1.01 1. 36 1.25 1.09 1. 36 1.08 1.12 1.75 1. 37 1.30 1.91 1. 47 1.11 1.97 1. 36 1.15 1. 72 1. 33 1.05 1. 69 1. 33 1.10 1. 52 1. 41 0.89 1. 40 1.23 1.19 1.44 1.16 0.99 1.22 2.30 2.07 2.08 2.21 2.17 1.98 2.28 1.96 2.16 2.17 2.12 1. 81 2.19 2.11 1. 89 2.15 1.85 2.03 2.42 2.11 2.39 2.68 2.16 1.93 2.69 2.10 2.09 2.42 2.08 1.95 2.33 2.24 2.11 2.39 2.31 1. 80 2.29 2.06 2.19 2.33 2.05 1.95 2.12 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 1.63 2.24 2.26 1.62 1.79 2.34 1. 83 2.15 2.08 1.56 1. 92 2.26 1. 65 1. 87 2.21 1. 78 1.94 2.21 1.19 1. 54 1.92 1. 32 1.53 1.97 1.16 1.52 2.13 1.33 1.66 2.17 1. 25 1. 79 2.06 1.53 1. 61 2.26 1.66 1. 84 1.94 1. 64 1.83 2.27 1. 87 2.04 4.57 4.57 2.06 2.58 5.29 2.39 4.51 3.74 1.58 3. 18 5.25 1.93 2.81 4.87 2.65 3.36 4.72 0. 15 1. 54 2.64 0.55 1. 76 3.47 0.06 1. 36 4. 10 0.72 2.09 4.27 0.35 2.33 3.41 1.22 1.44 4.70 1. 70 2.67 2.88 1. 74 2.57 4.80 2.72

PAGE 74

62 Table ?--continued Handyman 1.08 2.04 9.00 2.10 3.73 Miscellaneous Crafts 0.98 1. 91 9.00 2.32 4.99 Photography 1.28 2.20 9.00 1.81 2.50 Drawing 1.36 2.21 9.00 1. 65 1. 75 Painting 1.04 1.94 9.00 2.18 4.54 Sculpture 1. 11 1.95 9.00 1. 88 2.79 Dramatics 1.11 1.99 9.00 1.98 3.31 Dance 0.96 1. 80 9.00 2.02 3.31 Music 1.13 2.08 9.00 2.09 3.75 Writing 1.09 1.97 9.00 2.16 4.47 Misc. Art and Music 1.00 1.98 9.00 2.25 4.38 Radio Listening 1. 74 2.61 9.00 1.45 0.96 Television Watching 1.91 2.82 9.00 1. 35 0.47 Entertainment/Plays 1. 23 2.18 9.00 1. 87 2.63 Reading 1. 96 2.70 9.00 1.24 0.32 Art/Music Apprecia. 2.04 2.77 9.00 1.19 0 .13 Traveling 1.92 2.67 9.00 1.30 0.46 Religious 2.12 2.67 9.00 1.04 -0.08 Self-development 2.06 2.74 9.00 1.08 -0.17 Misc. Cultural 1.94 2.66 9.00 1. 27 0.35 Athletic/Sport Club 1. 37 2.28 9.00 1.65 1.72 Hobby Club 1.26 2.23 9.00 1. 86 2.69 Political Group 1. 20 2.21 9.00 2.09 3.73 Religious Group 1. 60 2.56 9.00 1. 57 1. 41 Cultural Group 1.10 2.22 9.00 2.24 4.23 Social Group 1. 22 2.21 9.00 2.02 3.39 Ethnic Organization 1. 43 2.47 9.00 1. 75 1.97 Volunteer Service 1. 36 2.35 9.00 1.79 2.19 Misc. Org./Volunteer 1. 22 2.35 9.00 2.05 3 .18 N=303

PAGE 75

Explanation of the Cluster Analysis of 28 General Leisure Activities 63 A cluster analysis of variables was used to measure the similarity of the 28 General dependent variables. Similarity was defined as variables for which the patterns of responses were highly equivalent. The pattern of response of each General dependent was compared so that "clusters'' of response variance patterns could be formed. Initially, each cluster had only one variable. At each successive step, similarly patterned variables were joined into larger and successively more loosely packed clusters. The analysis of variables stopped when all 28 variables were entered. The algorithm for linking variables into clusters is the calculation of a hierarchical list of variables ordered from the correlation matrix of the variables. The first two variables linked are those with highest correlations. The linkage of these first two results in the first centering of variance on a given response pattern. This pattern, used as a centering point in the analysis, is called the centroid. The linkage of further variables to this center depends on both the distance and angle of successive centroids (i.e., centered clusters of correlations) uncovered in the correlation matrix.

PAGE 76

64 This analysis was completed for the 28 General dependent variables for each subgroup in the sample. A cluster pattern was derived for each of the 24 demographic subgroups used as predictor variables in this study: race white, race black, gender female, gender male, age (60 64), age (65 69), age (70 74), age (75 79), age (80 and up), occupational history in data oriented jobs, occupa tional history in things oriented jobs, occupational history in ideas oriented jobs, and occupational history in people oriented jobs, no self reported health limitations, self reported activity inhibiting health limitations, self reported sufficient income, self reported insufficient income, living alone, living with spouse, living with family, living in group quarters, self report of elementary education, self report of high school education, and self report of college education. The tables for the cluster analyses (Tables 8 31) list the number of variables in each successively discovered cluster and each numerical representation of the distance between or similarity of the variables joined in that cluster. AO 100 numerical representation of the degree of similarity of the subgroup response pattern was used. For example, variables with o.o correlation were recoded to zero (i.e., minimum similarity}. The criterion used to assess which dependent variable clusters should be analyzed further was as follows:

PAGE 77

65 Clusters with approximately 10 or less variables and with a similarity rating of .95 or greater were considered tightest, most similarly patterned, and warranting further analysis. Those tightest and most similarly patterned dependent variable clusters for each sample subgroup (e.g., white subgroup clusters versus black subgroup clusters) were compared as follows. Those General dependent variables which clustered tightly and were similarly patterned in relation to the various subsets of a given demographic grouping were rejected from further study. This was done in order to retain only those General dependent variables which had unique associative patterns within subsets of a given demographic variable. For example, a variable found in tight and similar clusters on both the female and male cluster lists was rejected; however, a variable which clustered for females only or for males only was retained for further analysis. For Tables 8 and 9 (which present the results of the Gender clustering procedures) the General leisure dependent variables labeled Indoor, Aesthetic , Individual Effort, Concrete, Outdoor, and Recognition met the criterion for tightness and similarity, but they also appeared in both the male and female clusters; therefore, they were eliminated from further analysis. The General dependent variables METs 1 Exertion, Structured, Unstructured, Prepatterned, METs 2 Exertion, Unsupervised, and METs 3 Exertion did not appear

PAGE 78

66 in both clusters for Gender and were retained for further stepwise discriminant analysis. For Tables 10, 11, and 12 (which present the results of the cluster analysis of the Education predictor variable categories of Elementary, High School, and College), the General dependent variables labeled Recognition, Unsupervised, Outdoor, Pre-patterned, METs 3 Exertion, METs 2 Exertion, METs 1 Exertion, Structured, and Group Effort met the criterion for tightness and similarity and did not appear in all three of the categories for Education. These General dependent variables were retained for further stepwise discriminant analysis in relation to the Education predictor variable. For Tables 13 and 14 (which present the results of the two categories of Race cluster analyses), the General dependent variables labeled Structured, METs 1 Exertion, METs 5 Exertion, METs 3 Exertion, Unsupervised, and Creative met the criterion for tightness and similarity; however, they did not appear in both the White and Black race tables. These General level variables were retained for further stepwise discriminant analysis. Tables 15, 16, 17, and 18 present the results of the cluster analyses of the four dimensions of the Work History predictor variable. These dimensions were Data Oriented Work History, People Oriented Work History, Things Oriented Work History, and Ideas Oriented Work History. The variance of the General dependent variables labeled METs 2 Exertion,

PAGE 79

67 Pre-patterned, METs 3 Exertion, Unstructured, Structured, METs l Exertion, Group Effort, Utilitarian, Creative, and Abstract clustered tightly around Work History. Since these General dependent variables clustered around Work History, but did not cluster around all four dimensions of Work History in the same pattern, they warranted more study using stepwise discriminant analysis. Tables 19 and 20 present the results of the cluster analyses for the two categories of the Self Report of Health predictor variable Restricting and Not Restricting. The variance of the General dependent variables labeled METs 2 Exertion, Structured, METs l Exertion, METs 3 Exertion, Pre-patterned clustered tightly around the Restricting Health predictor variable. Since these General dependent variables did not cluster around both categories (i.e., Restricting and Not Restricting) of the self-reported Health variable, they warranted more study using stepwise discriminant analysis. Tables 21, 22, 23, and 24 present the results of the cluster analyses for the four categories of the Household Type predictor variable Living with Spouse, Alone, in Group Quarters, and with Relatives. The variance of the General dependent variables labeled Outdoor, Pre-patterned, METs 1 Exertion, METs 2 Exertion, METs 3 Exertion, Group Effort, Structured, Unstructured, Creative, and Unsupervised clustered around the predictor variable Household Type. Since these General dependent variables did not cluster

PAGE 80

around the four categories of Household Type in the same pattern, they warranted more study using stepwise discriminant analysis. 68 Tables 25 and 26 present the results of the cluster analyses for the two categories of the Self Reported Income predictor variable Sufficient and Not Sufficient. The variance of the General dependent variables labeled Recognition, Structure, Pre-patterned, METs 1 Exertion, METs 3 Exertion, and Unstructured clustered around the Income predictor variable. Since these General dependent variables did not cluster around the two categories of Income in the same pattern, they warranted more study using the stepwise discriminant analysis. Tables 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31 present the results of the cluster analyses for the five categories of the predictor variable Age (ages 60-64, 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, and 80 up). The variance of the General dependent variables labeled METs 3 Exertion, Unsupervised, Unstructured, Utilitarian, Pre-patterned, Group Effort, Structured, METs 2 Exertion, and Creative clustered around the Age predictor variable. Since these General dependent variables did not cluster around the 60-64 and the 80 up categories of Age in the same pattern, they warranted more study using stepwise discriminant analysis.

PAGE 81

Table 8 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Gender Subgrou12 Men General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 15 28 74.87 Indoor 6 7 6 97.09 Aesthetic 25 6 2 99.07 Individual 19 6 3 98.95 Structured 20 6 4 98.03 Concrete 17 6 5 97.90 Outdoor 7 1 7 95.83 Unstructured 21 1 8 95.68 Recognition 24 1 9 95.53 Prepatterned 28 1 10 95.21 METs 3 Exertion 3 1 11 94.31 Unsupervised 23 1 12 94.23 METs 2 Exertion 2 1 13 93.47 Utilitarian 26 1 14 93.28 Supervised 22 1 15 92.80 Abstract 16 1 16 92.53 METs 4 Exertion 4 1 17 92.37 Group 18 1 18 91.56 Creative 27 1 19 91.32 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 20 89.55 Entertainment 14 1 21 85.74 Arts 13 1 22 81.11 Sports 9 1 23 80.31 Games 8 1 24 77.94 Crafts 12 1 25 76.19 Collecting 11 1 26 76.09 Nature 10 1 27 74.50 Organizational 15 1 28 71.88 O'l '

PAGE 82

Table 9 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Gender Subgrou~ Women General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 8 28 72.71 METs 2 Exertion 2 26 11 95.75 Indoor 6 25 4 98.89 Concrete 17 25 3 98.92 Individual 19 17 2 99.18 Aesthetic 25 2 5 98.49 Recognition 24 2 6 98.20 Unsupervised 23 2 7 97.95 METs 3 Exertion 3 2 8 97.69 Pre-patterned 28 2 9 97.60 Outdoor 7 2 10 96.86 Utilitarian 26 1 12 94.45 Unstructured 21 1 13 94.44 Group 18 22 3 94.39 Structured 20 18 2 94.93 Supervised 22 1 16 94.05 METs 4 Exertion 4 1 17 94.29 Abstract 16 1 18 92.57 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 19 89 .16 Creative 27 1 20 87.64 Nature 10 1 21 85.74 Collecting 11 1 22 83.86 Arts 13 1 23 82.90 Sports 9 1 24 79.22 Crafts 12 1 25 78.47 Entertainment 14 1 26 76.97 Organizational 15 1 27 75.09 Games 8 1 28 72.71 ....:i 0

PAGE 83

Table 10 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Education Subgrou2 Elementar:Y: General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 12 28 62.63 METs 2 Exertion 2 21 14 95.78 METs 3 Exertion 3 2 2 98.42 Indoor 6 20 5 98.75 Individual 19 6 2 99.38 Aesthetic 25 6 3 99.01 Pre-patterned 28 6 4 98.56 Structured 20 2 7 98.25 Concrete 17 2 8 98.26 Outdoor 7 2 9 98.38 Group 18 2 10 97.85 Recognition 24 2 11 97.49 Unsupervised 23 2 12 97.19 METs 4 Exertion 4 2 13 96.24 Unstructured 21 1 15 95.38 Supervised 22 1 16 94.27 Creative 27 1 17 93.55 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 18 92.97 Utilitarian 26 1 19 92.41 Abstract 16 1 20 92.44 Sports 9 1 21 85.09 Nature 10 1 22 84.49 Entertainment 14 1 23 83.37 Games 8 1 24 79.40 Collecting 11 1 25 77.40 Arts 13 1 26 77.36 Organizational 15 1 27 69.70 Crafts 12 1 28 62.63 --.J ....

PAGE 84

Table 11 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Education Subgroup High School General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion METs 3 Exertion Indoor Concrete Individual Aesthetic Outdoor Unsupervised Unstructured Recognition Utilitarian METs 4 Exertion Structured Supervised Pre-patterned METs 2 Exertion Abstract Creative Group METs 5 Exertion Arts Entertainment Collecting Sports Nature Crafts Organizational Games 1 3 6 17 19 25 7 23 21 24 26 4 20 22 28 2 16 27 18 5 13 14 11 9 10 12 15 8 8 26 21 19 6 6 6 6 3 3 1 1 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 l 1 l 1 28 10 7 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 11 12 2 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 73.96 94.37 95.31 99.11 99.24 98.67 96.41 95.71 95.16 94.86 94.23 93.99 95.27 94.04 93.45 93.31 93.13 89.25 89.07 88.10 85.85 82.38 80.06 79.52 78.87 76.24 74.61 73.96

PAGE 85

Table 12 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Education SubgrouE College General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 15 28 74.60 METs 2 Exertion 2 20 10 96.43 Indoor 6 24 5 98.03 Aesthetic 25 6 2 99.29 Pre-patterned 28 6 3 99.27 Individual 19 6 4 99.00 Recognition 24 2 6 98.21 Concrete 17 2 1 98.12 METs 3 Exertion 3 1 2 97.26 Outdoor 1 2 9 97.61 Structured 20 1 11 96.40 Utilitarian 26 1 12 95.84 Unsupervised 23 1 13 95.55 Unstructured 21 1 14 95.23 Group 18 1 15 94.36 Abstract 16 1 16 92.60 Supervised 22 1 17 91.71 METs 4 Exertion 4 1 18 91.39 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 19 89.53 Creative 21 1 20 88.54 Crafts 12 1 21 83.62 Collecting 11 1 22 81. 38 Sports 9 1 23 80.63 Nature 10 1 24 80.66 Entertainment 14 1 25 80.44 Arts 13 1 26 78.96 Games 8 l 27 77.15 Organizational 15 1 28 74.60 ...... ti)

PAGE 86

Table 13 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Race Subgroup White General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion Indoor Concrete Individual Aesthetic Unsupervised METs 3 Exertion Creative Recognition Outdoor Pre-patterned METs 5 Exertion Unstructured Abstract Supervised Nature Utilitarian Collecting Group Structured METs 4 Exertion Entertainment Crafts Games Sports Arts Organizational 1 2 6 17 19 25 23 3 27 24 7 28 5 21 16 22 10 26 11 18 20 4 14 12 8 9 13 15 15 28 25 25 25 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 11 4 3 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 61.60 95.79 99.52 99.65 99.62 98.29 98.22 98.23 97.32 96.50 96.11 95.76 95.58 93.48 91.69 92.08 91. 55 89.84 87.65 90. 14 89.64 87.00 85.73 79.94 76.50 72.10 71.47 61.60

PAGE 87

Table 14 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Race Subgroup Black General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion Indoor Concrete Individual Aesthetic Unsupervised METs 3 Exertion Creative Recognition Outdoor Pre-patterned METs 5 Exertion Unstructured Abstract Supervised Nature Utilitarian Collecting Group Stl7uctured METs 4 Exertion Entertainment Crafts Games Sports Arts Organizational 1 2 6 17 19 25 23 3 27 24 7 28 5 21 16 22 10 26 11 18 20 4 14 12 8 9 13 15 15 28 25 25 25 2 2 2 2 2 2 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 20 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 11 4 3 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3 2' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 61.60 95.79 99.52 99.65 99.62 98.29 98.22 98.23 97.32 96.50 96.11 95.76 95.58 93.48 91.69 92.08 91.55 89.84 87.65 90 .14 89.64 87.00 85.73 79.94 76.50 72.10 71.47 61.60 ...:a (JI

PAGE 88

Table 15 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Occu:12ation Subgrou:12 Data General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 12 28 74.31 METs 2 Exertion 2 16 16 94.04 Indoor 6 25 4 99.39 Concrete 17 25 3 99.59 Individual 19 25 2 99.85 Aesthetic 25 2 5 98.57 Pre-patterned 28 2 6 98.56 Recognition 24 2 7 98.40 METs 3 Exertion 3 2 8 98.22 Unstructured 21 23 2 98.27 Unsupervised 23 2 10 97.51 Outdoor 7 2 11 96.57 METs 4 Exertion 4 2 12 95.12 Group 18 22 3 97.89 Structured 20 18 2 98.02 Supervised 22 2 15 94.50 Abstract 16 1 17 93.98 Utilitarian 26 1 18 93 .15 Creative 27 1 19 91.75 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 20 87.74 Arts 13 1 21 84.89 Entertainment 14 1 22 83.36 Nature 10 1 23 82.25 Collecting 11 1 24 79.28 Games 8 1 25 78.28 Sports 9 1 26 76.79 Organizational 15 1 27 75.30 Crafts 12 1 28 74.31 ....:i O'I

