Leisure Boredom Scale: the Factor Structure and the Demographic Differences

Öz

The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Leisure Boredom Scale (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990) for adults in Turkey. The second purpose was to investigate the differences based on demographic variables (gender, marital status, working sector) regarding leisure boredom. In total 312 employees from public and private sectors (167 female, 145 male) residing in Ankara participated in this study. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted to test the structural validity of the scale. EFA demonstrated that this scale yielded two subscales in the Turkish version. The first factor was named "boredom" and the second factor was named "satisfaction" by the participating researchers after reviewing the related literature and examining the factor structure of the scale. The scale consists of 10 items; the item factor loadings for the overall scale range between 0.38 and 0.83; and the Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the subscales was determined 0.72 for boredom and 0.77 for satisfaction in the final form of the scale. According to t-test results regarding the demographic variables, there was statistically significant difference in gender only in the ‚satisfaction‛ subscale, and between women and men participants, with men participants having higher mean scores (p<.01). There was no significant difference in terms of marital status in total LBS and the subscales. Concerning the working sectors of the participants, the analysis showed significant differences in total LBS and the ‚boredom‛ subscale between public and private sector’s participants, with public sector’s participants having higher mean scores than the latter (p<.01). In conclusion, the results of the research demonstrated that the Turkish adaptation of ‚The Leisure Boredom Scale‛ can be used as a valid and reliable measurement tool to examine and evaluate the leisure boredom levels of Turkish adults. Another conclusion of the study worth noting is that there were significant differences between the different components of gender and working sector variables in terms of leisure boredom levels

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Leisure boredom
• reliability
• validity

Serbest Zamanda Sıkılma Algısı Ölçeği: Faktör Yapısının Belirlenmesi ve Demografik Farklılıklar

Öz

The purpose of this study was to investigate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Leisure Boredom Scale (Iso-Ahola & Weissinger, 1990) for adults in Turkey.  The second purpose was to investigate the differences based on demographic variables (gender, marital status, working sector) regarding leisure boredom. In total 312 employees from public and private sectors (167 female, 145 male) residing in Ankara participated in this study. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were conducted to test the structural validity of the scale. EFA demonstrated that this scale yielded two subscales in the Turkish version. The first factor was named "boredom" and the second factor was named "satisfaction" by the participating researchers after reviewing the related literature and examining the factor structure of the scale. The scale consists of 10 items; the item factor loadings for the overall scale range between 0.38 and 0.83; and the Cronbach Alpha coefficient for the subscales was determined 0.72 for boredom and 0.77 for satisfaction in the final form of the scale. According to t-test results regarding the demographic variables, there was statistically significant difference in gender only in the “satisfaction” subscale, and between women and men participants, with men participants having higher mean scores (p<.01). There was no significant difference in terms of marital status in total LBS and the subscales. Concerning the working sectors of the participants, the analysis showed significant differences in total LBS and the “boredom” subscale between public and private sector's participants, with public sector's participants having higher mean scores than the latter (p<.01). In conclusion, the results of the research demonstrated that the Turkish adaptation of “The Leisure Boredom Scale” can be used as a valid and reliable measurement tool to examine and evaluate the leisure boredom levels of Turkish adults. Another conclusion of the study worth noting is that there were significant differences between the different components of gender and working sector variables in terms of leisure boredom levels. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Leisure boredom; reliability; validity.

Kaynakça

1. Acee TW, Kim H, Kim HJ, Kim J, Hsiang-Ning RC, Kim M. Academic boredom in under- and over challenging situations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2010; 35(1): 17-27.
2. Barbalet J. Boredom and Social Meaning. British Journal of Sociology, 1999; 50(4): 629-44.
3. Barnett LA, Klitzing SW. Boredom in free time: Relationships with personality, affect, and motivation for different gender, racial and ethnic student groups. Leisure Sciences, 2006; 28(3): 223-244.
4. -
5. Belton T, Priyadharshini E. Boredom and schooling: A cross- disciplinary exploration. Cambridge Journal of Education, 2007;37(4): 579-595.
6. Brown TA, Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Publications. 2006.
7. Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı (9.Basım). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. 2008
8. Caldwell, LL, Darling N, Payne LL, Dowdy B. “Why are you bored?” An examination of psychological and social control causes of boredom among adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 1999;31(2), 103–121.

