Perceived Constraints of Greek University Students ... - CiteSeerX

Recreational Sports Journal, 2009, 33, 150-166 © 2009 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Perceived Constraints of Greek University Students’ Participation in Campus Recreational Sport Programs Theophilos Masmanidis, Dimitris Gargalianos, and George Kosta The aim of this study was to investigate: a) the influence of perceived constraints on recreational sport participation of Greek university students, b) the relationship between constraints dimensions and sport participation or non participation; and c) the relationship between constraint dimensions and frequency of sport participation, as well as intentions for participation. The methodology employed included review of relevant literature and administration of a specifically designed questionnaire, the University Sport Constraints Questionnaire (USCQ). The sample consisted of 3,041 students from 7 Greek universities. The results showed that there were 9 factors which explained 69.75% of overall variance. The most important constraint that affects participation was found to be “Accessibility,” followed by “Lack of Knowledge.” It was concluded that to increase the students’ participation rate, campus recreation administrators need to develop effective strategies to design and promote campus sports and recreational programs.

Keywords: constraints, university sports, participation

On recognizing the benefits of exercise, people often start to consider participating in sporting or leisure activities. However, they might find it difficult to begin because of constraint factors that interfere with their decision making process (Crawford & Godbey, 1987; Jackson, Crawford, & Godbey, 1993). Constraints refer to subsets of causes for noncommitment to a specific behavioral pattern (Jackson, 1988). Depending on how they encounter such constraints, people may be classified into 3 groups: a) those who do not participate at all in a desirable activity; b) those who, despite experiencing constraints, do not reduce their participation in the above activities and regularly participate; c) those who participate periodically and are mainly affected by circumstances (Jackson, Crawford, & Godbey, 1993). Almost everyone included in the above groups faces certain constraints while they are trying to decide about where to participate. However, Scott (1991) claimed that constraints may not be insurmountable obstacles and that to Masmanidis is with the Campus Recreation Center, University of Macedonia, Thessaloniki, Greece. Gargalianos and Kosta are with Democritus University of Thrace, Komotini, Greece. 150

Constraints in Campus Sport Activities 151

overcome their inhibitions people will have to negotiate with themselves and modify their behavior. Those who finally participate in such activities have the ability and intention to effectively manage constraints (Jackson, Crawford, & Godbey, 1993). Searle & Jackson (1985b) emphasize that population segmentation provides sports club administrators with the opportunity to more effectively target the groups of people who might have the intention and would be more receptive to participating in sports and recreational programs. Furthermore, administrators could also implement various techniques for those regularly participating, so as to maintain or increase their level of participation, as compared with those who do not participate or participate on a non regular basis. Jackson (1988) supports that defining the subgroups of a population, in terms of the constraints that each of them has to face and overcome when deciding to participate in recreational activities, provides administrators with the opportunity to build a clearer picture of latent demand and, therefore, design services which will be provided more effectively to their clientele. Godbey (1985) indicates that it would require far less in resources, if administrators could identify those who are interested and intend to participate in recreational activities, as opposed to those who are not interested and have no such intention. According to recommendations put forward by Jackson & Scott (1999) research among specific population groups, such as university students, contributes toward investigating constraints more systematically and helping people manage such factors more effectively. Young, Ross, & Barcelona (2003) indicate that the perception of constraints differs from person to person; it is related to the type of activity chosen, as well as the circumstances within which the activity is undertaken. This is why investigating constraints should be carried out within the framework of specific activities and population groups.