PAGE 89

Table 16 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for OccuQation SubgrOUQ PeoQle General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 8 28 75.44 Utilitarian 26 1 2 94.70 METs 2 Exertion 2 4 12 94.75 METs 3 Exertion 3 20 10 96.06 Outdoor 7 3 2 97.42 Indoor 6 17 5 91.54 Individual 19 25 2 99.11 Aesthetic 25 6 3 98.85 Unsupervised 23 6 4 97.71 Concrete 17 3 7 97.59 Pre-patterned 28 3 8 96.81 Recognition 24 3 9 96.76 Structured 20 2 11 95.77 METs 4 Exertion 4 1 14 95.63 Supervised 22 1 15 94.10 Unstructured 21 1 16 92.73 Abstract 16 1 17 90.76 Group 18 1 18 89.94 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 19 89.84 Creative 27 1 20 84.46 Nature 10 1 21 84.21 Collecting 11 1 22 83.38 Crafts 12 1 23 79.30 Arts 13 1 24 79.14 Entertainment 14 1 25 77.57 Sports 9 1 26 77.24 Organizational 15 1 27 76.04 Games 8 1 28 75.44 -..J ...:i

PAGE 90

Table 17 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Occu:eation Subgrou:e Things General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METS 1 Exertion 1 15 28 70.36 Indoor 6 24 7 95.81 Individual 19 6 2 99.07 Concrete 17 6 3 99.24 Aesthetic 25 6 4 98.02 Outdoor 7 6 5 97.29 Unstructured 21 6 6 96.67 Recognition 24 1 8 95.88 Structured 20 1 9 95.44 Utilitarian 26 1 10 95.01 Supervised 22 1 11 94.55 METs 3 Exertion 3 23 2 94.09 Unsupervised 23 1 13 94.43 Pre-patterned 28 1 14 93.92 METs 2 Exertion 2 1 15 93.66 Creative 27 1 16 93.73 Abstract 16 1 17 93.05 Group 18 1 18 92.82 METs 4 Exertion 4 1 19 92.86 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 20 90 .16 Entertainment 14 1 21 85.25 Sports 9 1 22 85.02 Arts 13 1 23 83.78 Crafts 12 1 24 78.40 Collecting 11 1 25 78.33 Games 8 1 26 76.17 Nature 10 l 27 75.61 Organizational 15 1 28 70.36 ...:i 0)

PAGE 91

Table 18 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Occu12ation Subgrou12 Ideas General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 11 28 65.58 Group 18 1 2 98.94 METs 2 Exertion 2 20 8 98.39 Recognition 24 2 2 98.96 Indoor 6 20 6 98.34 Individual 19 25 2 99.80 Aesthetic 25 6 3 99.74 Pre-patterned 28 6 4 99.60 Concrete 17 6 5 99.50 Structured 20 1 10 98.47 Utilitarian 26 27 2 98.23 Creative 27 1 12 98.06 METs 3 Exertion 3 7 2 97.93 Outdoor 7 1 14 96.98 Abstract 16 1 15 96.41 Unstructured 21 1 16 95.80 Entertainment 14 1 17 94.23 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 18 90.50 METs 4 Exertion 4 13 4 90.60 Unsupervised 23 4 2 95.20 Sports 9 13 2 90.49 Arts 13 1 22 86.90 Crafts 12 1 23 80.94 Organizational 15 22 2 83.81 Supervised 22 1 25 73.98 Games 8 1 26 72.20 Nature 10 1 27 67.28 Collecting 11 1 28 65.58 -.J cc

PAGE 92

Table 19 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Physical SubgrouQ Not Restricted General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 15 28 74.75 METs 3 Exertion 3 24 7 97.56 Indoor 6 25 3 99.14 Individual 19 6 2 99.51 Aesthetic 25 3 4 98.29 Structured 20 3 5 97.62 Concrete 17 3 6 97.63 Recognition 24 1 8 97.32 Outdoor 7 1 9 97.24 METs 2 Exertion 2 1 10 97.05 Unsupervised 23 1 11 96.94 Unstructured 21 1 12 95.55 Pre-patterned 28 1 13 95.13 METs 4 Exertion 4 1 14 94.37 Abstract 16 1 15 94 .17 Utilitarian 26 1 16 93.41 Supervised 22 1 17 92.46 Group 18 1 18 91.50 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 19 89.83 Entertainment 14 1 20 85.00 Creative 27 1 21 84.66 Arts 13 1 22 84.54 Crafts 12 1 23 82.19 Sports 9 1 24 81.18 Collecting 11 1 25 79.84 Nature 10 1 26 79.79 Games 8 1 27 78.15 Organizational 15 1 28 74.75 0) 0

PAGE 93

Table 20 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Ph:ysical Subgrou:e Restricted General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 15 28 73.49 METs 2 Exertion 2 22 15 94.23 METs 3 Exertion 3 26 11 95.29 Indoor 6 26 10 95.13 Concrete 17 25 3 98.93 Individual 19 25 2 98.76 Aesthetic 25 6 4 98.89 Pre-patterned 28 6 5 97.60 Outdoor 7 6 6 96.89 Recognition 24 6 7 96.36 Unsupervised 23 6 8 95.25 Unstructured 21 6 9 95.19 Utilitarian 26 2 12 95.31 Group 18 22 3 95.43 Structured 20 18 2 94.84 Supervised 22 1 16 93.73 Creative 27 1 17 92.92 METs 4 Exertion 4 1 18 92.59 Abstract 16 1 19 91.51 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 20 89.07 Nature 10 1 21 81.14 Collecting 11 1 22 80.89 Arts 13 1 23 80.52 Sports 9 1 24 79.70 Entertainment 14 1 25 79.42 Crafts 12 1 26 74.90 Games 8 1 27 74.41 Organizational 15 1 28 73.49 ex, ...

PAGE 94

Table 21 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Household Type Subgroup Living With Spouse General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion METs 3 Exertion Indoor Individual Aesthetic Concrete Outdoor Recognition Pre-patterned Structured Unsupervised Utilitarian Unstructured METs 4 Exertion Supervised Abstract Group METs 5 Exertion Creative Entertainment Arts Nature Sports Collecting Crafts Games Organizational 1 2 3 6 19 25 17 7 24 28 20 23 26 21 4 22 16 18 5 27 14 13 10 9 11 12 8 15 15 23 23 20 6 6 6 6 6 6 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 11 10 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Distance or Similarity When Cluster Formed 72.37 95.21 95.24 95.80 98.88 99.00 98.18 96.81 96 .19 96.08 95.04 94.66 94.43 94.35 92.84 91.99 92.09 91.17 88.41 86.73 82.51 82.24 79.70 79.48 78.93 78.17 72.62 72.37

PAGE 95

Table 22 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Living Conditions Alone General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 12 28 72.98 METs 2 Exertion 2 23 13 96.91 Concrete 17 25 3 99.61 Individual 19 25 2 99.65 Aesthetic 25 2 4 99.22 Indoor 6 2 5 98.64 Pre-patterned 28 2 6 98.25 METs 3 Exertion 3 2 7 97.89 Recognition 24 2 8 97.69 Outdoor 7 2 9 97.61 Group 18 2 10 97.31 Structured 20 2 11 97.39 Unstructured 21 23 2 97.09 Unsupervised 23 1 14 96.83 Utilitarian 26 1 15 96.44 Creative 27 1 16 95.42 Abstract 16 1 17 94.95 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 18 93.34 METs 4 Exertion 4 1 19 92.96 Supervised 22 1 20 92.59 Arts 13 1 21 86.95 Games 8 1 22 83.26 Sports 9 1 23 82.35 Entertainment 14 1 24 81.52 Organizational 15 1 25 79.61 Collecting 11 1 26 78.58 Nature 10 1 27 78.55 Crafts 12 1 28 72.98 ex, (,,)

PAGE 96

Table 23 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Household Type Subgroup Group Quarters General Variable Activity Name Number METs 1 Exertion METs 3 Exertion Indoor Individual Aesthetic Recognition Concrete Structured Group Unstructured Creative Unsupervised Pre-patterned Supervised Outdoor METs 4 Exertion METs 5 Exertion Collecting METs 2 Exertion Games Abstract Utilitarian Sports Nature Organizational Entertainment Arts Crafts 1 3 6 19 25 24 17 20 18 21 27 23 28 22 7 4 5 11 2 8 16 26 9 10 15 14 13 12 Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed 12 4 20 25 6 6 6 3 3 23 21 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 28 15 6 2 3 4 5 7 8 3 2 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 67.26 96.06 98.74 99.87 99.56 99.32 99 .18 98.53 97.89 97.94 98.87 97.50 96.39 96.13 95.96 95.52 92.51 91.94 91.32 90.82 90.82 90.58 84.39 84 .10 81.01 75.68 73.50 67.26

PAGE 97

Table 24 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Household TyQe SubgrouQ Relatives General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 15 28 73.36 METs 2 Exertion 2 26 13 94.50 METs 3 Exertion 3 20 9 95.54 Indoor 6 20 8 96.11 Individual 19 25 2 98.71 Aesthetic 25 6 3 98.97 Concrete 17 6 4 98.32 Recognition 24 6 5 97 .13 Pre-patterned 28 6 6 96.65 Outdoor 7 6 7 96.54 Structured 20 2 10 95.79 Unsupervised 23 2 11 95.27 Unstructured 21 2 12 94.79 Utilitarian 26 1 14 94.69 Group 18 1 15 93.67 METs 4 Exertion 4 1 16 93.54 Supervised 22 1 17 92.39 Abstract 16 1 18 92.21 Creative 27 1 19 91.37 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 20 89.01 Entertainment 14 1 21 82.08 Arts 13 1 22 81.19 Sports 9 1 23 80.79 Collecting 11 1 24 80.55 Nature 10 1 25 79.20 Crafts 12 1 26 78.27 Games 8 1 27 73.63 Organizational 15 1 28 73 . 36 (X) (11

PAGE 98

Table 25 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Income Subgroup Sufficient General Variable Activity Name Number METs 1 Exertion Entertainment METs 2 Exertion Recognition Creative Indoor Pre-patterned Individual Concrete Unstructured Unsupervised METs 3 Exertion Aesthetic Outdoor Supervised METs 4 Exertion Utilitarian Crafts METs 5 Exertion Nature Games Abstract Group Structured Sports Collecting Arts Organizational 1 14 2 24 27 6 28 19 17 21 23 3 25 7 22 4 26 12 5 10 8 16 18 20 9 11 13 15 Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Simila : ~Y of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Form~ 15 1 10 2 2 23 6 6 6 23 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 10 l 16 l 20 l 11 1 1 1 28 2 18 2 3 6 2 3 4 2 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 2 20 2 22 2 24 2 26 27 28 69.55 87.44 87.72 98.85 98.66 98.31 99.56 99.50 99.08 98.59 97.84 97.71 97.82 96.57 94.85 94.84 94.34 89.18 88.53 87.03 90.70 85.68 98.44 84.70 82.18 76.95 70.27 69.55 ex, O'I

PAGE 99

Table 26 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Income Subgrou:2 Not Sufficient General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 12 28 73 .15 METs 3 Exertion 3 28 9 97.01 Indoor 6 7 5 98.61 Aesthetic 25 6 2 99.75 Individual 19 6 3 99.67 Concrete 17 6 4 99.63 Outdoor 7 3 6 98.21 Unsupervised 23 3 7 98.05 Unstructured 21 3 8 97.97 Pre-patterned 28 1 10 97 .13 METs 2 Exertion 2 24 2 98.45 Recognition 24 1 12 96.40 Supervised 22 1 13 94.93 Abstract 16 1 14 94.57 Structured 20 1 15 94.42 Utilitarian 26 1 16 94.09 METs 4 Exertion 4 1 17 92.50 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 18 91. 38 Games 8 1 19 88.08 Arts 13 1 20 86.62 Nature 10 1 21 85.18 Group 18 27 2 85.85 Creative 27 1 23 84.38 Entertainment 14 1 24 83.70 Organizational 15 1 25 78.04 Collecting 11 1 26 76.17 Sports 9 1 27 74.89 Crafts 12 l 28 73.15 0:, ...J

PAGE 100

Table 27 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Age Subgroup 60/64 General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Variable Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion METs 2 Exertion METs 3 Exertion Outdoor Indoor Individual Concrete Aesthetic Unsupervised Pre-Patterned Recognition Creative Utilitarian Unstructured Abstract Group Structured Supervised METs 4 Exertion Entertainment Organizat~onal Arts METs 5 Exertion Nature Collecting Crafts Games Sports 1 2 3 7 6 19 17 25 23 28 24 27 26 2i 16 18 20 22 4 14 15 13 5 10 11 12 8 9 9 24 24 3 25 6 6 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 22 22 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 1 1 1 28 10 9 2 4 2 3 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 3 2 18 19 20 21 22 2 24 25 26 27 28 68.20 93.98 94.27 96.73 98.99 99.28 99.08 96.72 96.32 95.04 93.58 92.80 92.89 91. 85 90.80 91. 58 90.46 91.09 90.24 79.65 78.92 78.10 82.88 77.34 76.57 72.87 72.73 68.20 (X) (X)

PAGE 101

Table 28 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Age Subgrou:e 65L69 General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 8 28 68.30 Indoor 6 26 8 96.73 Aesthetic 25 6 2 98.35 Individual 19 6 3 98.48 Recognition 24 6 4 98.08 Outdoor 7 6 5 97.30 Unstructured 21 6 6 97.07 Concrete 17 6 7 96.96 Utilitarian 26 1 9 96.42 Group 18 22 3 96.59 Structured 20 22 2 96.49 Supervised 22 1 12 96.46 METs 2 Exertion 2 1 13 94.30 Pre-Patterned 28 1 14 93.97 METs 4 Exertion 4 1 15 93.91 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 16 94.03 METs 3 Exertion 3 1 17 92.74 Abstract 16 1 18 92.10 Unsupervised 23 1 19 91.17 Creative 27 1 20 84.90 Arts 13 1 21 84.77 Nature 10 1 22 83.22 Entertainment 14 1 23 81.21 Sports 9 1 24 81. 08 Crafts 12 1 25 78.48 Collecting 11 1 26 78.55 Organizational 15 1 27 73.23 Games 8 1 28 68.30 0) ID

PAGE 102

Table 29 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Age Subgroul:! 70L74 General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 15 28 65.87 METs 2 Exertion 2 16 15 94.57 METs 3 Exertion 3 22 12 96.79 Outdoor 7 3 2 98.08 Indoor 6 20 8 98.35 Aesthetic 25 6 2 99.69 Pre-Patterned 28 6 3 99.61 Concrete 17 6 4 99.54 Individual 19 6 5 99.39 Unsupervised 23 6 6 98.75 Group 18 20 2 98.73 Structured 20 3 10 97.57 Utilitarian 26 3 11 96.95 Supervised 22 2 13 96.66 Recognition 24 2 14 96.50 Abstract 16 1 16 94.34 Unstructured 21 1 17 93.52 Creative 27 1 18 92.96 METs 4 Exertion 4 1 19 92.65 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 20 91.87 Nature 10 1 21 90.96 Entertainment 14 1 22 87.28 Sports 9 1 23 85.51 Collecting 11 1 24 84.29 Arts 13 1 25 82.71 Crafts 12 1 26 79.81 Games 8 1 27 77.57 Organizational 15 1 28 65.87 0

PAGE 103

Table 30 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Age SubgrouQ 75L79 General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 15 28 71.38 Below-av. Phy. 2 4 13 95.93 Indoor 6 17 4 99.58 Individual 19 25 2 99.73 Aesthetic 25 6 3 99.65 Concrete 17 2 5 99.20 Structured 20 2 6 98.57 Recognition 24 2 7 98.46 METs 3 Exertion 3 7 2 98.79 Outdoor 7 2 9 98.03 Unsupervised 23 2 10 97.74 Unstructured 21 2 11 97.56 Pre-patterned 28 2 12 97.33 METs 4 Exertion 4 1 14 95.71 Supervised 22 1 15 95.49 Abstract 16 1 16 94.59 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 17 92.88 Utilitarian 26 1 18 91. 37 Sports 9 1 19 88.63 Entertainment 14 1 20 85.89 Arts 13 1 21 85.05 Games 8 1 22 84.72 Collecting 11 1 23 84.07 Group 18 27 2 91.46 Creative 27 1 25 82.30 Crafts 12 1 26 79.31 Nature 10 1 27 76.59 Organizational 15 1 28 71.38 ....

PAGE 104

Table 31 Cluster of General Level Leisure Variables for Age Subgrou:2 80LuE General Variable Other Boundary Number of Items Distance or Similarity Activity Name Number of Cluster in Cluster When Cluster Formed METs 1 Exertion 1 14 28 74.88 METs 2 Exertion 2 4 15 97.32 Creative 27 2 2 98.59 Concrete 17 25 5 98.70 Individual 19 17 2 99.57 Unstructured 21 17 3 99.23 Unsupervised 23 17 4 98.80 Aesthetic 25 2 7 98.88 Recognition 24 2 8 98.12 Indoor 6 28 4 98.59 Group 18 28 3 98.49 Structured 20 28 2 99.12 Pre-patterned 28 2 12 98.11 Outdoor 7 2 13 98.08 METs 3 Exertion 3 2 14 97.68 METs 4 Exertion 4 1 16 96.49 Utilitarian 26 1 17 93.21 METs 5 Exertion 5 1 18 92.80 Abstract 16 1 19 92.37 Games 8 1 20 89.98 Nature 10 1 21 87.27 Sports 9 1 22 84.98 Supervised 22 1 23 83.99 Arts 13 1 24 83.66 Organizational 15 1 25 80.52 Collecting 11 1 26 78.75 Crafts 12 1 27 78.81 Entertainment 14 1 28 74.88 u:, I\)

PAGE 105

Discriminating Gender, Race, and Age by Using Unique Clusters of Variables 93 Stepwise discriminant analyses were used to determine whether the "strings" of General level dependent variables established through the clustering procedures not only correlated with the predictor variables in this study, but also whether they had significant, non-chance relationships with them (p = <.05). By doing this, Hypotheses 1 and 2 could be tested. Hypotheses 1 and 2, in general, stated that the predictor variables of Age, Gender, and Race would not be significant predictors of leisure preferences of older adults, but that the predictor variables of Education, Work History, Income, Health Status, and Household Type would successfully predict leisure activity preferences. There were 24 independent variables and 14 General level variables which remained after the clustering procedure. The stepwise discriminant analysis statistic was calculated for each remaining predictor variable. The General dependent variables used in computing the linear classification function were entered in a stepwise manner. At each step the variable that added the most discriminatory power to the separation of the groups was entered into the discriminant equation. Dependent variables were not entered into the equation unless they passed the tolerance limit. The tolerance limit was calculated by taking both the F value of each variable entered into the analysis and the

PAGE 106

94 differential impact the variable would have had if it were added into the discriminant equation. When a discriminating variable was found, it was evaluated for predictive accuracy based on how many cases it correctly classified in relation to actual case demographics. The prior probabilities of membership, based on potential response characteristics, in one of the predictor groupings were the proportions of chance. The proportions were 50/50 for Race, Gender, and Age. Three fair to moderate predictor/dependent variable relationships were found from the stepwise discriminant , analyses. The three were preferences for Structured leisure activities predicted by Race subgroup membership, preferences for Pre-patterned leisure activities predicted by the Gender subgroup membership, and preferences for Utilitarian leisure activities predicted by the Age subgroup membership. Tables 32, 33, and 34 present the stepwise discriminant analyses results for Age, Gender, and Race.

