Three-Dimensional Model of Leisure Activities: Activity, Relationship, and Expertise
Previous works on leisure activities had been categorizing activities arbitrarily and subjectively while focusing on a single dimension (e.g. active-passive, individual-group). To overcome these problems, this study proposed a Korean leisure activities’ matrix model that considered multidimensional features of leisure activities, which was comprised of 3 main factors and 6 sub factors: (a) Active (physical, mental), (b) Relational (quantity, quality), (c) Expert (entry barrier, possibility of improving). We developed items for measuring the degree of each dimension for every leisure activity. Using the developed Leisure Activities Dimensions (LAD) questionnaire, we investigated the presented dimensions of a total of 78 leisure activities which had been enjoyed by most Koreans recently (e.g. watching movie, taking a walk, watching media). The study sample consisted of 1348 people (726 men, 658 women) ranging in age from teenagers to elderlies in their seventies. This study gathered 60 data for each leisure activity, a total of 4860 data, which were used for statistical analysis. First, this study compared 3-factor model (Activity, Relation, Expertise) fit with 6-factor model (physical activity, mental activity, relational quantity, relational quality, entry barrier, possibility of improving) fit by using confirmatory factor analysis. Based on several goodness-of-fit indicators, the 6-factor model for leisure activities was a better fit for the data. This result indicates that it is adequate to take account of enough dimensions of leisure activities (6-dimensions in our study) to specifically apprehend each leisure attributes. In addition, the 78 leisure activities were cluster-analyzed with the scores calculated based on the 6-factor model, which resulted in 8 leisure activity groups. Cluster 1 (e.g. group sports, group musical activity) and Cluster 5 (e.g. individual sports) had generally higher scores on all dimensions than others, but Cluster 5 had lower relational quantity than Cluster 1. In contrast, Cluster 3 (e.g. SNS, shopping) and Cluster 6 (e.g. playing a lottery, taking a nap) had low scores on a whole, though Cluster 3 showed medium levels of relational quantity and quality. Cluster 2 (e.g. machine operating, handwork/invention) required high expertise and mental activity, but low physical activity. Cluster 4 indicated high mental activity and relational quantity despite low expertise. Cluster 7 (e.g. tour, joining festival) required not only moderate degrees of physical activity and relation, but low expertise. Lastly, Cluster 8 (e.g. meditation, information searching) had the appearance of high mental activity. Even though clusters of our study had a few similarities with preexisting taxonomy of leisure activities, there was clear distinctiveness between them. Unlike the preexisting taxonomy that had been created subjectively, we assorted 78 leisure activities based on objective figures of 6-dimensions. We also could identify that some leisure activities, which used to belong to the same leisure group, were included in different clusters (e.g. filed ball sports, net sports) because of different features. In other words, the results can provide a different perspective on leisure activities research and be helpful for figuring out what various characteristics leisure participants have.