Constraint Theories and Categorizations Crawford & Godbey (1987) laid the foundations for the classic theoretical model of research into constraints, categorizing them into 3 groups: intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural. Intrapersonal constraints refer to an individual’s psychological state and attitude, which prevail in interacting with preferred activity rather than interfere with preference and participation (Crawford, Jackson & Godbey, 1991). Antecedent constraints belong to this group; they preexist in the individual, before s/he is faced with the possibility of participating in recreational activities. Antecedent constraints are intrapersonal factors of sociocultural content in the sense of stereotypes, which often restrict or exclude participation (Henderson, 1993). Interpersonal constraints result from interpersonal interactions or relations among persons who participate in an activity (Crawford, Jackson & Godbey, 1991). An example of an interpersonal constraint is a person’s dependence on their “important others” (family members, partner, friends). Structural constraints are also known as interference factors; these are parameters that interfere with preference/intention for participation and actual participation. Examples of structural constraints are the lack of financial resources, lack of time or lack of appropriate facilities/services/programs.

152 Masmanidis, Gargalianos, and Kosta

Constraints Perception and Level of Participation Crawford & Godbey (1987) underline that constraints do not only affect participation or nonparticipation, but also preference (i.e., “ individuals do not wish to do that which they perceive they cannot do”) (p. 125). Some people do not express a desire to participate in sport and recreational activities or show any interest in such activities. According to Crawford, Jackson, & Godbey (1991) such persons are affected by antecedent intrapersonal constraints, which influence their interests and preferences rather than interfere with preference and participation. Individuals who do not express a wish to participate may draw the attention of campus recreational administrators (Young, Ross, & Barcelona, 2003). Jackson (1990) mentions that another target-group could be those who express a wish for participation but, for some reasons do not realize their wish. Shaw, Bonen, & McCabe (1991) investigated the relation between perceived constraints and level of participation in recreational activities. They tried to find out whether constraints individuals refer to are indeed responsible for reducing their participation from the desirable level or lead to nonparticipation. They concluded that perceived constraints are related more with a high rather than a low participation level. A high level of constraints experienced by people does not necessarily lead to reducing their participation nor does the elimination of constraints definitely leads to increased participation. In a survey investigating Greek people Alexandris & Carroll (1997) found that nonparticipants perceive higher levels of constraints than participants. They concluded that individuals who experience a low level of constraints are more likely to participate in sports activities as compared with those who face high level constraints. Moreover, they stressed that those who do not participate on a regular basis often have certain features in common with nonparticipants. In another study, Carroll & Alexandris (1997) highlighted the negative relationship between perceived constraints and participation in sports. Another issue related to the participation in sports and recreational activities has to do with latent demand, which concerns individuals who express a wish to participate in some activity but, for some reasons, they do not do so (Jackson & Dunn, 1998). In this sense, latent demand among participants would include persons who do not participate in activities as regularly as they would like to. The presence of latent demand in a group of people indicates a prospect for increasing participation rates through appropriate administrative planning (Alexandris & Carroll, 2000).

Aim of the Study Almost all Greek universities have a Physical Education Office and employ sport administrators who prepare teams consisting of students to compete against teams from other universities in national championships of various sports and organize recreational programs, which are offered to students free of charge. As taking part in such activities is voluntary, certain factors constrain or limit students’ participation.


The aim of this study was to investigate: a) the influence of perceived constraints on recreational sport participation of Greek university students, b) the relationship between constraints dimensions and sport participation or non participation; c) the relationship between constraint dimensions and frequency of sport participation, as well as intentions for participation.

Methodology The present study took place during the academic year 2005–2006. The sample consisted of 3,041 students (1,453 or 48.1% men and 1,568 or 51.9% women), attending 7 different universities. Their average age was 20.84 years (SD = 2.10; Table 1). Participants either did or did not participate in sports programs organized by the Physical Education Office of their university. They were randomly divided in two groups (A and B). Group A consisted of 1521 students (711 male, 800 female—10 did not check either option—M = 20.89, SD = 2.02). The data from this group was used for exploratory factor component analysis. Group B consisted of 1520 students (742 male, 768 female—10 did not check either option—M = 20.89, SD = 2.15). The data from this group was used for confirmatory factor analysis. Participants were asked to anonymously and on a voluntary basis fill in a questionnaire titled University Sport Constraints Questionnaire (USCQ) (Masmanidis, 2008), which was specifically developed by the first author. It included a total of 25 questions, distributed among 9 evaluation factors. Responses were recorded on the 5-point Likert Scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The questionnaires were filled in at university premises, after the participants were informed about the aims of the research and necessary clarifications were provided and were collected immediately after their completion. To measure students’ participation in university sports programs, annual participation rates were used, so that those who did not participate regularly would be included. Regular participants were considered to be those who participated on a weekly basis. According to Chase & Harada (1984) the reliability and accuracy of annual participation rates should be viewed cautiously, since there is usually a tendency to overestimate participation. Furthermore, there is also a risk of weak memory among responders, since they were asked to answer about something that happened a relatively long period of time ago (Robinson & Godbey 1993). The one year reference period has also been used as a standard of participation in sports and other recreational activities by other researchers as well (Alexandris & Carroll, 1997; Howard, 1992; Wright & Goodale, 1991).