PAGE 107

Table 32 Discriminant Analysis of Age by Selected General Activities Activity Variable Name METs 2 Exertion METs 3 Exertion Group Structured Unstructured Unsupervised Creativity Pre-Patterned Utilitarian Constant % Correctly Classified Table 33 F Value Tolerance 0.58 0.31 1. 25 0. 28 0.83 0.49 1.07 0.38 0.30 0.36 0.22 0.32 1.14 0.49 0.49 0.34 4.41 1.00 Discriminant Classification Function (60-64)(80 and up) Young Old Total 2.03 1. 27 -3 .18 -2.23 51.60 56.10 26.40 Discriminant Analysis of Gender by Selected General Activities Discriminant Classification Function Activity Variable Name F Value Tolerance Men Women Total METs 1 Exertion 0 .19 0.34 METs 2 Exertion 1. 96 0.28 METs 3 Exertion 2.51 0.25 Unstructured 0.01 0.36 Unsupervised 0.09 0.31 Pre-patterned 4.68 1.00 2. 11 1. 80 Constant -2.16 -1.76 % Correctly Classified 46.60 60.90 54.60 95

PAGE 108

Table 34 Discriminant Analysis of Race by Selected General Activities Discriminant Classification Function Activity Variable Name F Value Tolerance White Black Total METs 1 Exertion 2.10 0.30 METs 2 Exertion 1.68 0.32 METs 3 Exertion 1.43 0.33 METS 4 Exertion 2.52 0.48 Unsupervised 0.93 0.39 Creativity 3.33 0.50 Structured 8.78 1.00 2.03 1.40 Constant -2.02 -1.32 % Correctly Classified 52.10 72.50 54.80 96

PAGE 109

Analyses of Intermediate Dependent Variable Components in Relationship to Significant Predictor Variables 97 Only three predictor variables, Race, Gender, and Age, were retained for further analysis after the stepwise discriminant procedure. The analysis of Intermediate dependent variables involved further assessment of the predictor/dependent variable relationships discovered on the General dependent level. For example, the General dependent variable "Structured" leisure activity preferences was defined into its component Intermediate activities preferences. These were preferences for Active Games, Target Games, Table and Board Games, Card Games, Knowledge and Word Games, Puzzles, Model Racing, Computer Games, Miscellaneous Games, Sports Observation, Competitive Sports, Dual Active Sports, Combative Sports, Team Sports, Racing Sports, Miscellaneous Sports, Miscellaneous Natural Science, Stamp Collecting, Collecting Models, Doll Collecting, Art Object Collecting, Cooking, Weaving, Toy Making, Drawing, Dramatics, Dancing, Music Performing, Writing, Reading, Traveling, Self Development, Miscellaneous Organizations, and Culture Group Participation. The variance of these Intermediate dependent variables was analyzed as a function of membership in each demographic grouping of this study. The equality of variance of each predictor group mean was compared for each Intermediate dependent variable using Levene's test. The Levene's test of equality of variance is

PAGE 110

98 obtained by performing an analysis of variance on the absolute deviations of each case from its cell mean. The p-values for the F statistics are reported in Table 35 for the Race grouping variable, in Table 36 for the Gender grouping variable, and in Table 37 for the Age grouping variable. The results summarized in Table 35 illustrate that for the General dependent variable "Structured" leisure activities, significant associations were found in relation to Race on its Intermediate component level. The Intermediate components of "Structured" leisure activity preferences which contained significantly (p = <.05) different variance statistics were Active Games, Table and Board Games, Puzzles, Miscellaneous Games, Individual Competitive Sports, Team Sports Participation, Miscellaneous Sports, Doll Collecting Cooking and Food, Drawing and Printing, Writing, Reading, and Self-Development. These Intermediate dependent variables were retained for further analyses of their Specific dependent variables as functions of the chi-square statistic.

PAGE 111

99 Table 36 contains the results for the General dependent variable "Utilitarian" leisure activity as differentiated by membership in the Age (60-64) subgroup versus membership in the Age (80 and up) subgroup. Table 37 contains the results for the General dependent variable "Pre-patterned" leisure activity as differentiated by membership in the female and male subgroupings. Analyses of Specific Level Leisure Preferences Statements in Terms of Race, Gender, and Age Demographics Frequency counts and chi-square statistics are reported in Tables 38, 39, and 40. The Specific level of dependent variables in this study was composed of categorical, like and dislike, responses; therefore, the percentages of older adults responding in the like and dislike categories are reported in each table. These tables also include a chi-square test of independence between rows (leisure like/dislike preferences) and columns (group membership) for each Specific dependent variable listed. The Intermediate level of dependent variables which were reported as significantly different for demographic subgroups in Tables 35, 36, and 37 were further defined in terms of their Specific level components. Structured leisure activities, a General level dependent variable found to be significant through stepwise discriminant analysis and then found to be significant at the Intermediate level, was defined into its 107 Specific level component responses and

PAGE 112

Table 35 Mean, Standard Deviation, and F and P Value for Intermediate Activities Related to Race Variable Active Games Target and Skill Games Table and Board Games Card Games Knowledge and Word Games Puzzles Model Racing Games Computer Games Miscellaneous Games Observe Sporting Events Individual Competitive Sports Dual Active Sports Combatitive Sports Team Sports Participation Racing Sports Miscellaneous Sports Miscellaneous Natural Science Stamp Collecting Collecting Models Doll Collecting Art Object Collecting Cooking and Food Weaving and Needlework Toy and Model Building Drawing and Printing Dramatics White (1!=263) Standard Mean Deviation 1. 54 1.12 1.07 1.47 1. 31 1.05 1. 35 1.02 1.25 1. 32 1.41 1.17 1.02 1. 39 1.06 1. 78 1.70 1. 64 1.05 1. 55 1.42 1.06 1.43 1.09 0.92 0.89 2.31 2.05 2.11 2.22 2.13 2.00 2.22 1. 83 2.19 2.07 2.22 2.02 1. 84 2.20 1. 84 2.47 2.37 2.26 2.10 2.39 2.33 1.96 2.29 2.03 1.78 1. 77 Black (1!=40) Standard F I Mean Deviation Value 0.98 1.03 0.53 0.83 1. 20 0.58 0.90 1.18 0.53 1. 45 0.65 1. 20 0.93 0.85 0.73 1.08 1.10 1.20 0.80 0.85 1.03 1. 63 1.05 1.08 1.28 0.80 1. 76 1.75 1.09 1. 55 1.92 1. 36 2.15 2.25 0.88 2.44 1.42 2.13 1. 86 1. 27 1.43 1.73 2.11 2.23 1. 54 1. 64 1. 69 2.12 1.96 1. 70 2.36 1. 51 4.88 1.12 9.07 7.52 0.21 5.26 1. 37 1. 25 12.60 0.86 13.97 0.02 0.50 9.76 3.82 13.15 2.41 0.88 2.60 9.77 5.80 4 .16 1. 35 0 .16 4.79 0.80 p Value 0. 03* :i: 0.29 0.00*** 0.01*** 0.65 0.02** 0.24 0.26 0.00*** 0.36 0.00*** 0.89 0.48 0.00*** 0.05 0.00*** 0 .12 0.35 0.11 0.00*** 0.02** 0.04** 0.25 0.69 0.03** 0.37 .... 0 0

PAGE 113

Table 35--continued Dance Music Writing Reading Traveling Self-Development Miscellaneous Entertainment Cultural/Entertainment Groups t N=303, df=301 *** significant at p<0.01 ** significant at p<0.05 1.16 1.06 0.95 2.03 2.00 2.01 1. 74 1. 11 2.02 1. 96 2.00 2.79 2.64 2.71 2.55 2.15 0.60 0.75 0.68 1. 38 2.13 0.68 1. 38 1. 30 1. 77 3.57 1.43 2.10 1.00 5.23 1.93 6.57 2.31 0.49 1.02 28.62 2.02 2.80 2.23 0. 13 0.06 0.15 0.02** 0.01*** 0.48 0.00*** 0 .10 0.72 .... 0 ....

PAGE 114

Table 36 Mean, Standard Deviation, and F and P Value for Intermediate Activities Related to Gender Variable Target and Skill Games Table and Board Games Card Games Knowledge and Word Games Puzzles Model Racing Games Miscellaneous Games Sports Observation Individual Non-Competitive Sports Individual Competitive Sports Dual Active Sports Combative Sports Team Sports Participation Racing Sports Miscellaneous Sports View Scenery and Wildlife Exploration and Discovery Camping Animal Care/Exhibiting Miscellaneous Natural Science Photo and Poster Collecting Stamp Collecting Model Collecting Doll Collecting Collecting Art Objects Collecting Antiques Standard Mean Deviation 1.41 1.08 1.45 1. 29 1.14 1. 34 1.36 1. 63 1. 32 0.95 1.48 1.07 0.98 1. 44 1.23 1. 85 1.33 2.05 1.17 1.04 1. 51 0.83 1.11 0.97 1.41 1. 48 2.31 2.22 2.28 2.12 2.18 2.34 2.28 2.24 2.12 1. 84 2.29 1. 91 1. 78 2.17 2.31 2.55 2.10 2.59 2.04 2.07 2.38 1. 66 1.95 1.98 2.29 2.36 Female (!'f=169) Standard F I Mean Deviation Value 0.88 0.93 1. 33 1. 26 0.87 1. 22 1.00 1.10 1.07 0.91 1.17 1.24 1.02 1. 22 0.86 1. 56 1. 25 1. 69 1.30 1.09 1. 72 1.09 1.33 1.06 1.51 1. 25 1.71 1. 84 2.05 2.04 1. 72 2.06 1. 91 2.00 2.00 1. 68 2.03 2.13 1.88 2.06 1.60 2.27 2.01 2.64 2.01 1.98 2.33 2.04 2.31 2.09 2.34 2.15 11.49 3 .18 1.12 0.29 5.71 1. 25 5.54 5.98 0.55 0.05 1. 29 2.84 0.30 0.45 9.44 2.78 0.37 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.00 4.27 4.02 0.36 0.00 1. 96 p Value 0.00*** 0.08 0.29 0.59 0.02** 0.26 0.02** 0.02** 0.46 0.83 0.26 0.09 0.59 0.50 0.00*** 0.10 0.54 0.72 0.91 0.84 0.98 0.04** 0.05** 0.55 0.96 0.16

PAGE 115

Table 36--continued Cooking and Foods Weaving and Needlework Toy and Model Building Leather and Textile Crafts Wood and Metal Working Handyman Drawing and Printing Dramatics Dance Music Radio Listening Television Watching Reading Art and Music Appreciation Traveling Religious Activities Self-Development Miscellaneous Entertainment Political Groups Religious Organizations Cultural and Entertainment Groups Social Group Ethnic Organizations Volunteer Services Miscellaneous Organizations t N=303, df=300 *** significant at p<0.01 ** significant at p<0.05 1.24 1.98 1. 46 1.01 1. 99 1.11 1.29 2.17 1.42 0.92 1. 84 0.99 1.14 1.94 1.20 1.26 2.26 0.91 1. 32 2.18 1. 20 0.94 1. 71 1.12 0.96 1. 79 0.82 1.19 2.12 1.01 1. 84 2.60 1. 54 2.31 3.01 1. 43 2.10 2.58 1. 66 2.21 2.79 1. 74 2.08 2.75 1. 63 2.16 2.69 1. 92 1. 98 2.71 1.90 1. 97 2.72 1.69 1.25 2.25 1.00 1.42 2.22 1. 52 1.00 2.06 1.08 1. 33 2.32 0.99 1. 22 2.23 1.40 1.17 2.08 1. 32 1.06 2.20 1.18 2.40 3.23 2.14 0.09 2.29 0 .16 1. 99 0.00 2.12 0.04 1. 89 7.14 2.06 0.24 2.09 4.04 1. 70 0.67 1.91 3.82 2.52 0.23 2.42 4.06 2.65 0.00 2.61 1. 28 2.52 3.01 2.52 0.62 2.62 0.69 2.45 1. 11 2.06 1. 88 2.68 2.53 2.22 0.30 2.02 4.75 2.50 1. 30 2.42 2.88 2.32 0.55 0.07 0.76 0.69 0.97 0.85 0.01*** 0.62 0.05** 0.41 0.05 0.63 0.00*** 0.95 0.26 0.08 0.43 0.41 0.29 0.17 0.11 0.59 0.03** 0.25 0.09 0.46 .... 0 Co)

PAGE 116

Table 37 Mean, Standard Deviation, and F and P Value for Intermediate Activities Related to Age Variable Target Games Miscellaneous Games Combative Sports Fishing Gardening Animal Care/Exhibiting Miscellaneous Natural Sciences Collecting Antiques Cooking and Food Decorating Weaving Paper Crafts Leather and Textile Crafts Wood and Metal Working Miscellaneous Crafts Photography Drawing and Printing Painting Sculpture Dramatics Dance Music Writing Miscellaneous Arts and Music Traveling Religious Organizations Young (60 to 64) <.~=91) Standard Mean Deviation 1. 31 1.76 1. 66 1.90 1.15 2.04 1.71 2.00 1.26 1. 70 1.43 2.07 1. 30 1.41 1.11 1.01 1.79 1.87 1. 23 1. 52 1.23 0.99 1.62 1.29 2.26 1.95 2.34 2.49 2.43 2.70 1. 78 2.66 2.27 2.56 2.25 2.36 2.22 2.73 2.30 2.43 2.24 1. 99 2.70 2.44 2.01 2.25 2.11 1. 91 2.37 2.09 2.80 2.61 Old (80 and up) (!!=41) Standard Ft Mean Deviation Value 1.15 0.59 1.27 1. 78 0.39 0.90 0.66 1. 29 0.44 0.93 0.73 0.85 1.02 0.61 0.51 0.78 0.39 0.98 0.76 0.56 0.37 0.78 0.61 0.93 0.98 1. 32 2.03 1.43 2.42 2.87 0.95 1. 93 1.41 2.29 1.14 2.03 1. 78 1.56 1. 72 1. 20 1.10 1. 62 1. 20 1.98 1. 71 1. 32 0.97 1. 81 1. 55 1. 88 1.99 2.04 0.79 16.77 0.98 0.07 17.76 12.73 16.44 1. 67 15.94 4.95 6.68 15.37 3.23 17.02 11.03 0.99 34.26 9.55 3.54 21.24 19.56 0.21 10.84 0.74 12.87 3.34 p Value 0.37 0.00*** 0.32 0.79 0.00*** 0.00*** 0.00*** 0.20 0.00*** 0.03** 0.01*** 0.00*** 0.07 0.00*** 0.00*** 0.32 0.00*** 0.00*** 0.06 0.00*** 0.00*** 0.65 0.00*** 0.39 0.00*** 0.07 ... 0 ..

PAGE 117

Table 37--continued Self-Improvement Political Groups Cultural Organizations Ethnic Organizations t N=303, df=130 *** significant at p<0.01 ** significant at p<0.05 2.30 2.16 2.14 2.19 2.69 2.77 2.61 2.88 1. 49 1. 39 1. 39 1.10 2.36 2.06 2.43 2.18 2.81 6.63 0.92 11.41 0 .10 0.01*** 0.34 0.00*** 0 OI

PAGE 118

106 grouped by Race. Utilitarian leisure activities, a General level dependent variable which was found to be significant through stepwise discriminant analysis and then found to be significant at the Intermediate level, was defined into its 144 Specific level responses and grouped by Age (60-64) and {80 and up). Pre-patterned leisure activities, a General level dependent variable which was found to be significant through stepwise discriminant analysis and then found significant at the Intermediate level, was defined into its 70 Specific level responses and grouped by Gender. The significant Specific level responses for the three demographic groupings found to be significant in discriminant analyses Tables 32 {Race), 33 {Age 60 64 and 80 and up), and 34 {Gender) are reported in Tables 38 {Gender), 39 {Age), and 40 {Race). Gender Related Differences in Specific Preferences Significant differences (p = <.05) are shown in Table 38 {Gender) for the following Specific level dependent variables. Watching or listening to Soap Operas represents a Pre-patterned activity which is favored by women more than it is by men. Men significantly favored Pre-patterned leisure activities associated with all kinds of Handyman activities; playing Table Sports; doing Ouija; solving Mechanical Puzzles; observing Baseball, Boxing/Wrestling, Football, Comedies, Sporting Events, Information Programs, and Educational Programs; and participating in Senior Social

PAGE 119

107 Groups more than did women. Participation in TV Watching and Dance Clubs were popular activities for both males and females. Participation in Choral Speaking and 4H/Scouting work were the most unpopular Specific activities for both males and females. Age Related Differences in Specific Preferences Overall, the patterns shown in Table 39 (Age) indicate that the age 80 and up group responded with a consistently higher level of "naysaying" than did the age 60 64 group of older adults. The percentages of "like" responses from the age 60 64 group were significantly different from the percentages from the age 80 and up group. These difference were significant for the following preference categories: playing Video Games, Life Simulation Games, and Miscellaneous Games; doing Tree/Shrub Gardening, Vegetable Gardening, Fruit Tree Gardening, and Plant Breeding; keeping Birds and Cats as pets; all science related activities except Horticulture, Chemistry, and Physics; Mixing Liquor Drinks and Other Cooking; Crocheting; Card Making; doing/making Collage and Decoupage, Kites, and Other Crafts; Finger Painting; Popular and Folk Dancing; writing Greeting Cards and articles to the Newspapers; all kinds of Travel; Political Party Affiliation; and all listed group activities except Heritage Related Groups and Language Groups.

