Perceived Constraints by Students to Participation in Campus Recreational Sports

$10,000 Question Why do students choose not to participate in campus recreational sports? –42.2% of undergraduates did not participate (Douglas, Collins, & Warren, 1995) –74% of college students did not engage in vigorous physical activity (Rosen, 2000) –47% of college students did not engage in vigorous physical activity (Suminski & Petosa, 2002)

Learning Objectives Gain greater insight into perceived constraints of college students to participation in campus recreation programs through a basic review of the literature Learn how the study was conducted Share the results of the study as well as overall findings and an analysis of the data Make applications to your own campuses in terms of the information we will share with you

Constraints on Participation Relative to individual and circumstances Perception varies by individual and type of activity Focused on specific types of activities within a single community Campus recreational sports is a community

Leisure Constraints Model Crawford, Jackson and Godbey (1991) Three levels of constraints: Intrapersonal – psychological states & attributes interacting with leisure preferences influencing leisure choices Interpersonal – relationships between individuals Structural – intervening factors obstructing participation

Leisure Constraints Model Crawford, Jackson and Godbey (1991) Hierarchical: Negotiation of constraints at intrapersonal level must be achieved before dealing with constraints on interpersonal level Successful negotiation of constraints at intra- and interpersonal levels before dealing with structural constraints If constraints at all 3 levels can be negotiated, then participation should result

Leisure Constraints Model Participation is not dependent upon the absence of constraints Rather, how people negotiate constraints Constraints do not always mean non- participation People choose variety of strategies for negotiating through constraints Constraints do not always prevent participation

Purpose of Study To investigate how perceived constraints (intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural) influenced the recreational sport participation of college students on two distinct types of campuses (urban, commuter vs. rural, residential)

Instrument Questionnaire Demographics Respondents who participated regularly Respondents who did not participate regularly

Methods Residential University was a large, research institution located in rural Midwest Traditional-aged student population, many lived on-campus Commuter University was a medium- sized, urban campus located in the Southwest Non-traditional-aged students who lived off- campus and commuted to attend classes Stratified random samples 1,000 students 5%+ sampling error

Perceived Constraints Statements 23 constraint statements Likert scale (1-Strongly Agree…5-Strongly Disagree) Cronbach Alpha Reliability -.88

Perceived Constraints to Participation Strongest reasons for not participating: –“Lack of time because of work, school or family” (M=1.75) –“I do not know what is available” (M=2.50) –“Lack of time because of other leisure activities” (M=2.85)

Perceived Constraints to Participation Reasons rejected as preventing participation: –“I don’t enjoy recreational sports” (M=4.16) –“Lack of transportation” (M=4.17) –“Social-cultural norms prevent me from participating” (M=4.17) –“Available activities are inappropriate for my gender” (M=4.18) –“Fear of violence” (M=4.23)

Perceived Constraints to Participation 1=Strongly Agree….5=Strongly Disagree

Perceptions of Constraints by Age Age groups –18-25 year olds –26 year olds and above Moderate relationship between age and constraints

Perceptions of Constraints by Age Older students perceived… –“Available activities are inappropriate for my gender” –“Lack of time because of work, school or family” –“I do not know what is available” Younger students perceived… –“Lack of transportation” –“Lack of money”

Perceptions of Constraints by Gender Women perceived… –“Participation makes me self-conscious” –“I don’t have the will to participate” –“Activities are dominated by a specific gender” –“Lack of time because of work, school, or family”

Perceptions of Constraints by Residence On-campus students perceived… –“Participation makes me self-conscious” –“I lack the skill to participate” –“I don’t have the will to participate” –“Facilities are too crowded” –“Lack of transportation” Off-campus students perceived… –Were more likely to not know what campus recreational sports services were available to them

In Summary Most non-participants enjoy participating in recreational sport activities Non-participants tend to be women, off- campus residents and older students Most significant constraints were lack of time and lack of knowledge about opportunities On-campus, traditional-age, residential participation was affected by social- comparison issues

Implications Lack of physical activity and concerns with college student health Alternative, healthy programming options Recreational sports are “involving activities” – they help build and strengthen campus community Recreational sports offer out-of-class learning opportunities Understanding constraints to participation can help drive marketing and programming efforts Examining participation “facilitators” - the flip side to constraints!

Marketing is the Key ! Marketing=facilitation of exchange Market segmentation and description –Geographic, Socio-demographic, Behavioral, Psychographic Understand target group need Utilize marketing mix strategies –Product (program design) –Price (pricing strategy) –Promotion (advertising, publicity, personal selling, sales promotion) –Place (program distribution) Assess efforts & continuously improve services

Let’s Talk! Think about the three socio-demographic descriptors in this study (gender, age, place of residence) Discuss with colleagues the issues surrounding participation with respect to these groups –Are there issues with participation on your campus? –How are you assessing target group need? –What strategies are you using to meet the needs of these groups? –What has been effective? Ineffective? What other key groups should we be concerned with regarding participation?