Results To acquire a more comprehensive idea about the participants in this study they were asked to provide certain demographic information. This information included gender (they were almost equally distributed between male and female), age (the majority were between 20–23 years of age), year of studies (the majority were attending 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year), and monthly family income (the majority was found to be middle to upper middle class; Table 1).

154

Male Female Total

1.453 1.568 3.041

Gender

48.1% 51.9%

18yr 19yr 20yr 21yr 22yr 23yr 24yr 25yr 26yr >27yr

320 415 697 659 428 214 92 63 53 51

Age 10.8% 13.8% 23.2% 22.0% 14.3% 7.1% 3.1% 2.1% 1.8% 1.7%

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th >7th

457 666 625 778 283 94 41

15.5% 22.6% 21.2% 26.4% 9.6% 3.2% 1.4%

Years of studies

138 352 693 671 498 482

4.9% 12.4% 24.4% 23.6% 17.5% 17.2%

Monthly family income $3701


The frequency students participated in sport activities either on or off campus was an important piece of information for this study. It was registered that those who did not participate at all in such activities and those who did participate on an infrequent basis were almost three out of four of the total sample (Table 2). Participants provided more detailed information when they were asked about how many times a week they were involved in recreation sports activities. It was interesting to see that the percentage of those who reported that they did not exercise at all rose from 22.8% in the previous question to 28% (Table 3). The frequency of participation in campus recreation programs within the past 12 months is presented in Table 4. It was evident that 39,2% participated once a week or more in such programs (this percentage corresponds to the 8,8% of the total student body). Intention to participate is an important factor regarding the increase of people who will actually become involved with recreation sports activities. The majority of non participants expressed an intention to participate immediately or in a medium term (Table 5). In the same way with non participants, the majority of participants expressed an intention to become more engaged immediately or in a medium term in recreation sports activities than they actually are. Only one out of five stated that they would not like to increase their participation (Table 6). The last question was more particular and concerned the times students were involved in sports activities on campus in the previous month. Three out of four stated that in that period of time they did not exercise at all (Table 7).

USCQ Exploratory Factor Analysis In order for the USCQ items to be categorized an exploratory factor analysis was performed, revealing 25 items which constructed 9 factors with Eigenvalues above 1, explaining the variance value of 69.75% (KMO = .77, Bartlett’s test of sphericity = 7280.8, p = .001). The factors were titled based on their content as follows: In the first factor, titled “Beliefs,” 3 items were loaded referring to the lack of interest in sports on the part of the individual, meaning that s/he believed that sports was not a priority for her / him. In the second factor, titled “Facilities / Service,” 4 items were loaded referring to the quality and suitability of sports facilities and programs offered on campus. In the third factor, titled “Lack of partners,” 3 items were loaded referring to social influences on one’s sports program. In the Table 2 Frequency and Percentage of Students’ Participation in Recreational Sport Activities How often do you participate in recreational sport activities? Non participants Infrequent participants Moderate participants Frequent participants Total