PAGE 120

108 Ninety-five percent of the age 80 and up group disliked 70 Specific level activities; however, 95% dislike responses for age 60 64 group were found for only three Specific level activities. Because of the computer based data collection technique used in this study, it was harder to register a positive response to a given leisure activity than it was to register a negative response. For example, an individual needed to respond first on a General level, then on an Intermediate level, and then on a Specific level in order to register a positive response. The significant (p = <.05) group differences reported in Table 39 are affected equally by this data collection technique; however, the data in Table 39 illustrate that the age 80 and up group consistently had a higher degree of naysaying. Whether the greater level of the age 80 and up naysaying was a function of actual dislike of Specific activities or a greater need to "get through" on the part of the older group, manifested by more frequent skipping at the General or Intermediate levels, is unclear. Race Related Differences in Specific Leisure Preferences The main feature of the data reported in Table 40 is that blacks engaged in naysaying more often than did whites. Black responding is more interpretable at the General and Intermediate levels. This is seen in the black response percentages of Like versus Dislike which vary in blocks of items. Blacks registered a 95% or higher dislike preference

PAGE 121

109 for 44 out of 107 Specific level activity titles, yet whites registered 95% or greater dislike preference for only 8 out of 107 titles. For the white subjects, the inter-item response percentages for Specific level items consistently vary from item to item, yet for blacks blocks of three or more items in a row display the same percentage of responding. There were only 40 black subjects in this study versus 263 white subjects, which may account for the greater degree of homogeneity in black response percentages. Further, most of the black sample was female and individuals who indicated that they had been teachers. Another reason for the block pattern of responses by blacks may be that the researcher had to access black subjects by hiring black aides who personally knew several older black adults. These black aides reported that they frequently had to guide black subjects through each part of the survey or actually enter the responses for them. This aide help was not as frequently necessary for white subjects, and it may have enhanced the black subject's tendency to skip over categories of leisure at General or Intermediate levels. Blacks reported significaqtly less preference for playing Money Games (e.g., Monopoly), Dual Games (e.g., chess), Other Board Games, and all Card Games listed in this survey; doing all listed Puzzles, except Mechanical Puzzles; watching or playing Bowling, Golf, and Swimming/Diving; participating in Jogging and Other Team Sports; collecting

PAGE 122

110 China, Glass, Paintings, and Sculpture; Portrait and Other Sketching; reading Magazines, Fiction, and Non-fiction; and doing Figure Control, Vocabulary Building, Public Seminars, Skill Improvement, Academic Courses, and Other Self Improvement activities. Collecting Books was a leisure activity favored more by blacks than whites.

PAGE 123

Table 38 Frequency Counts and Chi-Square Statistics for Specific Level Preferences in Relation to Gender Male Female (N=133) (!!=169) Pearson Like Dislike Like Dislike Chi Variable # ! !!. ! # ! # ! Square p t PLAY Balance Games 6 4.5 127 95.5 5 3.0 164 97.0 0.51 0.47 Table Sports 37 27.8 96 72.2 12 7.1 157 92.9 23.51 0.00*** Throwing Games 21 15.8 112 84.2 16 9.5 153 90.5 2.8 0.09 Target Games 20 15.0 113 85.0 9 5.3 160 94.7 8.09 0.00 Other Target Games 13 9.8 120 90.2 8 4.7 161 95.3 2.92 0.09 DO Jigsaw Puzzles 33 24.8 100 75.2 41 24.3 128 75.7 0.01 0.91 Crossword Puzzles 41 30.8 92 69.2 56 33.1 113 66.9 0 .19 0.67 Math Puzzles 17 12.8 116 87.2 18 10.7 151 89.3 0.33 0.57 Mechanical Puzzles 24 18.0 109 82.0 14 8.3 155 91. 7 6.45 0.01** Other Puzzles 14 10.5 119 89.5 24 14.2 145 85.8 0.91 0.33 Dominoes 23 17.3 110 82.7 20 11. 8 149 88.2 1. 81 0.18 Video Games 13 9.8 120 90.2 17 10.1 152 89.9 0.07 0.94 Ouija 4 21.1 129 45.6 15 8.9 154 91.1 4.35 0.04** Real Life Simulations 17 12.8 116 87.6 22 13.0 147 87.0 0.04 0.95 Other Games 15 11. 3 118 88.7 21 12.4 148 87.6 0.09 0.76 OBSERVE Baseball 82 61. 2 51 38.9 77 45.6 92 54.4 7.73 0.01*** Basketball 58 43.6 75 56.4 65 38.6 104 61. 5 0.82 0.37 Bowling 52 39.1 81 60.9 71 42.0 98 58.0 0.26 0.60 Boxing/Wrestling 51 38.3 82 61. 7 38 22.5 131 77.5 9.01 0.00*** Football 87 65.4 46 34.6 91 53.8 78 46.2 4.12 0.04** Golf 56 42.1 77 57.9 61 36.1 108 63.9 1.13 0.29 ..... ..... .....

PAGE 124

Table 38--continued Hockey 37 27.8 96 72.2 34 20.1 135 79.9 2.46 0 .11 Tennis 53 39.8 80 80.2 50 29.6 119 70.4 3.49 0.06 Other Sports 40 30.1 93 69.9 53 31.4 116 68.6 0.06 0.81 WATCH or PLAY Miscellaneous Sports 5 3.8 128 96.2 4 2.4 165 97.6 0.50 0.47 Roller Derby 12 9.0 121 91. 0 14 8.3 155 91.7 0.05 0.82 Soap Box Derby 13 9.8 120 90.2 11 6.5 158 93.5 0.09 0.29 Misc. Sports 10 7.5 123 92.5 15 8.9 154 91.1 0 .18 0.67 COLLECT Stamps 12 9.0 121 91.0 17 10.1 152 89.9 0.09 0.76 Stamps on Covers 14 10.5 119 89.5 16 9.5 153 90.5 0.09 0.76 First Day Covers 13 9.8 120 90.2 14 8.3 155 91.7 0. 20 0.65 Foreign Stamps 23 17.3 110 82.7 22 13.0 147 87.0 1.07 0.30 U.S. Stamps 29 21.8 104 78.2 25 14.8 144 85.2 2.49 0.11 Other Stamp Collecting 15 11. 3 118 88.7 19 11.2 150 88.8 0.00 0.99 DO Routine Handyman 63 47 . 4 70 52.6 32 18.9 137 81.1 27.91 0.00*** Complex Handyman 37 75.5 96 37.9 12 7. 1 157 92.9 23.51 0.00*** Painting 54 65.9 79 35.9 28 16.6 141 83.4 21.73 0.00*** Repairing Wood Items 55 77.5 78 33.8 16 9.5 153 90.5 42.08 0.00*** Plumbing 50 37.6 83 62.4 8 4.7 161 95.3 51.79 0.00*** Appliance Repair 45 33.8 88 66.2 13 7.7 156 92.3 32.78 0.00*** Automotive Repair 44 33.1 89 66.9 8 4.7 161 95.3 41.96 0.00*** Electrical Repair 45 33.8 88 66.2 12 7.1 157 92.9 34.74 0.00*** Other Handyman 43 32.3 90 67.7 15 8.9 154 91.1 26.39 0.00*** PARTICIPATE Improvisation Play 10 7.5 123 92.5 14 8.3 155 91. 7 0.06 0.80 Story and Joke Telling 22 16.5 111 83.5 17 10.1 152 89.9 2.78 0.09 Pantomime 10 7.5 123 92.5 11 6.5 158 93.5 0 .18 0.73 .... Puppet Shows 11 8.3 122 91. 7 11 6.5 158 93.5 0.34 0.55 .... I\)

PAGE 125

Table 38--continued Role Playing 10 7.5 123 92.5 15 8.9 154 91.1 0 .18 0.67 Choral Speaking 4 3.0 129 9 7, 7 13 7.7 156 92.3 3.07 0.07 Play Production 9 6 . 8 124 93.2 12 7.1 157 92.9 0.01 0.90 Plays and Operettas 10 7.5 123 92.5 16 9.5 153 90.5 0.36 0.54 Other Dramas 6 4.5 127 95.5 14 8.3 155 91. 7 1. 71 0.20 WATCH OR LISTEN Soap Operas 24 18.0 109 82.0 56 33.1 113 66.9 8.70 0.00*** Comedies 89 66 . 9 44 33.1 87 51. 5 82 48.5 7.30 0.01** Sporting Events 87 65.4 46 34.6 64 37.9 105 62.1 22.59 0.00*** Movies 87 65 . 4 46 34.6 104 61. 5 65 38.5 0.48 0.49 Talk and Variety Shows 82 61. 7 51 38.3 93 55.0 76 45.0 1. 34 0.24 News Programs 107 80.5 26 19.5 122 72.2 47 27.8 2.77 0.09 Information Programs 88 66 . 2 45 33.8 90 53.3 79 46.7 5.13 0.02** Educational Programs 92 69.2 41 30.8 98 58.0 71 42.0 3.99 0.05** Other TV 74 55.6 59 44.4 84 49.7 85 50.3 1.05 0.30 PARTICIPATE Atheltic Clubs 9 6.8 124 93.2 9 5.3 160 94.7 0.28 0.60 Country Clubs 10 7.5 123 92.5 13 7 . 7 156 92.3 0.00 0.96 Dance Clubs 22 46.8 111 43.5 25 53.2 144 56.5 0.17 0.68 Senior Social Groups 33 24.8 100 75.2 62 36.7 107 63.3 4.88 0.03** Party Clubs 11 8.3 122 91.7 22 13.0 122 87.0 1. 72 0 .18 4H/Scouts 7 5.3 126 94.7 5 3.0 164 97.0 1.04 0.30 Y W/M C/H A 6 4.5 127 95.5 9 5.3 160 94.7 0.111 0.74 Youth Groups 7 5.3 126 94.7 13 7.7 156 92.3 0.71 0.39 Other Social Groups 25 18.8 108 81. 2 42 24.9 127 75.1 1. 58 0.20 t N=303, df==l *** significant at p<0.01 ** significant at p<0.05 .... .... (,.)

PAGE 126

Table 39 Freguency Counts and Chi-Sguare Statistics for s12ecific Level Preferences in Relation to Age Young {60 to 64} Old {80 and UJ2} (N=91) (_!!=41) Pearson Like Dislike Like Dislike Chi Variable # ! !!. % # ! !!. ! Sguare .....Lt PLAY Dominoes 18 19.8 73 80.2 2 4.9 39 95.1 5.32 0.06 Video Games 17 18.7 74 81. 3 1 2.4 40 97.6 11.07 0.00*** Ouija 7 7.7 84 92.3 0 0.0 41 100.0 3.22 0.20 Life Simulation Games 24 26.4 67 73.6 1 2.4 40 97.6 20.85 0.00*** Misc. Games 20 22.0 71 78.0 3 7.3 38 92.7 11.59 0.00*** DO House Plant Gardening 50 54.9 41 45.1 16 39.0 25 61.0 3.0 0.22 Lawn Care 46 50.5 45 49.5 13 31. 7 28 68.3 4.77 0.09 Flower Gardening 55 60.4 36 39.6 18 43.9 23 56.1 3.18 0.20 Tree/Shrub Gardening 38 41. 8 53 58.2 9 22.0 32 78.0 7.65 0.02** Vegetable Gardening 44 48.4 47 51. 6 8 19.5 33 80.5 10.14 0.01*** Fruit Trees Gardening 40 44.0 51 56.0 4 9.8 37 90.2 14.78 0.00*** Mushroom Gardening 15 16.5 76 83.5 2 4.9 39 95.1 3.33 0.18 Plant Breeding 25 27.5 66 72.5 3 7.3 38 92.7 7.14 0.03** Other Plant Gardening 20 22.0 71 78.0 9 22.0 32 78.0 0.05 0.99 TAKE CARE OF Fish/Aquatic Pets 10 11.0 81 89.0 0 0.0 41 100.0 5.10 0.07 Reptiles/Amphibians 4 4.4 87 95.6 0 o.o 41 100.0 1. 89 0.38 Bird as Pet or Hobby 18 19.8 73 80.2 0 0.0 41 100.0 9.45 0.01*** Cat as Pet or Hobby 18 19.8 73 80.2 1 2.4 40 97.6 6.99 0.03** Dog as Pet or Hobby 26 28.6 65 71. 4 7 17.1 34 82.9 3.96 0 .14 Other Small Mammals 8 8.8 83 91.2 2 4.9 39 95.1 0.67 0.71 Large Domestic Animals 7 7.7 84 92.3 0 0.0 41 100.0 3.61 0 .16 Large "Wild II Animals 7 7.7 84 92.3 0 0.0 41 100.0 4.66 0.09

PAGE 127

Table 39--continued Other Animals 13 14.3 78 85.7 2 4.9 39 95.1 3.76 0 .15 PARTICIPATE Archaeology 20 22.0 71 78.0 1 2.4 40 97.6 13.93 0.00*** Astronomy/Meteorology 16 17.6 75 82.4 1 2.4 40 97.6 11.42 0.00*** Botany/Horticulture 10 11.0 81 89.0 1 2.4 40 97.6 2.70 0.26 Chemistry 8 8.8 83 91. 2 0 o.o 41 100.0 3.73 0 .15 Conservation/Ecology 15 16.5 76 83.5 0 0.0 41 100.0 12.10 0.00*** Geology 14 15.4 77 84.6 1 2.4 40 97.6 10.30 0.01*** Physics 12 13.2 79 86.8 1 2.4 40 97.6 4.64 0.09 Zoology 12 18.7 74 81. 3 1 2.4 40 97.6 8.29 0.02** Other Sciences 15 16.5 76 83.5 3 7.3 38 92.7 8.22 0.02** DO Baking 37 40.7 54 59.3 12 29.3 29 70.7 5.32 0.07 Candy Making 24 26.4 67 73.6 6 14.6 35 85.4 4.06 0 .13 Cake Decoration 21 23.1 70 76.9 6 14.6 35 85.4 2.49 0.28 Special Baking 23 25.3 68 74.7 6 14.6 35 85.4 3.28 0 .19 Ethnic Cooking 25 27.5 66 72.5 5 12.2 36 87.8 5.41 0.06 Party/Holday Foods 27 29.7 64 70.3 8 19.5 33 80.5 1. 60 0.45 Sausage Making 13 14.3 78 85.7 2 4.9 39 95.1 2.63 0.26 Mixing Liquor Drinks 16 17.6 75 82.4 0 0.0 41 100.0 8.36 0.02** Other Cooking 21 23.1 70 76.9 4 9.8 37 90.2 6.46 0.04** DO Floral Arranging 21 23.1 70 76.9 8 19.5 33 80.5 0.25 0.88 Small Object Decorat. 16 17.6 75 82.4 9 22.0 32 78.0 0.35 0.83 Table Setting 22 24.2 69 75.8 11 26.8 30 73.2 0.43 0.80 Holiday Decorating 28 30.8 63 69.2 6 14.6 35 85.4 5.37 0.07 Window Decoration 14 15.4 77 84.6 2 4.9 39 95.1 3.84 0.15 General Interior Dec/ 23 25.3 68 74.7 4 9.8 37 90.2 5.42 0.07 Other Decorating 18 19.8 73 80.2 6 14.6 35 85.4 1.25 0.54 .... .... c,,

PAGE 128

Table 39--continued DO Needlepoint 29 31. 9 62 68.1 13 31.7 28 68.3 3.09 0.21 Macrame 15 16.5 76 83.5 1 2.4 40 97.6 5.20 0.07 Quilting 22 24.2 69 75.8 10 24.4 31 75.6 4.5 0 .10 Hooked Rugs 19 20.9 72 79.1 5 12.2 36 87.8 2.89 0.23 Crocheting 37 40.7 54 59.3 11 26.8 30 73.2 6.54 0.04** Knitting 33 36.3 58 63.7 10 24.4 31 75.6 3.07 0.21 Lacework 19 20.9 72 79.1 5 12.2 36 87.8 2.27 0.32 Weaving 10 11.0 81 89.0 3 7.3 38 92.7 0.55 0.77 Other 15 16.5 76 83.5 3 7.3 38 92.7 2 .15 0.34 DO Scrapbooks 17 18.7 74 81. 3 3 7.3 38 92.7 2.90 0.23 Silhouettes 5 5.5 86 94.5 0 o.o 41 100.0 2.46 0.29 Crepe Paper Crafts 6 6.6 85 93.4 1 2.4 40 97.6 4.46 0 .10 Papier Mache 6 6.6 85 93.4 0 0.0 41 100.0 4.07 0 .13 Origami/Paper Folding 6 6.6 85 93.4 0 0.0 41 100.0 4.07 0 .13 Card Making 12 13.2 79 86.8 0 0.0 41 100.0 7.18 0.03** Picture Finishing 8 8.8 83 91. 2 1 2.4 40 97.6 2.06 0.36 Bookbinding 7 7.7 84 92.3 2 4.9 39 95.1 1.06 0.58 Other Paper Crafts 6 6.6 85 93.4 0 0.0 41 100.0 4.07 0.13 DO Whittling 10 11. 0 81 89.0 1 2.4 40 97,6 2.65 0.27 Wood burning 11 12,1 80 87.9 3 7.3 38 92.7 1. 28 0.52 Wood Handtool Work 17 18.7 74 81. 3 5 12.2 36 87.8 1. 32 0.51 Power Tool Carpentry 20 22.0 71 78.0 5 12.2 36 87.8 1.75 0.07 Jewelry Making 12 13.2 79 86.8 1 2.4 40 97.6 5.10 0.07 Metal Hand Tool Work 15 16.5 76 83.5 4 9.8 37 90.2 3 .10 0.21 Soldering 16 17.6 75 82.4 1 2.4 40 97.6 5.62 0.06 Machine Tool Work 14 15.4 77 84.6 5 12.2 36 87.8 1. 31 0.52 Other 9 9.9 82 90.1 2 4.9 39 95.1 1.02 0.59 .... .... O"I

