Reviewıng Attıtudes of Women Towards Leisure Actıvıtıes in Terms of Different Variables

Year 2018, Volume: 20 Issue: 3, 224 - 229, 30.12.2018

Hüseyin Gümüş , Çağla Ayna , İrfan Yıldırım

https://doi.org/10.15314/tsed.491629

Cited By: 5

Abstract

This study focused on reviewing attitudes of women towards leisure
activities in terms of different variables. The population of the study was
consisted of women who were aged between 18 and 65 and lived in MersinProvince
while the sample of the study was consisted of 214 women who participated in
the study voluntarily. As data collection tools; Information Request Form and
Leisure Attitude Scale (LAS) were used. To measure participants’ physical activity
level; International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) were used. Normality
of the distributions was tested with Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. For the analyses
of the data; T-test, ANOVA and Correlation tests were used for those data that
followed a normal distribution whereas Mann Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis H
test were used for those data that did not follow a normal distribution. As a
result; it may be concluded that women’s leisure attitudes differed in terms of
variables of having children and age. Besides, it was identified that women’s
employment status caused a significant difference in LAS-cognitive subdimension.
No significant difference was found in leisure attitudes in terms of
educational status while there was significant difference in affective
subdimension and total scale score in terms of marital status (p<0.05). No
significant correlation was found between women’s physical activity levels and leisure
attitudes (p<0.05).

Keywords

Leisure, Attitude, Recreation, Physical Activit

References

• 1. Gökmen H. Yükseköğrenim gençlerinin serbest zaman etkinliklerini gerçekleştirme düzeyleri. Ankara; Milli Eğitim Basımevi, 1985; 27.
• 2. Koca C, Arslan B. Kız Çocukları ve Futbol: Toplumsal Cinsiyet Yaklaşımı. İstanbul: Futbol Eğitim Yayınları. 2010.
• 3. Bittman M, Wajcman J. The rush hour: The character of leisure time and gender equity. Social forces, 2000; 79(1): 165-189.
• 4. Sayer LC. Gender, time and inequality: Trends in women's and men's paid work, unpaid work and free time. Social forces, 2005; 84(1): 285-303.
• 5. Karaküçük S, Başaran Z. Recreation in stress management. Gazi Journal of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, 1996; 5(3): 55-64.
• 6. Albayrak A. Evaluation of accommodation companies recreation activities in İstanbul. Online Academic Journal of Information Technology, 2012; 3(8): 43-58.
• 7. Kağıtçıbaşı Ç. Günümüzde İnsan ve İnsanlar. Evrim Yayınevi, 12. Baskı, İstanbul. 2010.
• 8. İnceoğlu M. Tutum-Algı-İletişim. İmaj Yayınevi, 3. Baskı, Ankara. 2000.
• 9. Akgül BM. Farklı kültürlerdeki bireylerin boş zaman aktivitelerine yönelik tutumlarının değerlendirilmesi: Ankara- Londra örneği. Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, 2011; 91-92.
• 10. Ragheb M, Beard JG. Measuring Leisure Attitude. Journal of Leisure Researc, 1982; 14(2): 155-167.
• 11. Akgül BM, Gürbüz B. Leisure attitude scale: the study of reliability and validity. Gazi Journal of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, 2011; 16(1): 37-43.
• 12. Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and valid- ity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003; 35(8): 1381-95.
• 13. Öztürk M. Üniversitede eğitim-öğretim gören öğrencilerde uluslararası fiziksel aktivite anketinin geçerliliği ve güvenirliği ve fiziksel aktivite düzeylerinin belirlenmesi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü. 2005.
• 14. Koca C, Bulgu N. Sport and gender: An overview. Toplum ve Bilim, 2005; 163-184.
• 15. Akyüz H. Türkmen M. Investigation of university students' attitudes towards leisure time activities: bartin university sample. International Journal of Science Culture and Sport. 2016; 4:(SI1): 340-357.
• 16. Tektaş N, Tektaş M, İncaz S. Examination of the attitudes of university students towards leisure time activities: bandırma on yedi eylul university example. Journal of Current Researches on Social Sciences, 2017; 7(4): 323-336.
• 17. Lapa Yerlisu T, Ağyar E. Perceived freedom in leisure according to leisure participations of university Students. Hacettepe J. of Sport Sciences. 2012; 23(1): 24-33.
• 18. Thapa B, Confer JJ, Mendelsohn J. Trip motivations among water-based recreationists. in paper presentation at the 2nd international conference on monitoring and management of visitor flows in recreational and protected areas. Rovaniemi, Finland, 2004; 208-212.
• 19. Ragheb MG, Tate RL. A behavioral model of leisure participation, based on leisure attitude, motivation and satisfaction. Leisure studies, 1993;12(1): 61-70.
• 20. Lloyd KM, Auld CJ. The role of leisure in determining quality of life: Issues of content and measurement. Social Indicators Research, 2002; 57(1): 43-71.
• 21. Green K, Smith A, Roberts K. Young people and lifelong participation in sport and physical activity: a sociological perspective on contemporary physical education programmes in England and Wales. Leisure Studies, 2005; 24(1): 27-43.
• 22. Crespo CJ, Keteyian SJ, Heath GW, Sempos CT. Leisure-time physical activity among US adults: results from the third national health and nutrition examination survey. Archives of internal medicine, 1996; 156(1): 93-98.