Frequency

Percentage

683 1396 792 121 2992

22.8 46.7 26.5 4.0 100.0


Table 3 Weekly Participation in Recreation Sports Activities How often do you exercise in a week? I do not exercise at all Once a week Twice a week Three times a week More than three times a week Total

Frequency

Valid percentage

834 895 549 383 314 2975

28.0 30.1 18.5 12.9 10.6 100.0

Table 4 Frequency of Participation in Campus Recreation Programs Within the Past 12 Months

If yes, how often? At least once a semester At least once a month At least once a week At least twice a week At least three times a week Total

Frequency

Valid percentage

Valid percentage of total

207 210 152 81 36 686

30.2 30.6 22.2 11.8 5.2 100.0

6.8 6.9 5.0 2.6 1.2 22.4

Table 5 Intention to Participate in Campus Recreation Sports Activities Among Non- Participating Students If you have not participated in campus recreation sports activities so far, would you like to do so from now on? No Maybe in the future Maybe yes, maybe no As soon as the opportunity arises Immediately Total

Absolute values

Relative values

778 903 693 233 94 2701

28.8 33.4 25.7 8.6 3.5 100.0

fourth factor, titled “Lack of money,” 2 items were loaded referring to the lack of financial resources. In the fifth factor, titled “Individual / Psychological,” 3 items were loaded referring to the person’s self-confidence and the ability to get “exposed” to other participants. In the sixth factor, titled “Exercise off campus,” 3 items were loaded referring to whether the fact that a student exercised off campus


Table 6 Intention of Participating Students to Increase Their Participation in Campus Recreation Sports Activities If you are active participant in campus recreation sports programs, would you like to participate more frequently from now on? No Maybe in the future Maybe yes, maybe no As soon as the opportunity arises Immediately Total

Absolute values

Relative values

390 511 646 326 137 2010

19.4 25.4 32.1 16.2 6.8 100.0

Table 7 Students’ Last Month’s Participation Frequency in Campus Sports Activities How many times did you participate in sports activities on campus in the last month, for at least 45 min per session? None 1–4 times 5–8 times 9–12 times 13–16 times More than 17 times Total

Absolute values

Relative values

1639 390 131 80 38 31 2309

71.0 16.9 5.7 3.5 1.6 1.3 100.0

became a constraint for his / her participation in campus recreation sports activities. In the seventh factor, titled “Lack of information,” 2 items were loaded referring to the fact that students were not informed about university sports programs. In the eighth factor, titled “Lack of time,” 3 items were loaded referring to the lack of time available for sports, due to the students’ various obligations. In the ninth factor, titled “Accessibility” 2 items were loaded referring to transportation problems. The overall Cronbach validity index was  = .76 (Table 8). According to the Crawford & Godbey (1987) model, the above analysis revealed two intrapersonal, one interpersonal, and six structural constraint factors. The “Accessibility” factor was found to be the most significant (M = 3.66, SD = 1.36), “Lack of information” factor was rated second (M = 3.34, SD = 1.02), followed by the “Facilities / Service” factor (M = 3.13, SD = 1.13) and “Lack of partners” (M = 3.06, SD = 1.94). The three with the greatest values are structural factors, while the fourth is interpersonal. Intrapersonal factors showed the lowest values. The validity level of the USCQ factors was considered satisfactory ranging from .54 to .81 (Table 9).

158

8 16

9

.76 .76 .71

28 27 29 5 3 6 4 10 12 11 22 23 20 21 19 25 26 24

Sports activities are for athletes Sports do not offer me much It would be too stressful Sports program services are of low quality Facilities are inadequate Sports programs are poorly organized Courses offered do not appeal me Friends do not like participating No coparticipant Potential coparticipants lack time Equipment that I need are too expensive Participation costs too much I have no self-confidence Participation makes me self conscious I do not feel sporty enough to participate I prefer to go to private gym I regularly exercise alone off campus I participate in competitive sport as a member of a sport club Not well informed about sport activities offered Not know where and how to participate Too many family commitments