PAGE 129

Table 39--continued DO or MAKE Collage Decoupage 12 13.2 79 86.8 1 2.4 40 97.6 6.35 0.04** Candlemaking 5 5.5 86 94.5 1 2.4 40 97.6 1. 63 0.44 Mosaics 7 7.7 84 92.3 0 0.0 41 100.0 4.65 0.09 Party Fountains 2 2.2 89 97.8 0 0.0 41 100.0 0.86 0.64 Kites 9 9.9 82 90.1 0 0.0 41 100.0 5.86 0.05** Musical Instruments 4 4.4 87 95.6 0 0.0 41 100.0 1. 76 0.41 Other Crafts 12 13.2 79 86.8 2 4.9 39 95.1 5.81 0.05** DO Stenciling 13 14.3 78 85.7 3 7.3 38 92.7 1. 56 0.46 Lettering 17 18.7 74 81. 3 3 7.3 38 92.7 3.02 0.22 Etching 6 6.6 85 93.4 1 2.4 40 97.6 1. 77 0.41 Graphics 14 15.4 77 84.6 1 2.4 40 97.6 4.94 0.08 Cartoon/Caricature 10 11.0 81 89.0 1 2.4 40 97.6 4.49 0.11 Clothes Designing 11 12.1 80 87.9 2 4.9 39 95.1 3.21 0.20 Portrait Sketching 9 9.9 82 90.1 2 8.7 39 95.1 1.20 0.54 Other Sketching 13 14.3 78 85.7 2 4.9 39 95.1 2.80 0.25 Other Drawing 9 9.9 82 90.1 1 2.4 40 97.6 3.34 0 .19 DO Finger Painting 8 8.8 83 91. 2 1 2.4 40 97.6 6.42 0.04** Abstract Painting 4 4.4 87 95.6 3 7.3 38 92.7 1.17 0.55 Pop Art 4 4.4 87 95.6 1 2.4 40 97.6 2.74 0.25 Surrealistic Art 5 5.5 86 94.5 1 2.4 40 97.6 2.93 0.23 Landscape Painting 17 18.7 74 81.3 3 7.3 38 92.7 3.38 0.18 Portrait Painting 9 9.9 82 90.1 2 4.9 39 95.1 2.29 0.31 Other Painting 11 12.1 80 87.9 2 4.9 39 95.1 2.35 0.31 PARTICIPATE Improvisation Play 11 12.1 80 87.9 2 4.9 39 95.1 3.21 0.20 Story/Joke Telling 16 17.6 75 82.4 4 9.8 37 90.2 2.28 0.31 Pantomime 8 8.8 83 91.2 3 7.3 38 92.7 0.81 0.67 .... Puppet Shows 11 12.1 80 87.9 1 2.4 40 97.6 5.07 0.08 .... o.J

PAGE 130

Table 39--continued Role Playing 12 13.2 79 86.8 2 4.9 39 95.1 4.29 0.12 Choral Speaking 6 6.6 85 93.4 2 4.9 39 95.l 0.25 0.88 Play Production 8 8.8 83 91. 2 2 4.9 39 95.1 0.82 0.66 Play/Operettas 10 11.0 81 89.0 2 4.9 39 95.l l. 42 0.49 Other Drama ActivitieslO 11.0 81 89.0 2 4.9 39 95.1 4.06 0.13 PARTICIPATE Rhythmic Exercises 21 23.1 70 76.9 4 9.8 37 90.2 4.65 0.09 Popular Dancing 21 23.1 70 76.9 1 2.4 40 97.6 8.92 0.01** Ballroom 29 31.9 62 68.1 9 22.0 32 78.0 2.19 0.34 Square Dancing 19 20.9 72 79.l 2 4.9 39 95.l 5.66 0.06 Folk Dancing 16 17.6 75 82.4 3 7.3 39 92.7 6.79 0.03** Tap Dancing 5 5.5 86 94.5 1 2.4 40 97.6 l. 63 0.44 Modern Dance 6 6.6 85 93.4 1 2.4 40 97.6 1.09 0.57 Ballet 3 3.3 88 96.7 0 0.0 41 100.0 2.56 0.28 Other Dance Activities13 14.3 78 85.7 5 12.2 36 87.8 0.11 0.95 wRITE Letters 38 41.8 53 58.2 13 31. 7 28 68.3 2.90 0.23 Greeting Cards 42 46.2 49 53.8 8 19.5 33 80.5 11.20 0.00*** To Newspaper/Magazine 26 28.6 65 71. 4 3 7.3 38 92.7 17.19 0.00*** Technical Articles 11 12.1 80 87.9 3 7.3 38 92.7 3.19 0.20 Historical Articles 10 11. 0 81 89.0 4 9.8 37 90.2 1. 77 0.41 Novels/Short Stories 10 11. 0 81 89.0 2 4.9 39 95.l 3.33 0 .18 Dramas/Plays 6 6.6 85 93.4 2 4.9 39 95.1 0.79 0.67 Poetry 11 12.1 80 87.9 2 4.9 39 95.1 1.72 0.42 Other Writing 10 11.0 81 89.0 6 14.6 35 85.4 3.43 0.18 TRAVEL Informal Outing 69 20.9 22 79.1 15 36.6 26 63.4 8.94 0.01** Visit Friend/Relative 74 81. 3 17 18.7 23 56.1 18 43.9 9.48 0.01*** Enjoying Scenery 61 67.0 30 33.0 11 26.3 30 73.2 19.09 0.00*** State Parks 63 69.2 28 30.8 9 22.0 32 78.0 25.51 0.00*** .... Historic Sites 63 69.2 28 30.8 10 24.4 31 75.6 23.08 0.00*** .... ex,

PAGE 131

Table 39--continued Wildlife 47 51.6 44 48.4 5 12.2 36 87.8 18.89 0.00*** Interstate 61 67.0 30 33.0 12 29.3 29 70.7 18.35 0.00*** Foreign 43 47.3 48 52.7 9 22.0 32 78.0 8.20 0.02** Other 51 56.0 40 44.0 12 29.3 29 70.7 9.89 0.01*** PARTICIPATE Party Affiliations 22 75.8 69 24.2 22 53.7 19 46.3 9.11 0.01*** Campaigning 7 7.7 84 92.3 3 7.3 38 92.7 0.52 0.77 Non-Partisan Action 8 8.8 83 91. 2 5 12.2 36 87.8 0.47 0.78 Special Pressure Group 7 7.7 84 92.3 6 14.6 35 85.4 1.52 0. 46 Other Political Activ.10 11.0 81 89.0 3 7.3 38 92.7 0.72 0.69 PARTICIPATE Discussion Groups 12 13.2 79 86.8 2 4.9 39 95.1 7.92 0.02** International Groups 12 13.2 79 86,8 2 4.9 39 95.1 7.92 0.02** Heritage Related Grps.11 12.1 80 87.9 2 4.9 39 95.1 2.35 0.30 Language Groups 11 12.1 80 87.9 2 4.9 39 95.1 2.35 0.30 Advancement Groups 13 14.3 78 85.7 3 7.3 38 92.7 6.44 0.04** Misc. Organizations 10 11.0 81 89.0 2 4.9 39 95.1 6.04 0.05** t N=303, df=2 *** significant at p<0.01 ** significant at p<0.05

PAGE 132

Table 40 F:reg:uency Counts and Chi-Sg:uare Statistics for S12ecific Level Preferences in Relation to Race White Black (N=263} (N=40} Pearson Like Dislike Like Dislike Chi Variable !!. ! # ! # ! # ! Square p t PLAY Running Games 20 7.6 243 92.4 2 5.0 38 95.0 0.35 0.55 Throwing Games 24 9.1 239 90.9 1 2.5 39 97.5 2.01 0 .16 Indoor Games 58 22.1 205 77.9 4 10.0 36 90.0 3.09 0.07 Other Active Games 35 13.3 228 86.7 2 5.0 38 95.0 2.24 0 .13 PLAY Children's Board Games17 6.5 246 93.5 2 5.0 38 95.0 0 .127 0.72 Games of Chance 52 19.8 211 80.2 4 10.0 36 90.0 2.20 0.14 Playing Piece Games 40 15.2 223 84.8 3 7.5 37 92.5 1. 69 0 .19 Money Games 67 25.5 196 74.5 3 7.5 37 92.5 6.32 0.01** Dual Games 53 20.2 210 79.8 2 5.0 38 95.0 5.37 0.02** Other Board Games 59 22.4 204 77.6 3 4.8 37 92.5 4.76 0.03** PLAY Solitaire 74 28.1 189 62.4 3 7.5 37 92.5 7.80 0.01*** Card Games for Two 97 36.9 166 63.1 3 7.5 37 92.5 13.56 0.00*** Card Games for Three 80 30.4 183 69.6 3 7.5 37 92.5 9.17 0.00*** Team Card Games 73 27.8 190 72.2 4 10.0 36 90.0 5.78 0.02** Other Card Games 84 31. 9 179 68.1 5 12.5 35 87.5 6.32 0.01** PLAY .Jigsaw Puzzles 70 26.6 193 73.4 4 10.0 36 90.0 5.19 0.02** Crossword Puzzles 93 35.4 170 64.6 4 10.0 36 90.0 10.26 0.00*** ... Math Puzzles 34 12.9 229 87.1 1 2.5 39 97.5 3.70 0.05** r-:, 0 Mechanical Puzzles 37 14.1 226 85.9 2 5.0 38 95.0 2.54 0.11

PAGE 133

Table 40--continued Other Puzzles 38 12.5 225 74.3 1 2.5 39 97.5 4.42 0.04** PLAY Dominoes 41 15.6 222 84.4 2 5.0 38 95.0 3.20 0.07 Video Games 29 11. 0 234 89.0 2 5.0 38 95.0 1.37 0.24 Ouija 19 7.2 244 92.8 0 o.o 40 100.0 3.08 0.07 Real Life Simulation 38 14.4 225 85.6 2 5.0 38 95.0 2.70 0. 10 Miscellaneous Games 35 13.3 228 86.7 2 5.0 38 95.0 2.23 0.13 WATCH OR PLAY Archery 26 9.9 237 90.1 2 5.0 38 95.0 0.98 0.30 Bowling 94 35.7 169 64.3 7 17.5 33 82.5 5.20 0.02** Golf 79 30.0 184 70.0 2 5.0 38 95.0 11.11 0.00*** Gymnastics 53 20.2 210 79.8 4 10.0 36 90.0 2.3 0.13 Firearms Shooting 51 19.4 212 80.6 4 10.0 36 90.0 2.06 0.15 Skating 44 16.7 219 72.3 3 7.5 37 92.5 2.25 0. 13 Swimming/Diving 88 33.5 175 66.5 4 10.0 36 90.0 9.04 0.00** Other Sports 39 14.8 224 85.2 1 2.5 39 97.5 4.61 0.03** PARTICIPATE Baseball 51 19.4 212 80.6 11 27.5 29 72.5 1.40 0.23 Basketball 29 11.0 234 89.0 2 5.0 38 95.0 1.37 0.24 Football 31 11.8 232 88.2 1 2.5 39 97.5 3.17 0.07 Hockey 16 6.1 247 93.9 0 0.0 40 100.0 2.57 0.11 Lacrosse 6 2.3 257 97.7 0 0.0 40 100.0 0.93 0.34 Polo 8 3.0 255 97.0 0 0.0 40 100.0 1.25 0.26 .Jogging 28 10.6 235 89.4 0 0.0 40 100.0 4.69 0.03** Volleyball 34 12.9 229 87.1 1 2.5 39 97.5 3.70 0.05 Other Team Sports 26 9.9 237 90.1 0 o.o 40 100.0 4.32 0.04** WATCH OR PLAY Curling 9 3.4 254 96.6 0 0.0 40 100.0 1. 41 0.23 Roller Derby 24 9.1 239 90.9 2 5.0 38 95.0 0.75 0.38 .... Soap Box Derby 23 8.7 240 91.3 1 2.5 39 97.5 1. 85 0.17 fl:> ....

PAGE 134

. Table 40--continued Miscellaneous Sports 25 9.5 238 90.5 1 2.5 39 97.5 2.17 0.14 COLLECT Antique Dolls 39 14.8 224 85.2 4 10.0 36 90.0 0.67 0.41 Bride Dolls 15 5.7 248 94.3 0 0.0 40 100.0 2.40 0. 12 Ethnic Dolls 18 6.8 245 93.2 1 2.5 39 97.5 1.12 0.29 Celluloid Dolls 8 3.0 255 97.0 1 2.5 39 97.5 0.03 0.85 China Dolls 27 10.3 236 89.7 1 2.5 39 97.5 2.50 0.11 Paper Dolls 12 4.6 251 95.4 1 2.5 39 97.5 0,36 0.54 Rag Dolls 13 4.9 250 95.1 1 2.5 39 97.5 0.47 0.49 Rubber/Wax Dolls 6 2.3 257 97.7 1 2.5 39 97.5 0.01 0.93 Other Dolls 14 5.3 249 94.7 1 2.5 39 97.5 0.59 0.44 COLLECT Books 58 22.1 205 77.9 18 45.0 22 55.0 9.73 0.00*** China 78 29.7 185 70.3 3 7.5 37 92.5 8.70 0.00*** Glass 77 29.3 186 70.7 3 7.5 37 92.5 8.47 0.00*** Paintings 67 25.5 196 74.5 3 7.5 37 92.5 6.32 0.01** Photographs 69 26.2 194 73.8 10 25.0 30 75.0 0.03 0.86 Records 51 19.4 212 80.6 6 15.0 34 85.0 0.44 0.51 Sculpture 46 17.5 217 82.5 2 5.0 38 95.0 4.06 0.04** Other Art Objects 52 19.8 211 80.2 3 7.5 37 92.5 3.52 0.06 DO Cookies/Cakes/Pies 78 29.7 185 70.3 17 42.5 23 57.5 2.66 0.10 Candy 48 18.3 215 81. 7 11 27.5 29 72.5 1.89 0 .16 Cake Decorating 43 16.3 220 84.7 11 27.5 29 72.5 2.95 0.09 Special Baking 49 18.6 214 81. 4 9 22.5 31 77.5 0.34 0.56 Ethnic Cooking 53 20.2 210 79.8 7 17.5 33 82.5 0 .15 0.69 Party/Holiday Foods 68 25.9 195 74.1 10 25.0 30 75.0 0.01 0.90 Sausage Making 28 10.6 235 89.4 5 12.5 35 87.5 0 .12 0.72 Mixing Liquor Drinks 29 11.0 234 89.0 7 17.5 33 82.5 1. 39 0.23 Other Cooking 38 14.4 225 85.6 8 20.0 32 80.0 0.83 0.36 I-" N N

PAGE 135

Table 40--continued DO Stenciling 29 11. 0 234 89.0 5 12.5 35 87.5 0.08 0.78 Lettering 36 13.7 227 86.3 8 20.0 32 80.0 1. 11 0.29 Etching 13 4.9 250 95.1 0 0.0 40 100.0 2.06 0.15 Drafting/Designing 30 11. 4 233 88.6 3 7.5 37 92.5 0.55 0.46 Cartoon/Caricature 20 7.6 243 92.4 0 0.0 40 100.0 3.25 0.07 Clothes Designing 20 7.6 243 92.4 4 10.0 36 90.0 0.27 0.60 Portrait Sketching 23 8.7 240 91. 3 0 0.0 40 100.0 3.79 0.05** Other Sketching 32 8.7 231 91. 3 0 o.o 40 100.0 5.44 0.02** Other Drawing 19 7.2 244 92.8 0 o.o 40 100.0 3.08 0.07 DO Letter Writing 112 42.6 151 57.4 18 45.0 22 45.0 0.08 0.77 Greeting Cards 84 31. 9 179 68.1 17 42.5 23 57.5 1.74 0.18 Writing to Newspaper 40 15.2 223 84.8 7 17.5 33 82.5 0 .14 0.71 Technical Writing 22 8.4 241 91. 6 2 5.0 38 95.0 0.53 0.46 Historical Writing 22 8.4 241 91.6 3 7.5 37 92.5 0.03 0.85 Novels/Short Stories 21 8.0 242 92.0 0 0.0 40 100.0 3.43 0.06 Dramas/Plays 14 5.3 249 94.7 1 2.5 39 97.5 0.58 0.44 Poetry 27 10.3 236 89.7 2 5.0 38 95.0 1.11 0.29 Other Writing 25 9.5 238 90.5 2 5.0 38 95.0 0.87 0.35 DO Newspaper Reading 210 79.8 53 20.2 35 87.5 5 12.5 1. 31 0.25 Magazine Reading 130 49.4 133 50.6 11 27.5 29 72.5 6.71 0.01*** Special Mag. Reading 130 49.4 130 50.6 19 47.5 21 52.5 0.05 0.82 Technical Reading 61 23.2 202 76.8 11 27.5 29 72.5 0.35 0.55 Fiction Reading 125 47.5 138 52.5 12 30.0 28 70.0 4.31 0.04** Non-fiction Reading 115 43.7 148 56.3 7 17.5 33 82.5 9.93 0.00*** Reading Groups 65 24.7 198 75.3 8 20.0 32 80.0 0.42 0.51 Poetry 41 15.6 222 84.4 5 12.5 35 87.5 0.26 0.61 Other Reading Activ. 58 22.1 205 77.9 6 15.0 34 85.0 1.04 0.31 I\) t,)