9. Caldwell LL, Baldwin CK, Walls T, Smith EA. Preliminary effects of a leisure education program to promote healthy use of free time among middle school adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 2004;36: 310–335.
10. Calhoun C. Living with Boredom. SOPHIA, 2011:50:269–279.
11. Conrad P. It's boring: Notes on the meanings of boredom in everyday life. Qualitative Sociology, 1997;20(4): 465-475.
12. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 1951;16, 297-334.
13. Culp R. Adolescent girls and outdoor recreation: A case study examining constraints and effective programming. Journal of Leisure Research, 1998;30(3): 356–379.
14. Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları. Ankara: Pegem Akademi, 2010
15. Ekiz D. Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık, 2009.
16. Fisher C. Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations, 1993;46, 395-417.
17. Graef R, Csikszentmihalyi M, Gianinno SM. Measuring intrinsic motivation in everyday life. Leisure Studies, 1983; 2, 155–168.
18. Henderson K. The meaning of leisure for women: An integrative review of the research. Journal of Leisure Research, 1990; 22(3):228–243.
19. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 1999;6: 1-55.
20. Iso-Ahola SE, Crowley ED. Adolescent substance abuse and leisure boredom. Journal of Leisure Research, 1991; 23(3): 260–271.
21. Iso-Ahola SE, Weissinger E. Leisure and boredom. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1987; 5(3): 356–364.
22. Iso-Ahola SE, Weissinger E. Perceptions of boredom in leisure: Conceptualization, reliability and validity of the leisure boredom scale. Journal of Leisure Research, 1990;22(1), 1–17.
23. Iso-Ahola SE. Motivation for leisure. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton (eds.) Understanding leisure and recreation: Mapping the past, charting the future. State College, PA:Venture Publishing, 1989:247–279.
24. Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D. Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the simplis command language. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, 1993.
25. Karasar N. Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (14. Baskı). Ankara: Nobel Yayın ve Dağıtım, 2005.
26. Kaufman CE, Clark S, Manzini N, May J. How community structures of time and opportunity shape adolescent sexual behaviour in South Africa. Policy Research Division, 159. The Population Council. 2002. Available at http://www.popcouncil.org/publications/wp/prd/159.html Last access: January 15, 2013.
27. Kılbaş Ş. Rekreasyon: Boş zamanı değerlendirme. Adana: Anaca Yayınlar, 2001.
28. Kline, R. B. Software programs for structural equation modeling: Amos, EQS, and Lısrel. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1998; 16: 343-364.
29. Lin CH, Lin SL, Wu CP. The effects of parental monitoring and leisure boredom on adolescents' Internet addiction. Adolescence, 2009;44(176): 993-1004.
30. Mann S, Robinson A. Boredom in the lecture theatre: An investigation into the contributors, moderators and outcomes of boredom amongst university students, British Educational Research Journal, 2009:35(2), 243-258.
31. McCaul LK. Relationships among adolescent substance use, leisure boredom, and physical activity. Master Thesis of Education. Faculty of Education, Brock University St. Catharines, Ontario. 1998.
32. McIntire SA, Miller LA. Foundations of psychological testing. Fairfield, PA: McGraw-Hill Companies, 2000.
33. Mikulas WL, Vodanovich SJ. The essence of bore¬dom. Psychological Record, 1993;43:3-12.
34. Moller V. Lost generation found: black youth at leisure. Indicator South Africa Issue Focus. University of Natal. Centre for Social and Development Studies, 1991;1–63.
35. Musharbash Y. Boredom, time, and modernity: An example from Aboriginal Australia. American Anthropologist, 2007;109(2): 307-317.
36. Nachmias CF, Nachmias D. Research methods in the social sciences. (5th Edition). New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996.
37. Neulinger J. Psychology of leisure. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1974.
38. Oh S, Caldwell LL, Oh S. The relationship between leisure constraints and leisure boredom in creative activities and hobbies of a sample of Korean adults. World Leisure Journal, 2001;2(43): 30-38.
39. O'Hanlon JF. Boredom: Practical consequences and a theory. Acta Psychologica, 1981;49(1): 53–82.
40. Patterson IR, Pegg S. 'Nothing to do.' The relationship between leisure boredom and alcohol and drug addiction: is there a link to youth suicide in rural Australia? Youth Studies Australia, 1999;18(2): 24–29.
41. Patterson IR, Pegg S, Dobson-Patterson R. Exploring the links between leisure boredom and alcohol use among youth in rural and urban areas of Australia. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 2000;18(3): 53-75.
42. Poon DC, Leung H. Effects of narcissism, leisure boredom, and gratifications sought on user-generated content among net-generation users L.International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 2011;1(3): 1-14.
43. Ragheb MG. The contribution of leisure participation, leisure satisfaction, and a set of social psychological variables to boredom. Paper presented at the Leisure Research Symposium, Phoenix, AZ. 1990.
44. Ragheb MG, Merydith SP. (Development and validation of a unidimensional scale measuring free time boredom. Leisure Studies, 2001;20(1): 41-59.
45. Russell RV. Pastimes: The context of contemporary leisure. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark, 1996.
46. Sae-Sook Oh, Caldwell LL, Sei-Yi Oh. An Examination of Leisure Constraints, Participation in Creative Activities and Hobbies, and Leisure Boredom in a Sample of Korean Adults. World Leisure Journal, 2001;43(2):30-38.
47. Shaw SM. Boredom, stress and social control in the daily activities of adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 1996;28(4): 274–293.
48. Shuta VJ. The definition of boredom, as well as boredom vs. being doomed.1993. Retrieved from: http://www.pdv-systeme.de/users/martinv/pgg/02R/02R048.html. Inactive link. Last access: January 15, 2013.
49. Vodanovich SJ, Watt JD. The relationship between time structure and boredom proneness: An investigation between two cultures. Journal of Social Psychology, 1999; 139(2): 143-152.
50. Vodanovich SJ. Psychometric measures of boredom: A review of the literature. Journal of Psychology : Interdisciplinary and Applied, 2003;137(6): 569-595.
51. Watt JD, Ewing JE. Toward the development and validation of a measure of sexual boredom. Journal of Sex Research, 1996;33(1): 57-66.
52. Wegner L, Flisher, AJ. Leisure boredom and adolescent risk behaviour: a systematic literature review. Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 2009;21(1): 1-28.
53. Wegner L. Flisher JA. Chikobvud P. Lombard C. King G. Leisure boredom and high school dropout in Cape Town. South Africa Journal of Adolescence, 2008;31(3): 421-431.
54. Wegner L, Flisher AJ, Muller M, Lombard C. Leisure boredom and substance use amongst high school students in South Africa. Journal of Leisure Research, 2006;22(3): 228-243.
55. Weissinger E. Effects of boredom on self-reported health. Society and Leisure, 1995;18(1): 21-32.
56. Yang H, Guo L. Relationship Between Self-esteem and Leisure Boredom Among College Students. The Cyber Journal of Applied Leisure and Recreation Research, 2011;(14)1: 2-12.
57. Zuckerman M, Eysenck SBJ, Eysenck HJ. Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1978; 46(1): 139-149.