F1

Individual items

.78 .73 .73 .67

F2

Table 8 USCQ’s Exploratory Factor Component Analysis

.73 .71 .70

F3

.82 .78

F4

.94 .68 .66

F5

.68 .57 .50

F6

.75

.84

F7

.66

F8

(continued)

F9

159

Individual items 17 Lack of time due to social commitments 15 Lack of time due to my studies obligations 14 Transportation takes time 13 No private means of transport Eigen value Variance %

Table 8 (continued) F2

3.1 9.8

F1

4.9 15.0

2.0 7.0

F3

1.8 5.4

F4

1.6 4.7

F5

1.4 3.7

F6

2.9

F7

1.3 4.7

F8 .55 .44

.80 .66 1.1 2.5

F9


Table 9 Descriptive Statistic and Internal Consistency of the USCQ Subscales Subscales Intrapersonal constraints Beliefs Individual/psychological Interpersonal constraints Lack of partners Structural constraints Facilities/service Lack of money Exercise off campus Lack of information Lack of time Accessibility

Items

Mean

SD

Crombach 

3 3

1.56 1.97

.87 1.02

.80 .81

3

3.06

1.04

.75

4 2 3 2 3 2

3.13 2.52 2.10 3.34 2.80 3.66

1.02 1.16 1.08 1.27 .92 1.36

.85 .79 .62 .79 .54 .67

Relationship Between Constraints, Participation, and Nonparticipation To identify whether there were statistically significant differences between the mean values of the 9 USCQ factors emerged from the factor component analysis independent samples t tests were performed. Results showed that there were statistically significant differences between participating and nonparticipating students in campus recreation sports activities with regard to constraints: p < .001, except for the “Beliefs” factor t2876 = 1.037, p < .30. The highest statistically significant difference appeared between mean values for the “Lack of information” factor: t2718= 15.509, p < .001. Those who participated in sports programs showed a higher mean value for the factor “Exercise off campus” than those who did not participate. In all other factors, those who did not participate in sports programs showed higher constraints mean values than those who participated. Regarding the total of USCQ factors there was a statistically significant difference between values for students who participated in sports programs and those who did not: t1791 = 9.801, p < .001. Detailed t test results for the 9 factors are presented in Table 10. Statistically significant differences were also revealed in the types of constraints between students who participated in campus recreation sports activities and students who did not. Results exhibited statistically significant differences in intrapersonal constraints: t2772 = 4.485, p < .001, interpersonal constraints: t2702 = 6.652, p < .001, and structural constraints: t2874 = 9.613, p < .001.

Relationship Between Constrains and Participation Frequency To find out whether there was a statistically significant difference between students who participated in campus recreation sports activities on a weekly basis


Table 10 Independent Samples t Test for the Perception of Constraints Scales by Students Participating and not Participating in Campus Recreation Sports Activities Scales

Participation

Individual/ psychological Facilities/service

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Lack of partners Lack of money Exercise off campus Beliefs Lack of information Accessibility Lack of time Total

N

Mean

SD

t

P

589 2219 553 1618 583 2121 575 1928 598 2268 601 2275 591 2129 601 2280 599 2277 481 1312

1.769 2.032 2.885 3.225 2.812 3.131 2.430 2.563 2.245 2.060 1.525 1.566 2.670 3.544 3.369 3.737 2.652 2.843 2.425 2.678

.948 1.033 1.034 .987 1.023 1.026 1.151 1.155 1.075 1.077 .899 .854 1.243 1.204 1.404 1.333 .939 .914 .559 .454

5.591

.001

6.902

.001

6.652

.001

2.433

.010

3.733

.011

1.037

.300

15.509

.001

5.958

.001

4.512

.001

9.801

.001

and students who participated infrequently, regarding the mean values of constraints, an independent samples t test was performed. Results revealed a statistically significant difference between the two groups: t534 = 4.331, p < .001. Regarding the scale of constraints, there were statistically significant differences in the “Lack of information” factor: t660 = 6.990, p < .001, in the “Individual / Psychological” factor: t665 = 2.601, p < .01 and in the “Lack of time” factor: t674 = 2.137, p < .03. A statistically significant difference was also found in interpersonal constraints: t661 = 2.573, p < .01 as well as structural ones t564 = 4.086, p < .001. There was no statistically significant difference in the case of interpersonal constraints: t651 = 1.511, p < .131 (Table 11).

