ÜNİVERSİTE ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN EXTREM SPORLARA İLİŞKİN RİSK VE ÇEKİCİLİK ALGILARI (İNGİLİZCE).

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the perceived risk and attractiveness of extreme sports with regard to gender. The secondary aim of this study was to test the differences in perceived risk and attractiveness of extreme sports between students with experience in these sports and those without experience. “Extreme Sport Risk Perception and Attractiveness Scale”, developed by the researchers, was used to assess university students’ perception of the risk and attractiveness of extreme sports. The study group included 1479 female and 1259 male university students. MANOVA analysis revaled significant differences in perceived risk and attractiveness of extreme sports in terms of gender and participation in extreme sports (p< 0.05). Males and extreme sport participants found, except three sports, all extreme sports less risky than females and non-participants. Furthermore, males perceived motor sports more attractive than females but females perceived land and waters sports more attractive. Extreme sport participants, except one sport, found extreme sport as more attractive than non-participants. In conclusion, the risk perceptions of extreme sports differ according to gender and participation or not in extreme sports

Keywords

• -

ÜNİVERSİTE ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN EXTREM SPORLARA İLİŞKİN RİSK VE ÇEKİCİLİK ALGILARI (İNGİLİZCE).

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, extrem sporlarında algılanan çekicilik ve riskin cinsiyete göre incelenmesidir. Çalışmanın ikincil amacı ise, extrem sporları ile uğraşan ve uğraşmayan öğrencilerin extrem sporlarında algıladıkları çekicilik ve risk düzeyleri arasında fark olup olmadığının test edilmesidir. Üniversite öğrencilerinin extrem sporlarına ilişkin çekicilik ve risk algılarını değerlendirmek için araştırmacılar tarafından geliştirilen, “Extrem Sporları Risk Algısı ve Çekicilik Ölçeği” kullanılmıştır. Çalışma grubu 1479 bayan 1259 erkek üniversite öğrencisinden oluşmaktadır. MANOVA analizleri, extrem sporlarına katılım durumu ve cinsiyete göre, extrem sporlarına ilişkin algılanan çekicilik ve algılanan riskin farklılaştığını ortaya koymuştur (p<0.05). Erkekler ve daha önce extrem sporlara katılmış olanlar, kadınlara ve daha önce katılmasports less risky than females and non-participants. Furthermore, males perceived motor sports more attractive than females but females perceived land and waters sports more attractive. Extreme sport participants, except one sport, found extreme sport as more attractive than non-participants. In conclusion, the risk perceptions of extreme sports differ according to gender and participation or not in extreme sports.mış olanlara göre üç spor hariç, tüm extrem sporlarını daha az riskli bulmaktadırlar. Ayrıca, erkekler kadınlara göre motor sporlarını daha çekici bulurken, kadınlar kara ve su sporlarını daha çekici bulmaktadırlar. Ekstrem spor yapmış olanlar, bir spor hariç, extrem sporları yapmamış olanlara göre daha çekici bulmaktadırlar. Sonuç olarak, extrem sporlardaki risk algısı, cinsiyete ve daha önce bu sporlara katılıp katılmama durumuna göre farklılık göstermektedir

Keywords

• -

References

1. Ewert A. (1989). Risk management in the outdoor HPER setting. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 60, 88-92.
2. Faulhaber M, Flatz M, Burtscher M. (2007). Frequency of cardiovascular diseases among ski mountaineers in the Austrian Alps. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 28, 78-81.
3. Fave AD, Bassi M, Massimini F. (2003). Quality of experience and risk perception in high–altitude rock climbing, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 82-98
4. Florenthal B, Shoham A. (2001). The impact of persuasive information on changes in attitude and behavioral intentions toward risky sports for arousal- seeking versus arousal avoidance individuals. Sport Marketing Quarterly,10, 83-95.
5. Ganzach Y, Ellis S, Pazy A, Siag TR (2008). On the perception and operationalization of risk perception. Judgement and Decision Making, 4, 317–324. 22. Gustafson
6. PE. (1998). Gender differences in
7. risk perception: Theoretical and methodological
8. perspectives. Risk Analysis, 18, 805-811.

9. Haddock C. (1993). Managing Risks in Outdoor Activities. Wellington: New Zealand Mountain Safety Council, Inc.
10. Horvath P, Zuckerman M. (1993). Sensation seeking, risk appraisal, and risky behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 41-52.
11. Kerr J, Vlaminkx J. (1997). Gender differences in the experience of risk. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 293-295.
12. Kontos AP. (2004). Perceived risk, risk taking, estimation of ability and injury among adolescent sport participants. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 29, 447.
13. Martha C, Sanchez X, Gomà-i-Freixanet M. (2009). Risk perception as a function of risk exposure amongst rock climbers. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 193-200.
14. Pain MTG, Pain MA. (2005). Essay risk taking in sport. Medicine and Sport, 366, 533-534
15. Pedersen DM. (1997). Perceptions of high risk sports. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 756- 758.
16. Rossi B, Cereatti L. (1993). The sensation seeking in mountain athletes as assessed by Zuckerman’s sensation seeking scale. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 417-431.
17. Schneider TA, Butryn TM, Furst DM, Masucci MA. (2007). A Qualitative examination of risk among elite adventure racers. Journal of Sport Behavior, 30, 330- 357.
18. Schrader MP, Wann DL. (1999). High-risk recreation: The relationship between participant characteristics and degree of involvement. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 426- 441.
19. Shipside S. (2006). Adventure Sports: 52 Brilliant Ideas For Taking Yourself to The Limit. Oxford: Infinite Ideas Company Limited.
20. Shlim D, Gallie J. (1992). The causes of death among trekkers in Nepal. International journal of Sports Medicine, 13, 74-76.
21. Sjöberg L. (2000). Factors in risk perception. Risk Analysis, 20, 1-12.
22. Sjöberg L, Moen BE, Rundmo T. (2004). Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm in risk perception research. From www.svt.ntnu.no/psy/ Torbjorn.Rundmo/psychometric_paradigm.
23. Slanger E, Rudestam KE. (1997). Motivation and
24. disinhibition in high risk sports: Sensation seeking and self–efficacy. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 355-374.
25. Slimak MW, Dietz T. (2006). Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception. Risk Analysis 26, 1689- 1705.
26. Slovic P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280- 285.
27. Slovic P, Weber EU. (2002). Perception of risk posed by extreme events. Paper prepared for discussion at the conference, Risk Management Strategies in an Uncertain World, Palisades, New York.
28. Soori H. (2000). Children’s risk perception and parents’ view on level of risk children attach to outdoor activities. Saudi Medical Journal, 21, 455-460.
29. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics. USA: Allyn and Bacon
30. Tomlinson J, Leigh E. (2004). Extreme Sports: In Search of the Ultimate Thrill, Firefly: Books Ltd.
31. Turner C, McClure R, Pirozzo S. (2004). Injury and risk-taking behavior–a systematic review. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36, 93-101.
32. Vagias W, Morais D, Dziubek D. (2005). The role of risk perception in a one–day wilderness whitewater rafting trip. Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium. USDA Forest Service Newtown Square, PA. Available at. www.fs.fed.us/ne/newtown_square/publications/.../ vagias341.pdf
33. Willis HH, DeKay ML. (2007). The roles of group membership, beliefs, and norms in ecological risk perception. Risk Analysis, 27, 1365-1380.
34. Zuckerman M. (1983). Sensation seeking and sports. Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 285-293.