PAGE 136

Table 40--continued DO Figure Control 86 32.4 177 67.3 3 7.5 37 92.5 10.63 0.00*** Charm & Poise Course 33 12.5 230 87.5 4 10.0 36 90.0 0.21 0.64 Reading Improvement 58 22.1 205 77.9 4 10.0 36 90.0 3.10 0.07 Vocabulary Building 72 27.4 191 72.6 4 10.0 36 90.0 5.58 0.02** Public Seminars 66 25.1 197 74.9 3 7.5 37 92.5 6.11 0.01** Discussion Clubs 51 19.4 212 80.6 3 7.5 37 92.5 3.35 0.06 Skill Improvement 62 23.6 201 76.4 4 10.0 36 90.0 3.75 0.05** Academic Courses 62 23.6 201 76.4 3 7.5 37 92.5 5.32 0.02** Other Self Devel'ment 68 25.9 195 74.1 2 5.0 38 95.0 8.50 0.00*** t N=303, df=l *** significant at p<0.01 ** significant at p<0.05

PAGE 137

CHAPTER V DISCUSSION This study was designed to identify the leisure preferences of older adults in selected life situations. The goal of the research was to provide counselors, recreation leaders, and other older adult social service personnel with representative information for use with their clients. Most of the literature reviewed was correlational or survey type research which implied that older adults' opinions about leisure vary in relation to the context of their selected lifestyles. The general question posed in this study, therefore, was what are the leisure preferences of a sample of older adults. In order to answer this question an approximately representative sample of older adults in the U.S. according to age, race, and gender was surveyed. Leisure preferences were analyzed in the context of selected older adult lifestyles and demographic variables and were classified on three levels General, Intermediate, and Specific. 125

PAGE 138

126 Hypotheses Ho:1. The leisure preferences of older adults do not relate to gender, age, and race. The rationale behind this hypothesis was that Age, Race, and Gender are factors to which the older adult can only react; therefore, what older adults might actually like to do is hypothesized to be largely independent of their age, gender, and race. Framed in this manner, it was hypothesized that their leisure preferences would be related to age, race, and gender. The results of the data analyses indicated that, contrary to the first hypothesis, age, gender, and race did relate to older adults' leisure preferences. Older adults in the 80 and up age range were distinguished from older adults in the 60 64 age range at a level significantly greater than chance (p = <.05), female older adults were distinguished from male older adults, and black older adults were distinguished from white older adults. Adults who were 80 years old and up had significantly fewer positive interests than adults 60 64 years of age. A contrast was noted between the 11 busy 11 60 64 older adults and the 80 and up group who presented a slower, more controlled personal style. The 60 64 year olds were more frequent and wide ranging "yeasayers" than the 80 and up

PAGE 139

127 group. Membership in the 60 64 age group was highly predictive of whether a person liked video games, food gardening, pets, science projects, cooking, specialized crafts (e.g., Origami, Hooking Rugs, Decoupage), Dancing, holiday activities, local or foreign travel, and social group participation. On the Intermediate level, younger older adults were more favorable than the 80 and up age group in their preferences for operating computers, gardening, decorating, crafts, art creation, and traveling. On the General level older adults who were 80 years and older had significantly less preference for utilitarian leisure activities than did the 60 64 year olds. Gender differences also related to preference differences. Specifically, men liked table sports, mechanical puzzles, bowling, boxing/wrestling, TV, comedy, various sports, and handyman activities. However, older adult women preferred games (e.g., Ouija), watching soap operas, and senior social groups significantly (p = <.05) more than did men. On the Intermediate level males expressed significantly more frequent preferences for competitive activities, mechanics, sports observation, and stamp and model collecting. On the General level, female older adults cared less than did male older adults for pre-patterned activities. Racial differences also resulted in different leisure preferences. Specifically, blacks did not prefer games such as monopoly, chess, and board games; any kind of card

PAGE 140

128 playing or puzzles: or sports such as golf, bowling, swimming, and jogging: or collection activities as much as did whites. Blacks liked book collecting, but did not like most reading activities, except newspaper reading. They also did not like sketching or portrait drawing as much as whites. Although whites liked to collect objects more than blacks, blacks did like collecting books more than whites. On the Intermediate level blacks expressed less preference for games, sports watching or playing, collecting, reading, writing, and other self-development activities. On the General level blacks disliked structured leisure activities more than did whites. Ho:2. The leisure preferences of older adults do not relate to the lifestyle factors of education level, work history, self-reported income, self-reported health status, and household type. The rationale for the second null hypothesis was based on the assumption that older adult leisure preferences share a common value base which has been balanced and integrated by the older adult's lifelong decisions in regard to household type, occupation, education, health maintenance activity, and income generation. The results of the data analyses supported the second hypothesis. It was not possible to isolate unique clusters of variances in older adult leisure preferences based on

PAGE 141

analyses of household type, occupational history, educational level, health status, and income. Patterns 129 The following patterns were seen in the responses of the entire (i.e., non-subdivided) sample. 1. General preferences were most frequently found for passive activities on one hand and mild to moderate exertion activities on the other. There were relatively strong yet paradoxical preferences for both productive, planful activities and passive, pensive activities. 2. Intermediate level preferences were for religious activities, gardening, self-development, TV watching, and art appreciation. 3. Specific preferences appeared to form a preference continuum which ranged from tending toward self discipline and self development (e.g., swimming) on one hand and enjoyment of passive experience on the other (e.g., various kinds of art presentations). Conclusions The following conclusions are drawn from this study: 1. Older adult lifestyle variables were not predictably correlated with older adult leisure preferences, even though the theoretical and empirical trend found in the

PAGE 142

130 literature presented in Chapter II of this study suggests that some type of relationship exists. 2, The demographic factors of age, gender, and race did associate with significantly different viewpoints on leisure activity preferences. a. Older adult men liked activities the outcome of which is determined by set standards and for which individual elaboration is minimal. Women liked more unpredictable activities. b. Older adult whites liked activities the results of which are somewhat limited by predetermined, organized standards or expectations; e.g., game and sports rules. This preference was in direct contrast to the preferences of black older adults who were moderately in favor of cooking, reading and writing. c. Adults who were 60 64 years of age liked activities pursued for their practical, useful purposes, or activities directed towards specific goal achievement more than did older adults who were 80 years old and older. 3. Over's AAI psychosocial categories of leisure activities more accurately predicted older adult demographic status than did the AAI leisure categories which had been grouped by homogeneous activity format or physical exertion factors. 4. Two antithetical values appeared to underlie a bipolar dimension of older adult leisure preference preferences for industriousness and goal achievement on one hand, and easy going, disinterest on the other.

PAGE 143

131 5. Although the 80 and up age group did not prefer using computers, the fact that well over 300 older adults (out of approximately 400 solicited) agreed to operate the computers in this study leads to the conclusion that older adults will use computers. Implications The preferences exhibited by older adults in this study suggest an intimately experienced push-and-pull of an underlying need to feel functionally related to their environment through leisure activity. On one hand, religious activities, getting things done, being self sufficient, and staying healthy and alert appear to define the active side of leisure preferences for older adults. On the other hand, touring the country or world, cultural events, and minimal physical strain appear to define a related, but passive side of the leisure preferences of older adults. The need for function and social connection was seen in the significant responses of both the 80 years old and up group and the 60 64 year old group. The 60 64 year old group appeared to be dedicated to ''busyness." They appeared more determined to get the most out of their environment, openly reacting to the uncertainty of old age and distrustful of putting off any opportunities for leisure into the future.

PAGE 144

132 While the 60 64 year olds had to be encouraged to take the time to participate more so than other groups in the study, the age 80 and up group appeared to be more willing to sit and answer questions about their leisure preferences. However, an age related factor appeared to be interfering with the expression of leisure preferences in that group. Frequently, they chose to pass over activities in a manner analagous to response patterns encountered by Young et al. (1985). In this study, and in Young's research, reportedly healthy older adults were more apt to give tentative answers, including "I don't know" responses, to questions than were younger older adults. In the absence of organic brain impairments, Young concluded that the cause of this phenomenon may well be a function of depression disorders. An important implication in the high rate of naysaying encountered in this research may be that recreation programmers need to validate counseling techniques which are designed to enhance older adults' leisure interests. The gender related patterns identified in this study may be explained by the fact that current older men have spent more of their lives in pre-patterned activities (e.g., as employees, soldiers, team members, and other positions of subordination within organized settings) . However, the women lived their lives during a time when they set the pattern of routine in a household and structured their own

PAGE 145

133 daily activities. The women surveyed preferred glamour and novelty in leisure activities. Fewer blacks than whites preferred the leisure activities listed in this study. A possible explanation of this phenomenon may be that blacks were less open to this research than were whites. Indeed, blacks have been generally harder to survey than whites. This can be seen in the low U.S. Census population counts for older black adults reported in Chapter IV. In order to get black participation, aides familiar with the black subjects were utilized, and these aides frequently entered the data for the blacks; it appears to have caused them to skip over leisure activity listings more readily than did whites. Two anecdotes which may offer insight into the nature of data collection among black groups encountered in this study are as follows: Most blacks believed that jogging was unnecessary. Aides explained that most of the people whom they surveyed worked or were physically active and therefore believed "leisure" exercise was "nonsense." According to the aides working with this group, card playing was said to be a very popular pastime among blacks; however, card playing was frequently rejected by blacks in the survey. Aides explained this disparity by explaining that the black respondents were concerned about the respectability of reporting card playing activities. A final implication appears in older adults' reactions to interactive computing as an exploratory technique. The

PAGE 146

134 computer provided the meaningful exposition of hundreds of leisure activities in a reasonably short time period. The computer was a novel, but accepted mode of "travel" through leisure possibilities. The interaction enhanced the older adults' scope of options in determining their preferences, and provided the "wider range" of leisure activity inquiry called for by Tinsley et al. (1985, p. 177). Suggestions for Further Research The patterns found in older adult leisure preferences, in their rates of naysaying, and the importance of leisure as a way to maintain health and sustain the quality in older adult life point the way to further studies on these and related topics. During this project several senior center administrators expressed interest in finding "new ways" to serve older adults. The cooperation of the several agencies and organizations which serve older adults with this research effort implies that the adult care and service professional community will support more controlled research on understanding the nature of older adult leisure preferences . .

PAGE 147

135 The Use of Computers with Older Adults "No technological innovation has had more potential to affect the profession or seems to have generated more excitement than has the computer" (Goodyear, 1984, p. 131). Computer-assisted counseling with older adults offers potential for significant help to counselors through objectivity and the capacity to store and retrieve a great deal of information (Walz, 1984). As the rise in the use of interactive guidance systems to assist in decision-making (Cianni-Surridge, 1983) continues, adults will probably want to take advantage of computers in life planning. Older adults may respond, via a computer, to sensitive questions about daily needs more willingly than within a direct interview (Interactive PC, 1982); however, counselors should be aware that limited computer skills, computer anxiety, or machine phobia may make some individuals' computer responses invalid (Wood, 1984) Based on this study, a microcomputer-based leisure exploration model warrants further exploration and testing. Specifically, the need for a controlled experiment which assesses older adults' reactions to a computer-assisted activities scheduling model is necessary. The method of this study might be to offer older adults, who live in group settings, a chance to participate in the selection of leisure activities via a network of in-room terminals. The objective might be to determine whether the resulting

PAGE 148

leisure activity program would be more stimulating than traditional scheduling methods. 136 In this study, respondents were expected to work hard to learn data entry techniques, to read many words, and to make many decisions in a short time period in order to use the computer. Experiments are needed to validate ways to enhance older adults' confidence and skills with computers via desensitization exercises, computer games used as "icebreakers", colorful graphics, joysticks and "mouses" instead of key entry, and sound effects. Enhancement of Older Adult Preferences for Leisure Activity The patterns found here indicate that leisure is an intimate, personally meaningful experience and that leisure preferences are sensitive measures of the need to feel involved and socially useful. Analyzing leisure preferences to enhance an older adult's enthusiasm for activity makes sense. Leisure preference studies within older adult programs should be able to help program personnel understand and react to older adults as individuals with unique needs and aspirations for their leisure time. This is especially true for older adults who are 80 years old and older and for whom depression may be a factor which is blocking the gratification of needs. Research appears needed into ways of developing older adult interests in activity. Specifically, a controlled experiment is needed which uses motivational exercises via

PAGE 149

137 values clarification, conflict resolution, or confidence building as a treatment. The results of such a study could help determine whether such activities expand or intensify older adults' (measured) preference for leisure. More Definitive Understanding of Older Adult Leisure Preferences Research is needed to develop a more definitive explanation of why blacks displayed less preference for structured leisure activities than did whites. Experimenters could subdivide the structured leisure activities listed in Over's AAI into those which satisfy status needs, focus on subordination tolerance, involve detailed rules, and rely on group versus individual norms. The purpose would be to contrast how various leisure activities are valued by blacks. The possible relationship between advanced aging and depressive disorders hinted at in the 80 year old and up group's rejection of utilitarian activities also needs to be clarified. The goal of such research might be to determine whether constricted leisure choices are a valid indicator of older adult depression. The desire for or rejection of continued social involvement and self-sufficiency might be measured and compared to the scope of leisure choices made by individuals 80 years old and older.

PAGE 150

138 Suggestions For the Use of Psychosocial Variables in Leisure Preference Research In this study Over's psychosocial leisure AAI listings were more effective discriminators of older adult personal characteristics than were the homogeneous groups of leisure activities themselves; e.g., "utilitarian" leisure activity preferences were more predictive of age than were preferences for "sports." As a way of escaping from the tedium of activity checklists and in order to condense leisure databases into more maneageable proportions, future researchers should test the use of specific activities in groupings which illustrate a specific psychosocial payoff. For example, an experiment aimed at evaluating the accuracy of predicting older adult group status based on preference for a given psychosocial "payoff" (or reward) would clarify how older adults evaluate leisure. Leisure activities which are socially involving and utilitarian, as opposed to those which are individual and reflective, appeared in this current study to be good candidates for future investigation of the leisure thinking of older adults.

PAGE 151

139 Summary Research on leisure preferences is an attempt to find ways to help individuals connect their intimate feelings about what is pleasurable to external resources and opportunities. In this study, a representative sample of older adults illustrated that three general themes (i.e., utility, pre-patterning, and structure) appear to link personal needs and leisure activities. Further success in isolating norms and the dimensions underlying older adult leisure preferences will facilitate matching leisure activities to older people. What appears to be needed now is more knowledge in order to provide the framework for one-on-one, older adult leisure counseling and programming which considers the person's background, interests, aptitudes, abilities, and intimately felt personal needs for activity.

PAGE 152

APPENDIX A AVOCATIONAL ACTIVITIES INVENTORY 1 I. Games: Games can be contests in which someone wins or loses. Some games are cooperative ventures and involve one in social situations. One can play games by himself or with two or more people. Some people play games to gain exercise, balance, and muscle coordination. Mental games can involve mental arithmetic, strategy, and memory for details. A. Play Active Games 1. Play Running Games 2. Play Throwing Games 3. Play Indoor Games 4. Play Other Active Games B. Play Target and Skill Games 1. Play Balance Games 2. Play Table Sports 3. Play Target Games--Throwing 4. Play Target Games--Using Various Instruments 5. Play Other Target and Skill Games c. Play Table and Board Games 1. Play Children's Board Games 2. Play Games of Chance 3. Play Playing Piece Games 4. Play Money Games (such as Monopoly) 5. Play Dual Games (such as Chess) 6. Play Other Board Games D. Play Card Games 1. Play Solitaire 2. Play Games for Two 3. Play Games for Three or More 4. Play Team Games (such as Bridge) 5. Play Other Card Games E. Play Knowledge and Word Games 1. Play Paper and Pencil Games 2. Play Guessing Games 3. Play Spelling Games 4. Play Charades 5. Play General Knowledge Games 6. Play Memory Games 7. Play Other Word Games F. Do Puzzles 1. Do Jigsaw Puzzles 2. Do Crossword Puzzles 3. Do Math Puzzles 4. Do Mechanical Puzzles 140

PAGE 153

141 5. Do Other Puzzles G. Play Model Racing Games 1. Race Boats 2. Race Cars 3. Race Airplanes 4. Race Trains 5. Play Other Model Racing H. Play Computer Games 1. Play Adventure Games 2. Play Arcade Games 3. Play Educational Games 4. Play Other Computer Games I. Play Miscellaneous Games 1. Play Dominoes 2. Play Video Games 3. Play Ouija 4. Play Real Life Simulation 5. Play Other Miscellaneous Games II. Sports: Viewing sports and actually participating in sports are different ways to enjoy sports. Some sports involve self development, fitness, or competition with others. Some require special equipment. Some are played only in water, on land, in summer or winter, and indoors or outdoors. Whether played by yourself or with others, sports can be slow moving or physically taxing. Some sports involve complex rules. A. Observe Sporting Events 1. Observe Baseball 2. Observe Basketball 3. Observe Bowling 4. Observe Boxing or Wrestling 5. Observe Football 6. Observe Golf 7. Observe Hockey 8. Observe Tennis 9. Other Sports Observation B. Participate Individual Non-Competitive Sports 1. Participate Bicycling and Motorbiking 2. Participate Boating and Sailing 3. Participate Flying 4. Participate Horseback Riding 5. Participate Gymnasium Physical Fitness 6. Participate Rollerskating 7. Participate Water Sports and Swimming 8. Participate Winter Sports (such as Ice Skating) 9. Participate Other Non-Competitive Sports C. Participate Competitive Sports 1. Participate Archery 2. Participate Bowling 3. Participate Golf 4. Participate Gymnastics 5. Participate Rifle and Pistol Shooting 6. Participate Skating 7. Participate Swimming and Diving

PAGE 154

142 8. Participate Other Competitive Sports D. Play Dual Active Sports 1. Play Badminton 2. Play Croquet 3. Play Handball 4, Play Paddleball 5. Play Squash 6. Play Table Tennis 7. Play Tennis 8. Play Other Dual Sports E. Watch Combative Sports 1. Watch Arm or Leg Wrestling 2. Watch Boxing 3. Watch Fencing 4. Watch Judo 5. Watch Karate 6. Watch Wrestling 7. Watch Other Combative Sports F. Team Sports Participation 1. Participate in Baseball 2. Participate in Basketball 3. Participate in Football 4. Participate in Hockey 5. Participate in Lacrosse 6. Participate in Polo 7. Participate Track and Field (such as Jogging) 8. Participate in Volleyball 9. Participate in Other Team Sports G. Watch Racing Sports 1. Watch Auto Racing 2. Watch Bike and Motorbike Racing 3. Watch Dog Racing 4. Watch Foot Racing 5. Watch Horse Racing 6. Watch Power Boat Racing 7. Watch Boat Racing 8. Watch Winter Sports Racing 9. Watch Other Racing H. Watch Special Olympics 1. Watch Special Olympics Proper 2. Watch Wheelchair 3. Watch Other Special Sports I. Watch or Play Miscellaneous Sports 1. Watch or Play Curling 2. Watch or Play Roller Derby 3. Watch or Play Soap Box Derby 4. Watch or Play Miscellaneous Sports III. Natural Science: Enjoyment of the beauties and wonders of nature range from leisurely nature walks to strenuous hiking. Plants, geography, animals, geological events are all objects of attention to nature lovers. "Roughing it" can range from relaxed camping in a motor home to sleeping under the stars. Natural Science as a hobby might involve scientific