Discussion The first question, relating to physical exercise, revealed that 22.8% of students did not exercise at all either on or off campus, while about 30% stated that they exercised regularly, probably because they might be athletes registered in sport clubs and they were participating in high performance sports contests (i.e., local/ state/national championships). The next question referred to the same issue, but was more specific. It concerned students’ weekly physical exercise sessions. In this case answers were

162

Total

Lack of time

Accessibility

Lack of information

Beliefs

Exercise off campus

Lack of money

Lack of partners

Facilities/service

Individual/psychological

Scales

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Participation 262 405 363 253 261 390 262 389 263 410 266 413 261 401 265 411 261 415 224 310

N 1.667 1.866 2.975 2.844 2.740 2.865 2.372 2.478 2.148 2.295 1.493 1.552 2.293 2.968 3.309 3.465 2.576 2.734 2.324 2.548

Mean .946 .975 .996 1.086 1.060 1.017 1.138 1.179 1.075 1.087 .864 .896 1.213 1.216 1.385 1.414 .906 .955 .571 .563

SD

4.495

2.137

1.415

6.990

.850

1.717

1.140

1.511

1.547

2.601

t

Table 11 Independent Samples t Test Between Constraints Scales and Students’ Weekly Participation in Campus Recreation Sports Activities P

.001

.03

.15

.001

.39

.08

.25

.13

.12

.01


differentiated and the group that did not take part in sports activities increased from 22,8–28%. On the other hand, those who stated that they exercised three or more times a week also went up to 23,5%. Students were also asked if they actively participated in campus recreation programs during the last 12 months. Only one fifth of those asked provided an affirmative answer. It was interesting that of all persons asked only 3.8% participated in recreation activities organized on campus at least twice a week, while 1.2% participated in such activities 3 times a week. Percentages who responded to the question “How many times did you exercise for at least 45 minutes on campus in the last month?” were different: only 2.9% of the students stated that they had exercised more than 3 times a week, while 71% stated that they had not worked out at all. Masmanidis, Tsiggilis, & Koustelios (2002) indicated that 9.11% of Greek students participated in campus recreational sports programs. Fisher, Holtzer, & Sottas (2001) found that 25% of the students at Swiss universities participated 2 or more times a week in university sports programs. Research carried out at various European universities concluded that more than 50% of the students participated in campus recreational sports programs (Aman, 1995; Holzer, 1995; Fisher, Holtzer, & Sottas, 2001). In a survey by Fhilip Shao-Tung Cheng, et al. (2004) it was found that 65.5% of the Japanese students participate in campus recreational sports programs, in Korea this percentage climbed to 74.4%, in China to 63.8%, while in the USA and Canada 52% of the students were involved in such activities at least 3 times a week. Downs & Downs (2003) estimated that 21% of the US students exercised regularly, 52% exercised infrequently and 25% did not exercise at all. It is interesting that of those students who had not so far participated in sports programs 12.1% stated that they would like to participate soon or as soon as the opportunity arose. Of those who were already participating in sports programs 23% stated that they would like to exercise more often soon or as soon as the opportunity arose. This intention for more frequent participation provides a possibility for the campus administrators to identify these students and use appropriate strategies to attract them to campus recreational sports programs.

