Leisure Involvement Revisited: Drive Properties and Paradoxes

Introduction . . past territorial piss-posts, past whispers in the closets, past screamin' from the rooftops, we live to survive our paradoxes. . . -Springtime in Vienna (The Tragically Hip, 1996) Given that propositions papers are developed for the expressed purpose of guiding future research efforts, it is appropriate to occasionally examine the extent to which stated propositions have withstood further scrutiny. Building on our recent review piece which critiqued current knowledge of conceptual and measurement issues related to leisure involvement (Havitz & Dimanche, 1997) this paper will critique and extend existing involvement research by synthesizing knowledge within the framework of the Havitz and Dimanche (1990) propositions paper. The present focus is on the consequences of involvement. Thirteen propositions focusing on relationships between leisure involvement and promotion, purchase decisions, and participation patterns are examined. Temporal stability, the study of leisure involvement over time, and attempts to link leisure involvement with sociodemographic characteristics are also critiqued. A summary of key issues for improving future research is provided at the end of each section and general conclusions are drawn at the end of the paper. We developed a three-category classification scheme for analyzing the propositions, which are indexed using their original Roman numeral designations. Those which have received consistent to unqualified support from multiple data sets were categorized as having received strong support. Propositions which have received support from some data sets, but nearly equal levels of non-support from others were described as attaining moderate support. Those receiving support from few studies and/or when non-support is more common were characterized as receiving limited support. The distinctions between categories are not absolute. Because placement of research related to each proposition into the classification scheme is based upon our subjective judgement, it is intended only as a heuristic guide. We define involvement as an unobservable state of motivation, arousal or interest toward a recreational activity or associated product. It is evoked by a particular stimulus or situation and has drive properties (adapted from Rothschild, 1984). In other words, involvement refers to how we think about our leisure and recreation, and it affects our behavior as well. Leisure involvement has usually been treated as a multifaceted construct including attraction, sign, centrality, and risk. Inconsistent use of these and other lesser reported facets and antecedents by various researchers has complicated interpretation of leisure involvement research. To date, facet-related debate and measurement issues remain contentious and unresolved (Havitz & Dimanche, 1997; Ragheb, 1996). Does Involvement Mediate Purchase, Use and Participation Patterns? Our original propositions VI through XII speak to a central tenet of social judgement theory: latitude of acceptance and rejection. As such, we chose to examine them first in this review. Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall (1965) posited that persons with higher levels of ego involvement will have relatively narrow ranges of acceptance and relatively broad ranges of rejection relative to persons with lower levels of ego involvement. Early involvement research was conducted primarily in the contexts of compelling social and political issues. By the mid-1960s, consumer researchers had broadened the scope of investigation with mixed success. Reviewing those efforts, Kassarjian & Kassarjian (1977) wryly noted that, "Theoretical positions based on the influence of anti-Semitic attitudes on the selection of a political candidate, antiRussian fears in the support of a defense establishment, or the influence on attitudes of emotional concerns about getting killed in war have been wholly borrowed and applied to the selection of instant coffee, toothpaste, and canned peas" (p. …