PAGE 155

143 observation and experimentation with pollution problems, plant growth, or animal care and nurturing. A. View Scenery and Wildlife 1. View Scenery and Wildlife at Home 2. View Scenery and Wildlife Outdoors 3. View Scenery and Wildlife in Parks 4. View Scenery and Wildlife Traveling 5. Watch Television or Read 6. Attend Lectures and Movies 7. Other Scenery and Wildlife Viewing B. Do Exploration and Discovery 1. Do General Nature Walks 2. Do Beachcombing 3. Do Mountain Climbing 4. Do Wildlife Observation Walks 5. Do Plant Identification Walks 6. Do Night Nature Walks 7. Do Cave Explorations 8. Do Prospecting for Minerals and Gems 9. Do Other Exploration and Discovery C. Gathering Wild Plants 1. Gathering Wild Berries 2. Gathering Other Wild Fruits 3. Gathering Wild Vegetables 4. Gathering Wild Mushrooms 5. Gathering Wild Nuts 6. Gathering Wild Roots 7. Gathering Wild Greens 8. Gathering Wild Herbs 9. Gathering Wild Plant Foods D. Do Camping 1. Do Outdoor Cookery or Barbecue 2. Do Picnics 3. Do Campfire Activities 4. Do Camping Proper 5. Do Extended Camping Trips 6. Do Cottage Rentals 7. Do Resort Living 8. Do Private Summer Cottage 9. Do Other Camping Activities E. Go Fishing F. 1. Catch Live Bait 2. Go Dock and Shore Fishing Go Surf Fishing 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7. 8 9. Go 1. 2 3. Go Fresh Water Boat Fishing Go Salt Water Boat Fishing Go Ice Fishing Go Spear Fishing Trap Fish (such as Nets) Do Other Fishing Hunting Go Amphibian and Reptile Hunting Go Game Bird Hunting Go Waterfowl Hunting

PAGE 156

144 4. Go Small Game Hunting 5. Go Varmint Hunting 6. Trap Animals 7. Go Big Game Hunting--United States 8. Go Big Game Hunting--Foreign 9. Do Other Hunting or Trapping G. Do Gardening 1. Grow House Plants 2. Do Lawn Care 3. Do Flower Gardening 4. Do Tree and Shrub Gardening 5. Do Vegetable Gardening 6. Grow Fruit Trees 7. Grow Mushrooms 8. Breed Plants 9. Do Other Plants Activities H. Do Animal Care and Exhibition 1. Exhibit Fish and Aquatic Pets 2. Exhibit Reptiles and Amphibians 3. Exhibit Birds 4. Exhibit Cats 5. Exhibit Dogs 6. Exhibit Other Small Mammals 7. Exhibit Large Domestic Animals 8. Exhibit Large "Wild" Animals 9. Exhibit Other Animals Activities I. Participate in Miscellaneous Natural Science 1. Participate in Archaeology 2. Participate in Astronomy and Meteorology 3. Participate in Botany and Horticulture 4. Participate in Chemistry 5. Participate in Conservation and Ecology 6. Participate in Geology 7. Participate in Physics 8. Participate in Zoology 9. Participate in Other Natural Sciences IV. Collecting: Collecting complete sets of objects is fascinating. Whether by purchase, direct contact, professional skill, casual effort, at great or little expense, collectors take pleasure in the acquisition of objects. The number and kind of objects collected varies with the sensitivities of the collector. Collecting can be a solitary or a social activity. A. Photo and Poster Collecting 1. Collect Photos of Family and Friends 2. Collect Photos of Athletes 3. Collect Photos of Authors 4. Collect Photos of Movie and Television Stars 5 . Collect Photos of Political Figures 6. Collect Photos of Singers and Musicians 7. Other Photo and Poster Collecting B. Coins and Medals Collecting 1. Collect Ancient Coins 2. Collect Foreign Coins

PAGE 157

3. Collect United States Coins 4. Collect Religious Medals 5. Collect Military Medals 6. Collect Commemorative Medals 7. Collect Novelty Coins or Medals 8. Other Coins and Medals Collecting C. Stamp Collecting 1. Collect Stamps 2. Collect Stamps on Covers 3. Collect First Day Covers 4. Collect Foreign Stamps 5. Collect United States Stamps 6. Other Stamp Collecting D. Collecting Natural Objects 1. Collect Stuffed Animals 2. Collect Butterflies and Insects 3. Collect Ferns and Wild Flowers 4. Collect Leaves and Pine Cones 5. Collect Fossils 6. Collect Rocks and Minerals 7. Collect Seashells 8. Collect Other Natural Objects E. Collecting Models 1. Collect Airplanes 2. Collect Animals 3. Collect Automobiles 4. Collect Ships 5. Collect Trains 6. Collect Weapons 7. Other Model Collecting F. Doll Collecting 1. Collect Antique Dolls 2. Collect Bride Dolls 3. Collect Ethnic Dolls 4. Collect Celluloid Dolls 5. Collect China Dolls 6. Collect Paper Dolls 7. Collect Rag Dolls a. Collect Rubber or Wax Dolls 9, Collect Other Dolls G. Collecting Art Objects 1. Collect Books 2. Collect China 3. Collect Glass 4. Collect Paintings and Drawings 5. Collect Photographs 6. Collect Records 7. Collect Sculpture 8. Collect Other Art Objects H. Collecting Antiques 1. Collect Antique Books and Documents 2. Collect Antique Cars 3. Collect Antique Clocks 4. Collect Antique Dishes and Glass Bottles 145

PAGE 158

5. Collect Antique Furniture 6. Collect Antique Photographs 7, Collect Antique Toys 8. Collect Antique Weapons 9. Collect Other Antiques I. Miscellaneous Collecting 1. Collect Almanacs 2. Collect Bottles and Bottle Caps 3. Collect Buttons 4. Collect Calendars 5. Collect Match Covers 6. Collect Recipes 7. Collect Firearms 8. Collect Swords and Knives 9. Miscellaneous Collecting 146 V. Crafts: Crafts may involve many happy hours of creative effort. Craft activities may require execution of patterns or designs. Some crafts require a lot of special skill and know how, interest in the history and the lore of a craft, while other crafts can be easily handled. Some may require proper tools, close work, and dexterity. Craft activities may result in items for sale or use and a surprising variety of unique and custom creations. A. Do Cooking 1. Bake Cookies, Cakes and Pies 2. Make Candy 3. Make Cake Decorations 4. Do Special Baking 5. Do Ethnic Cooking 6. Make Party and Holiday Foods 7. Sausage Making 8. Make Alcoholic Beverages 9. Do Other Cooking B. Do Decorating 1. Do Floral Arranging 2. Do Small Object Decorating 3. Do Table Setting 4. Do Holiday Decorating 5. Make Window Displays 6. Do General Interior Decorating 7. Do Other Decorating C. Do Weaving and Needlework 1. Do Needlepoint 2. Do Macrame and Knot-making 3. Do Quilting 4. Make Hooked Rugs 5. Do Crocheting 6. Do Knitting 7. Do Lacework and Embroidery 8. Do Weaving 9. Do Other Weaving and Needlework D. Toy and Model Building 1. Make Stuffed Toys

PAGE 159

147 2. Make Dolls and Puppets 3. Build Model House and Furniture 4. Build Model Trains, Cars and Boats 5. Build Electronic Kits 6. Build Model Layouts 7. Repair Old Toys 8. Repair Sports Equipment 9. Other Toy and Model Building E. Do Paper Crafts 1. Make Scrapbooks 2. Do Silhouettes 3. Do Crepe Paper Craft 4. Do Papier-Mache 5. Do Origami and Paper Folding 6. Do Card Making 7. Finishing Pictures 8. Do Bookbinding 9. Do Other Paper Craft~ F. Do Leather and Textile Crafts 1. Mending Clothing 2. Do Dressmaking 3. Do Dyeing and Coloring 4. Do Felt Crafts 5. Do Leather Crafts 6. Make Drapery 7. Make Costume Clothing 8. Do Reupholstery 9. Do Other Leather and Textile Crafts G. Do Wood and Metal Working 1. Do Whittling 2. Do Wood Burning 3. Do Wood Hand Tool Work 4. Do Power Tool Carpentry 5. Do Jewelry Making 6. Do Metal Hand Tool Work 7. Do Soldering and Welding 8. Do Machine Tool Metal Work 9. Do Other Wood and Metal Working H. Do Handyman Activities 1. Do Routine (such as changing light bulbs) 2. Do Complex (such as tiling) 3. Do Painting 4. Repairing Wood Items 5. Do Plumbing 6. Do Appliance Repair 7. Do Automobile Repair 8. Do Electrical Repair 9. Do Other Handyman Activities I. Do Miscellaneous Crafts 1. Do Collage and Decoupage 2. Do Candlemaking 3. Do Mosaics 4. Make Fountains 5. Make Kites

PAGE 160

148 6. Make Musical Instruments 7. Do Other Miscellaneous Crafts VI. Arts and Music: Generally art and music activities involve the mastery of some form of technique. Activities may involve mastery of equipment to produce an image, interaction with others in a creative effort, careful attention to form and detail, adherence to aesthetic and artistic principles, and sometimes simply slow, tedious effort. Some forms which creative expressions may take are two and three dimensional objects, dramatic productions, and individual works of prose and poetry. A. Do Photography 1. Do Snapshots 2. Do Instant Pictures 3. Do Family Movies and Slides 4. Do Special Photographs 5. Do Darkroom Work 6. Do Enlargements 7. Do Time Lapse Photography 8. Do Contest Photography 9. Do Other Photography B. Do Drawing and Printing 1. Do Stenciling 2. Do Lettering 3. Do Etching 4. Do Drafting and Design 5. Do Cartoon and Caricature 6. Do Clothes Design 7. Do Portrait Sketching 8. Do Other Sketching 9. Do Other Drawing and Printing C. Do Painting 1. Do Finger Painting 2. Do Abstracts 3. Do Pop Art 4. Do Surrealistic Art 5. Do Landscapes 6. Do Portraits 7. Do Other Painting D. Do Sculpture 1. Do Clay and Putty Modeling 2. Do Snow and Ice Sculpture 3. Do Soap and Wax Carving 4. Do Wood, Ivory and Bone Carving 5. Do Plastic and Glass Sculpture 6. Do Ceramics 7. Do Metal and Wire Sculpture 8. Do Stone Sculpture 9. Do Other Sculpture E. Participate in Dramatics 1. Participate in Improvision Play 2. Participate in Story and Joke Telling 3. Participate in Pantomime

PAGE 161

149 4. Participate in Puppet Shows 5. Participate in Role Playing 6. Participate in Choral Speaking 7. Participate in Play Production 8. Participate in Plays and Operettas 9. Participate in Other Dramatic Activities F. Participate in Dance 1. Participate in Rhythmic Exercise 2. Participate in Popular Dancing 3. Participate in Ballroom Dancing 4. Participate in Square Dancing 5. Participate in Folk Dancing 6. Participate in Tap Dancing 7. Participate in Modern Interpreture 8. Participate in Ballet 9. Participate in Other Dance Activities G. Participate in Music 1. Participate in Informal Choral and Rhythm Band 2. Participate in Solo Voice and Instrument 3. Participate in Informal Group 4. Participate in Formal Choir 5. Participate in Band and Orchestra 6. Participate in Conducting and Arranging Music 7. Participate in Writing Song Lyrics 8. Participate in Writing Song Music 9. Participate in Other Music H. Do Writing 1. Do Letter Writing 2. Write Greeting Cards 3. Write Newspaper and Magazine Articles 4. Do Technical Writing 5. Do Historical Writing 6. Do Novels and Short Story Writing 7. Write Dramas and Plays 8. Write Poetry 9. Do Other Writing I. Participate in Miscellaneous Arts and Music 1. Participate in Film Production 2. Participate in Light and Optical Art 3. Participate in Mechanical Art 4. Participate in Other Arts and Music VII. Educational, Entertainment and Cultural Activities: Educational, entertainment, and cultural activities are appealing because they provide a chance for interaction with important events, understanding world news, diversion, and amusement. Physical fitness derives through dance activities and rhythmic movements activities. Other benefits are appreciation of literary meaning and emotion through reading, concert listening, discussion groups, analysis of art works, and fellowship. A. Radio Listening 1. Listen to Newscasts and Reports 2. Listen to Talk Shows

PAGE 162

150 3. Listen to News Commentaries 4. Listen to Other Non-Musical Programs 5. Listen to Popular Music 6. Listen to Show and Theatre Music 7. Listen to Jazz and Blues 8. Listen to Classical Music 9. Listen to Other Musical Programs B. Television Watching 1. Watch Soap Operas and Serials 2. Watch Comedies 3. Watch Sporting Events 4. Watch Movies 5. Watch Talk and Variety Shows 6. Watch News Programs 7. Watch Informational Programs 8. Watch Educational Programs 9. Other Television Watching C. Going to Entertainment and Plays 1. Going to Circuses, Fairs, Parts etc. 2. Going to Exhibitions and Hobby Shows 3. Movie Going 4. Going to Ballets and Dances 5. Going to Child's Programs 6. Going to Little Theatre Groups 7. Going to Professional Theatre 8. Going to Other Entertainment and Plays D. Reading 1. Read Newspapers 2. Read Non-Technical Magazines 3. Read Special Interest Magazines 4. Read Technical Journals 5. Read Fiction Stories and Novels 6. Read Non-Fiction Reading 7. Read Discussion Groups 8. Read Poetry 9. Do Other Reading E. Participate in Art and Music Appreciation 1. Participate in Records and Tape Listening 2. Participate in Group Listening and Discussion 3. Participate in Informal Musical Events 4. Participate in Professional Music Events 5. Attending Lectures and Courses 6. Going to Art Festivals 7. Going to Museums and Galleries 8. Attending Art Lectures 9. Other Art and Music Appreciation F. Do Traveling 1. Participate in Informal Outings 2. Visiting Friends and Relatives 3. Enjoying Seasonal Scenery 4. Visiting National and State Parks 5. Visiting Historic Sites 6. Visiting Wildlife and Bird Preserves 7. Participate in Interstate Travel

PAGE 163

151 8. Participate in Foreign Travel 9. Participate in Other Traveling G. Participate in Religious Activities 1. Participate in Individual Prayer 2. Participate in Home Reading and Discussion 3. Participate in Radio Church Services 4. Participate in Television Church Services 5. Participate in Special Service Attendance 6. Participate in Regular Church Attendance 7. Participate in Religious Attendance 8. Participate in Pilgrimages and Retreats 9. Participate in Other Religious Activities H. Participate in Self-Development 1. Participate in Figure Control Exercise 2. Participate in Charm and Poise Courses 3. Participate in Reading Improvement 4. Participate in Vocabulary Development 5. Participate in Public Seminars and Speeches 6. Participate in Discussion Clubs 7. Participate in Skill Improvement Courses 8. Participate in Academic Courses 9. Participate in Other Self-Development I. Participate in Miscellaneous Entertainment 1. Participate in Informal Entertaining 2. Participate in Formal Entertainment 3. Participate in Debate and Public Speaking 4. Participate in Gourmet Activities 5. Participate in Wine and Beverage Tasting 6. Participate in Auctions and Rummage 7. Dining Out 8. Nightclub Going 9. Participate Other Miscellaneous Entertainment VIII. Clubs and Organizations: Getting involved in organized, social activities provides a chance for people to meet others, get active, share political beliefs, influence others, travel, and generally get "involved." Examples of organizational/volunteer activity are various kinds of clubs, political action groups, and other social engaging group activities. A. Participate in Athletic and Sports Clubs 1. Participate in Ball Game Clubs 2. Participate in Net Game Clubs 3. Participate in Outing Groups 4. Participate in Rod and Gun Clubs 5. Participate in Combative Sports Clubs 6. Participate in Track and Field Clubs 7. Participate in Water Sports Clubs 8. Participate in Winter Sports Clubs 9. Participate in Other Athletic Clubs B. Participate in Hobby Clubs 1. Participate in Animal Training Clubs 2. Participate in Art Clubs 3. Participate in Auto, Cycle and Flying Clubs 4. Participate in Board Game Clubs

PAGE 164

152 5. Participate in Card Game Clubs 6. Participate in Collecting Clubs 7. Participate in Communications Clubs 8. Participate in Craft Clubs 9. Participate in Other Hobby Clubs C. Participate in Political Organizations 1. Participate in Party Affiliations 2. Participate in Political Youth Groups 3. Participate in Campaigning Clubs 4. Participate in Non-Partisan Action Groups 5. Participate in Special Pressure Groups 6. Participate in Other Political Groups D. Participate in Religious Organizations 1. Participate in Formal Church Membership 2. Participate in Church Social Groups 3. Participate in Teaching and Discussion Groups 4. Participate in Church Maintenance 5. Church Participation 6. Work in Church Charity and Missionary Groups 7. Participate in Interfaith Organizations 8. Participate in Information Groups 9. Participate in Other Religious Organizations E. Participate in Cultural and Entertainment Groups 1. Participate in Art Appreciation 2. Participate in Sponsoring Groups 3. Participate in Book Clubs 4. Participate in Drama Groups 5. Participate in Educational Groups 6. Participate in Instrumental Groups 7. Participate in Singing Groups 8. Participate in International Exchange 9. Participate in Other Cultural Groups F. Participate in Social Groups 1. Participate in Athletic Clubs 2. Participate in Country Clubs 3. Participate in Dance Clubs 4. Participate in Groups for the Elderly 5. Participate in Party Clubs 6. Participate in 4-H and Scouts 7. Participate in 11 Y" Groups (such as the YWCA) 8. Participate in Youth Groups 9. Participate in Other Social Groups G. Participate in Ethnic Organizations 1. Participate in Discussion Groups 2. Participate in International Clubs 3. Participate in Heritage-Related Clubs 4. Participate in Language Groups 5. Participate in Advancement Groups 6. Participate in Other Ethnic Organizations H. Participate in Volunteer Services 1. Participate Groups to Aid the Sick or Disabled 2. Participate in Civic Groups 3. Participate in Educational Groups 4. Participate in Humane Societies

PAGE 165

153 5. Participate Aid Groups (such as the Red Cross) 6. Participate in Person-to-Person Groups 7. Participate in Protection Groups 8. Participate in Women's Service Groups 9. Participate in Other Volunteer Groups I. Participate in Miscellaneous Organizations 1. Participate in Honor Societies 2. Participate in Investment Clubs 3. Participate in Fraternities and Sororities 4. Participate in Fraternal Organizations 5. Participate in Handicapped Organizations 6. Participate in Professional Organizations 7. Participate in Toastmasters 8. Participate in Veterans' Groups 9. Participate Other Miscellaneous Organizations 1 From Avocational counseling manual: A complete guide to leisure guidance by R. P. Overs, S. Taylor, & C. Adkins, Washington, DC: Hawkins and Associates. Copyright 1977 by Associates International. Adapted by permission.