Categorization of USCQ Factors The “Beliefs” and the “Individual / Psychological” factors were classified as intrapersonal constraints, as they refer to oneself. The “Lack of partners” factor was classified as interpersonal constraint, as it has to do with interaction between the individual and others. “Facilities / Service,” “Lack of money,” “Exercise off campus,” “Lack of information,” “Lack of time,” and “Accessibility” may be perceived as external (environmental) factors and were classified as structural constraints. Interpersonal constraints received the highest ratings, followed by structural and intrapersonal ones. Impressive was the appearance of the factor “Beliefs,” which has not been identified in similar surveys and belongs to the antecedent intrapersonal constraints. The appearance of antecedent intrapersonal constraints among Greek university students may be attributed to sociocultural reasons as well as to negative experiences from past participation in sports programs.


Participation Frequency Differences The results of this survey showed that nonparticipant students who did not participate in campus recreational sports programs perceive a higher level of constraints as compared with those who participate. In other words, lower level of constraint usually leads to higher level of participation. In all factors there were statistically significant differences at p < .001, except for the “Beliefs” factor. The greatest statistical difference appeared for the “Lack of information” factor, which means that students who are not informed about the programs perceive the highest level of constraints with regard to participating in them. In other papers (Godbey, 1985; Kouthouris, Tzouvista, & Alexandris, 2006) lack of information is also identified as the prevailing constraint for mass participation. The results of this study support the argument that the students who participated most frequently in campus recreational sports programs perceived the lowest level of constraints as compared with those who participated infrequently. These results concur with those of previous studies carried out among the Greek population and claim that nonparticipants perceive statistically significantly higher levels of constraints as compared with participants and the perceived constraint level becomes lower as participation frequency increases (Alexandris & Carroll, 1997; Kouthouris, Alexandris, & Goltsos, 2005; Kouthouris, Tzouvista, & Alexandris, 2006). The researchers concluded that those who face lower level of constraints are more likely to participate in sports activities, than those who face a higher level of constraints. Other scholars express a different view and support that a high level of constraints does not necessarily lead to reduction of participation, nor does eliminating such constraints lead to increased participation (Shaw, Bonen, & McCabe, 1991; Kay & Jackson 1991).

Conclusions The factors that appeared in this study also appear in past studies. The only exception was the “Beliefs” factor, which shows that, besides other factors, Greek university students are also influenced by antecedent constraints. This suggests that there are cultural prejudices and negative past experiences that prevent them from participating in campus sports programs. The most significant constraint was found to be “Accessibility.” If this finding is combined with the third most significant factor (i.e., “Facilities / Service”) it may well reveal that students actually wish to participate in activities that are designed to cover their needs at suitable facilities on their campuses. The second most significant constraint (i.e., “Lack of information”) probably reveals the inability of providers of campus recreational sport programs to signify their presence and to effectively advertise and promote their programs/activities. It was also concluded that frequent participants in sports programs perceive a lower level of constraints as compared with infrequent and nonparticipants. At a practical level, the results of this study could be of assistance to campus recreation administrators providing them with relevant information to make decisions and develop strategies to promote campus recreational sports programs to increase the students’ participation rate.


Further research is needed to investigate the relation between participating and nonparticipating students, as well as students’ latent demand for participation in campus recreation sports activities. Student groupings that might emerge could facilitate campus recreational sports programs administrators to more clearly define the characteristics of target-groups, so that more effective means of approaching them may be employed.

References Alexandris, K., & Carroll, B. (1997). An analysis of leisure constraints based on different recreation sport participation levels: Results from a study in Greece. Leisure Sciences, 19, 1–15. Alexandris, K., & Carroll, B. (2000). A demographic model of recreational sport participation: Planning applications for recreational sports programs (mass participation) in Greece. Athlissi kai. Koinonia, 24, 36–47. Aman, J. (1995). Sport for all at all levels. Proceedings of the 18th Universiade of the FISU / CESU Conference, Sport and man: creating a new vision, 82-85, Fukuoka, Japan. Carroll, B., & Alexandris, K. (1997). Perception of constraints and strength of motivation: Their relationship to recreational sport participation in Greece. Journal of Leisure Research, 29(3), 279–299. Chase, D., & Harada, M. (1984). Response error in self-reported recreation participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 322–329. Crawford, D., & Godbey, G. (1987). Re-conceptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 9, 119–127. Crawford, D.W., Jackson, E.L., & Godbey, G. (1991). A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 309–320. Downs, P., & Downs, K. (2003). Value of recreational sports on college campuses. Recreational Sports Journal, 27(1), 5–64. Fhilip Shao-Tung Cheng, Stier W., Chong Kim., Ben-Li Xu, Koshimizu, E., & Koozechian, H. (2004). A comparison of recreation sport and leisure time participation of college/ university students in China, Japan, Korea, Iran, the United States, and Canada – with student in the republic of China (Taiwan). Recreational Sports Journal, 28, 60–75. Fisher, R.P., Holtzer, F., & Sottas, F. (2001). Sport and studies: a millennium research of Swiss university sports. Proceedings of the 21th Universiade of the FISU / SECU conference, Unity Friendship and Progress of humanity through university sport, 179180, Beijing, China. Godbey, G. (1985). Nonuse of public leisure services: a model. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 3, 1–12. Henderson, K. (1993). A feminist analysis of selected professional recreation literature about girls / women from 1907 – 1990. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(2), 165– 181. Holzer, F. (1995). Development, goals and needs of sport. The 18th Universiade Universiade of the FISU / CESU Conference, Sport and man: creating a new vision. 49-52. Fukuoka, Japan. Howard, D. (1992). Participation rates in selected sport and fitness activities. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 191–205. Jackson, E. (1988). Leisure constraints: a survey of past research. Leisure Sciences, 10, 203–215. Jackson, E. (1990). Variations in the desire to begin a leisure activity: evidence of antecedent constraints? Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 55–70.


Jackson, E., Crawford, D., & Godbey, G. (1991). Negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 273–278. Jackson, E., & Dunn, E. (1988). Integrating ceasing participation with other aspects of leisure behavior. Journal of Leisure Research, 20, 31–43. Jackson, E., & Scott, D. (1999). Constraints to leisure. In E. Jackson & Burton, Leisure Studies: Prospects for the 21st Century (pp.299–317). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. Kay, T., & Jackson, C. (1991). Leisure despite constraint: The impact of leisure constraints on leisure participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(4), 301–313. Kouthouris, X., Alexandris, K., & Goltsos, K. (2005). Perceived constraints on recreational soccer participation (played in short courts 5x5). Fisiki Agogi & Athlitismos, 6, 18– 32. Kouthouris, X., Tzouvista, L., & Alexandris, K. (2006). Psychological factor and constraint participation in recreational swimming. Athlissi kai. Koinonia, 43, 48–56. Masmanidis, Th. (2008). Constrains preventing students of Greek universities from participating in campus sport and recreation programs. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Physical Education & Sport Science, Democritos University of Thrace. Masmanidis, Th., Tsiggilis, N., & Koustelios, A. (2002). Physical education in higher education: An investigation of the existing situation. Fisiki Drastiriotita kai Poiotita Zois, Electronic journal, www.pe.auth.gr Issue 3, 1-9. Robinson, J., & Godbey, G. (1993). Sport, fitness and the gender gap. Leisure Sciences, 15, 291–307. Scott, D. (1991). The problematic nature of participation in contract bridge: a qualitative study of group-related constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 321–336. Searle, M., & Jackson, E. (1985b). Recreation non-participation and barriers to participation: Consideration for the management of recreation delivery systems. Journal of Recreation and Park Administration, 3, 23–35. Shaw, S., Bonen, A., & McCabe, J. (1991). Do more constraints mean less leisure? Examining the relationship between constraints and participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 23, 286–300. Wright, B.A., & Goodale, T.L. (1991). Beyond non-participation: Validation of interest and frequency of participation categories in constraints research. Journal of Leisure Research, 23, 314–331. Young, S., Ross, C., & Barcelona, R. (2003). Perceived constraints by college students to participation in campus recreational programs. Recreational Sports Journal, 27(2), 47–62.