PAGE 166

APPENDIX B DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS AND EXERTION FACTORS 1 Aesthetic: Activity pursued for the subjective appreciation of beauty, or appreciation of the activity for itself rather than for possible results or practical applications. Utilitarian: Activity pursued for its practical, serviceable aspects, or activity directed towards specific goal achievement. Creative: Activity lending itself to imaginative variations or innovations. Pre-patterned: The outcome of the activity is already determined by some set standards; individual variations are minimal. Abstract: Activity involves thought process of which there is no tangible evidence. Concrete: Activity has specific applications, or is experienced in immediate, physical, tangible results. Group Effort: Activity allows for or requires cooperative work of two or more. Includes games or sports with two or more participants on a team. Individual Effort: Activity is dependent upon the efforts of one person only. Structured: Results of activity somewhat limited by predetermined standards of expectations. Includes game and sports rules. Unstructured: Activity encourages unlimited creativity, imagination, and initiative. Supervised: Activity presided over by some regulatory force, person or rule system, which makes certain demands and controls participation in the activity. Includes rules of games and sports. Unsupervised: The manner in which the activity is pursued or practiced is determined by the individual or sets of individuals involved. 154

PAGE 167

155 Opportunity for Recognition: Successful participation in the activity results in positive reinforcement in the form of praise, awards, expressed admiration, etc. METs 1 Exertion: The level of energy expended 1s similar that of a person sleeping or at rest. METs 2 Exertion: The level of energy expended is similar that of a person typing. METs 3 Exertion: The level of energy expended is similar that of a person walking at 2 miles per hour. METs 4 Exertion: The level of energy expended is similar that of a person mowing grass. to to to to METs 5 Exertion: The level of energy expended is similar to that of a person walking at 3 miles per hour. 1 Avocational activities for the handicapped: A handbook for avocational counseling (p. xxiv) by R. P. Overs, E. O 1 Connor, and B. DeMarco, 1974, Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas. Copyright 1974 by C.C. Thomas. Adapted by permission.

PAGE 168

REFERENCES Adams, J.D. (1980). Improving stress management: An action-research-based OD intervention. In J.D. Adams (Ed.) Understanding and managing stress: A book of readings (pp. 179-198). San Diego: University Associates, Inc. Adler, A. (1965). Understanding human nature. New York: Fawcett World Library. American Council on Life Insurance. (1984, Fall). Fact sheet on women and aging (AP 41). Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, L., & Burdman, G.D. (1981). Gerontological interests and opinions of health providers. Educational Gerontology: An International Quarterly, &,251-263. Atchley, R. (1980). The social forces in later life: An introduction to social gerontology (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Balthaser, B., & Farrell, P. (1981). Program recreation services for positive aging. Parks and Recreation, 16(12), 35-36. Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Beland, R. (1982, May). Leisure services for the older adult in Florida. FAHPERD Journal, pp. 16-18. Bengston, V. L. (1973). The social psychology of aging. New York: Bobbs-Merrill. Benson, H. (1975). The relaxation response. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc. Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. (1981). Attracting minority audiences to public television. Washington, DC: Author. Bradburn, N.M. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969. 156

PAGE 169

157 Brown, M.B., & Forsythe, A.B. (1974). Robust tests for the equality of variances. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 364-367. Bull, N.C. (1982). Leisure activities. In D.J. Mangen, & W.A. Peterson, (Eds.), Social Roles and Social Participation (Vol. 2, pp. 477-485). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Butler, R.N. (1981). The life review: An unrecognized bonanza. International Journal of Aging and Human Development,~, 35-38. Butler, R.N. (1984, July 2). Today's senior citizen: Pioneers of new golden era. U.S. News and World Report, p. 51. Capuzzi, D., & Gross, D., (1980). Group work with the elderly: An overview for counselors. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 59, 206-211. Gianni-Surridge, M. (1983). Technology and work: Future issues for career guidance. Personnel and Guidance Journal, fil:., 413-416. D'Andrea, M. (1984). Primary prevention and high risk populations. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 62, 554-558. Defendorf, R. (1984, April 24). Revising our portrait of the senior citizen. The Orlando Sentinel, pp. E-1, E-4. DeJong, S. (1983). Assessment of educational interests of women over 60. Master's Thesis, University of Minnesota, May 1983. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 230 700) Dixon, W. J., Brown, W.B., Engelman, L., Frane, J. W., Hill, M.A., Jennrich, R. I., & Toporek, J. D. (Eds.) (1981). BMDP statistical software. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Dowd, J.J. (1980). Stratification among the aged. Monterey, CA: Brooke/Cole Publishing Co. Dunn, D. (1981). Leisure today: Population dynamics--The changing face of America. Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, 52(8), 31-62. East Central Florida Regional Planning Council. (1983). Services for senior citizens needs assessment. Orlando, FL: Author.

PAGE 170

Elmore, T. M., & Roberge, L.P. (1982). Assessment and experiencing: On measuring marigolds. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, 15, 95-102. Elwell, F., & Maltbie-Crannell, A.D. (1981). The impact of role loss upon coping resources and life satisfaction of the elderly. Journal of Gerontology, 36, 223-232. Faludi, M. (1984, January/February) . Golden pond: Water's fine for business. New York: W.R. Grace, Gracescope. 158 Gelatt, H.B. (1984). Are counselor's user friendly? Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 133-134. George, L. K., & Bearon, L. B. (1980). Quality of life in older persons. New York: Human Sciences Press. Gilbert, J.P., & Beal, M.R. (1982). Preferences of elderly individuals for selected music education experiences. Journal of Research in Music Education, 30, 247-53. Goodnow, W.E. (1980). Benefit Segmentation: A technique for developing program and promotional strategies for adults in a community college. Dissertation Abstracts International, il, 1345A. (University Microfilms No. 8020657) Gordon, C., Gaitz, C.M., & Scott J. (1976). Leisure and lives: Personal expressivity across the life span. In R.H. Binstock, & E. Shanas (Eds.) Handbook of aging and the social sciences (pp. 310-37). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1976. Graham, L., Brummett, J., Bell, J., Jones, F., & Krain, M. (1982). Older adult participation in higher educationNew roles for older Arkansans as students and educational resources. Little Rock: Arkansas Community Foundation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 226 177) Graney, M.J. (1982). Social participation roles. In O.J. Mangen, & W.A. Peterson (Eds.), Social roles and social participation (Vol. 2, pp. 9-16). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Guppy, N., & McPherson, B. (1979). Pre-retirement life style and the degree of planning for retirement. Journal of Gerontology, 34, 254-263. Hancock, T. (1982). Beyond health care: Creating a healthy future. The Futurist, .!.(4), 4-13.

PAGE 171

Harris, L., & Associates. (1975). T~ _ _!!!Yth and rea11ty of aging in Am~rica. Washington, D C: The NationaJ CounciJ on Aging. Hazard, J.W. (1981, July 20). Planning in pre-retirement. U.S. News and World Report, p. 70. Heisermann, D.L. (1981). rro___g__~amming in basic for personal computers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hill, J.E. (1981). The educational sciences--A conceptual framework. West Bloomfield, MI: Hill Educational Sciences Research Foundation. Interactive PC . (1982, February). Mini Microcomputers, pp. 14-15. Johnson R.P., & Riker, H.C. (1981). Retirement maturity: A valuable concept for preretirement counselors. Personnel and _ _ Guidance Journal, 59, 291-295. 159 Jondrew , J.M., Brechling, F, & Marcus, A. ( 1983). Older adults in the mar~et for _part-time el!!P] _ 9-y_ment (RR-83-06). Washington, DC: National Commission for Employment Policy. Jusenious, C. J. ( 1983). Retirement _ _ and older Americans 1 participation in volunteer _activities (RR-03-01). Washington, DC: National Commission for Employment Policy. Kanda, T. (1980). Leisure and__p_g_p_ ~ lar 5-..ulture in transition (2nd ed.). St . Louis : C. V. Mosby. Keith, P . M. (1978). Community health and social services among the aged. Journal of the ~ ommunity Development Society, g(l), 70-79. Kelly, J. R. (1982). Leisure. Englewood C liffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall. Kleiber, O.A., & Thompson, S. R. Leisure behavior and adjustment to retirement: Implications for pre-retirement education. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 14(2), 5-17. Kuder, F. (1977). Activity in~erests and occupational choice. Chicago : Science Research Ass o ciates, Inc. Landreth, G.L., & Berg, R.C. (1982). Counseling the elderly : For professional helpers who work with the aged. St. Louis: C.C. Thomas.

PAGE 172

Lawton, M.P. (1978). Leisure activities for the aged. The Annals of tb~ _ American Academy of Political and Social Science, 438, 71-80. 160 Lemke, S., & Moos, R.H. (1980). Assessing the institutional policies of sheltered care settings. Journal of Gerontology, 35, 96-107. Lemon, B.W., Bengston, V.L., & Peterson, J.A. (1972). An exploration of the activity theory of aging: Activity types and life satisfaction among in-movers to a retirement community. Journal of Gerontology, 27, 511-523. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality--Selected papers of Kurt Lewin (D.K. Adams and K.E. Zener, Trans.). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science (Ed. and Trans. D. Cartwright). New York: Harper and Row. Liang, J. (1982). Sex differences in life satisfaction among the elderly. Journal of Gerontology, 37, 100-108. Loesch, L.C., & Wheeler, P.T. (1982). Principles of leisure counseling. Minneapolis, MN: Educational Media Corporation. Mancini, J.A., & Orthner, D.K. (1982). Leisure time, activities, preferences, and competence: Implications for the morale of older adults. Iournal_of Applied Gerontology, 1, 95-103. Maranto, G., (1984). Exercise: How much is too much? Discover, ..( 10), 19-21. McClelland, K.A. (1982). Self-conception and life satisfaction: Intergrating aged subculture and activity theory. Journal of Gerontology, }7, 723-732. McDowell, C.F., & Clark, P. (1982). Assessing the leisure needs of older persons. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, __!A, 228-239. McGuire, F.A. (1982). Constraints on leisure involvement in the later years. Activities, Adaptation and Aging, 1(2), 17-24. Meister, D. (1985). Behavioral analysis and measurement methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Mellinger, J., & Holt, R. (1982). Characteristics of elderly participants in three of leisure groups. Psychological Reports, 50, 447-458.

PAGE 173

Metropoulous, N.D. (1980). The retirement years: Disengagement or reengagement? Lifelong Learning: The Adult Years, 4(4), 12-15. Millon, T., Green, C., & Meagher, R. (1982). Handbook of clinical health psychology. New York: Plenum Press. Morgan, A., & Godbey, G. (1978). The effect of entering an age segregated environment upon the leisure activity patterns of older adults. Journal of Leisure Research, 10, 177-90. Morris, W. (Ed.). (1973). American heritage dictionary. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co. Myers, J.E. (1983a). A national survey of geriatric mental health services. American Mental Health Counselors Association Journal, Q, 69-74. Myers, J. E. (1983b). Rehabilitation of Older Workers. Rehabilitation Briefs, ~(8). Myers, J. E., & Loesch, L. C. (1981). The counseling needs of older persons. The Humanist Educator, 20(1), 21-35. National Center for Health Statistics. (1980). U.S. life tables for 1980. Hyattsville, MD: Author. Neulinger, J. (1974). The psychology of leisure. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas. Older Women's League. (1984, May). Relationships. Washington, DC: Author. 161 Osgood, N. J., (1982). Life after work: Retirement, leisure, recreation, and the elderly. New York: Praeger. Overs, R.P.; O'Connor, E.; & DeMarco, B. (1974). Avocational activities ror the handicapped: A handbook for avocational counseling. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas. Overs, R.P.; Taylor, S.; & Adkins, C. (1977). Avocational counseling manual: A complete guide to leisure guidance. Washington, D.C: Hawkins and Associates. Payne, B.P., & Whittington, F. (1980). Older women: An examination of popular stereotypes and research evidence. In M.M. Fuller and C.A. Martin (Eds.), The older woman: Lavender rose or gray panther? (pp. 9-30). Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.

PAGE 174

Perkins, H.V., & Robertson-Tchabo, E.A. (1981). Retirees return to college: An evaluative study at one university campus. Educational Gerontology,&, 272-287. Petrakis, E., & Hanson, C. (1981). Cognitive style and choice of leisure activities by older adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, g, 839-842. 162 Prediger, D.J. (1981). Mapping occupations and interests: A graphic aid for vocational guidance and research. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 30, 21-36. Ragheb, M.G., & Griffith, C. (1982). The contribution of leisure participation and leisure satisfaction to life satisfaction of older persons. Journal of Leisure Research, ll, 295-306. Reiss, J. G. (1984). The relationship between psychological factors and response to medical treatment in chronically ill adolescent patients. Dissertation Abstracts International, 45, 2320B. (University Microfilms No. DA8421062) Ribovich, J.K., & Erickson, L. (1980). A study of lifelong reading with implications for instructional programs. Journal of Reading, 24(1), 20-26. Rimmer, S., & Myers, J.E. (1982). Testing and older persons: A new challenge for counselors. Measurement and Evaluation in Guidance, .!_Q, 182-187. Roadburg, A. (1981). Perceptions of work and leisure among the elderly. Gerontologist, ll, 142-45. Romsa, G., & Bondy, P. (1983). Accessibility, housing, recreational participation and retirement life satisfaction: Some preliminary results (Revised). Ontario, Canada: Windsor University. (ERIC Document Re~roduction Service No. ED 235 090) Schwartz, L. (1984). Heavyhands. New York: Warner Books. Seleen, D. (1982). Congruence between actual and desired use of time by older adults: A predictor of life satisfaction. Gerontologist, _g_g_, 95-99. Shacter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliationExperimental studies of the sources of gregariousness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Silverstone, B., & Hyman, H. (1982). You and your aging parent. Mount Vernon, NY: Consumers Union.

PAGE 175

Stenrud, C. (1977). Helping meet the needs of institutionalized aged people. Journal of Physical Education and Recreation, 48(4), 46-48. Swaim, C.R. (1983). Educational and cultural programs for the older adult: A caveat. Gerontology and Geriatric Education,~. 193-99. Tedrick, R.E. (1984). Achieving age-intergration through leisure. Parks and Recreation, 16(12), 49-50. Tinsley, H. (1982). The psychological benefits of leisure activities for the elderly. Washington, DC: NRTA-AARP Andrus Foundation. 163 Tinsley, H., Teaff, J., Colbs, s., & Kaufman, N. (1985). A system of classifying leisure activities in terms of the psychological benefits of participation reported by older persons. Journal of Gerontology, 40, 172-178. U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Census. (1983). America in transition: An aging society. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Division. (1977). Dictionary of occupational titles. Washington, DC: Author. Vacc, N.A., & Loesch, L.C. (1984). Research as an element of professional change. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 11, 124-131. Van Every, M. (Ed.). (1983). Getting on in your career: The meaning of aging (No. 14). Tallahassee, FL: Division of Vocational Education, Florida Department of State. Wicker, A.W., (1981). Nature and assessment of behavior settings: Recent contributions from the ecological perspective. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in Psychological Assessment (Vol. 5, pp. 22-61). San Francisco: Jessey-Bass. Wiggins, J. D. (1982). Holland's theory and retired teachers. Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 30, 236-242. Young, R.C., Manley, M.W., & Alexopoulos, G.S. (1985). ''I don't know" responses in elderly depressives and in dementia. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 33, 253-258. Ziegler, M., & Reid, D.W. (1983). Correlates of changes in control scores and in life satisfaction scores among elderly persons. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 1:., 135-46.

PAGE 176

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Robert Tango was born in Mt. Vernon, New York, in 1946. He graduated with a B.A. from Iona College in New Rochelle, New York, in 1968 and received an M.A. from Hunter College of the City University of New York in 1974. After working several years as the Coordinator of Assessment Services at Seminole Community College in Sanford, Florida, he enrolled at the University of Florida in 1978. In 1979 he did his internships at the Seminole County Mental Health Center in Altamonte Springs, Florida. Following this, he continued in his position at Seminole Community College. In 1983, he was appointed Coordinator of Assessment Services for Special Needs Students of Seminole Community College's Area Vocational Education School. In this position, he is responsible for helping special needs students assess their learning needs and facilitating each student's transition into regular vocational school curricula. Bob lives with his wife Marilyn and their three children Lisa who is seven, Robert Jr. who is four, and Lindsay who is a year old. 164

PAGE 177

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Harold C. Riker, Chair Professor of Counselor Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. , Co-Chair Counselor Education I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Robert Beland , Associate Professor of Parks and Tourism This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate School, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. December, 1986 J } a,, ,; J 0 . k,JJ/E) Dean, College of Education Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 178

1111111111~1ii~i1i1l1 1 IIII 11[111111 Ii Iii 111111111 3 1262 08666 331 6


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EE3P93JG7_1OZION INGEST_TIME 2017-07-20T21:02:24Z PACKAGE UF00102780_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES