Peer Reviewed Articles About Leisure Activities Outdoors and Mental Health

• Journal List
• HHS Writer Manuscripts
• PMC2863117

Psychosom Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 May four.

Published in terminal edited form every bit:

PMCID: PMC2863117

NIHMSID: NIHMS196530

Association of Enjoyable Leisure Activities With Psychological and Concrete Well-Being

Sarah D. Pressman, PhD, Karen A. Matthews, PhD, Sheldon Cohen, PhD, Lynn Chiliad. Martire, PhD, Michael Scheier, PhD, Andrew Baum, PhD, and Richard Schulz, PhD

Abstract

Objective

To examine whether engaging in multiple enjoyable activities was associated with better psychological and physiological functioning. Few studies accept examined the health benefits of the enjoyable activities that individuals participate in voluntarily in their free time.

Method

Participants from four different studies (n = 1399 total, 74% female, age = 19–89 years) completed a self-report measure (Pittsburgh Enjoyable Activities Test (PEAT)) assessing their participation in ten different types of leisure activities as well equally measures assessing positive and negative psychosocial states. Resting blood pressure, cortisol (over two days), body mass index, waist circumference, and perceived physiological functioning were assessed.

Results

Higher PEAT scores were associated with lower blood force per unit area, full cortisol, waist circumference, and body mass index, and perceptions of better physical function. These associations withstood controlling for demographic measures. The PEAT was correlated with higher levels of positive psychosocial states and lower levels of depression and negative affect.

Conclusion

Enjoyable leisure activities, taken in the aggregate, are associated with psychosocial and physical measures relevant for health and well-being. Future studies should determine the extent that these behaviors in the amass are useful predictors of disease and other health outcomes.

Keywords: leisure, health behaviors, restoration, blood pressure, cortisol, mood

INTRODUCTION

Considerable inquiry has examined the health impact of damaging behaviors, such as smoking, physical inactivity, and medical noncompliance. Similarly, many studies have been devoted to examining the impact of specific healthy behaviors, such every bit eating a adept nutrition and having proper sleep hygiene. On the other hand, noticeably less emphasis has been devoted toward the health implications of engaging in enjoyable leisure activities that may besides accept beneficial properties.

We define enjoyable leisure activities broadly as the pleasurable activities that individuals engage in voluntarily when they are free from the demands of piece of work or other responsibilities. These might include hobbies, sports, socializing, or spending time in nature. Why might these activities be beneficial? From the coping literature perspective, Lazarus and colleagues suggested that enjoyable activities may be salutary, especially during times of stress and in the recovery flow post stress (1). Specifically, some leisure activities (e.thou., vacations, siestas, coffee breaks) may serve equally "breathers" that provide a run a risk to take a break, engage in a pleasurable diversionary activity, and consequently induce positive emotions and reduce stress. Enjoyable activities may as well deed as "restorers" that facilitate the private's recovery from stress by replenishing damaged or depleted resources (i). Restoration may occur as the consequence of positive social interactions (due east.g., feeling protected, cared for) or relaxation that leads to increased positive emotions. As a upshot, a number of different types of leisure may have wellness benefits in the context of daily life events or during stressful situations. However, to date, no work has tested whether the overall frequency of engaging in breathers or restorers is beneficial for physical or mental well-beingness.

A small literature examines specifically restorative activities. These activities typically involve little mental endeavor, provide a sense of "being away," maintain appointment, and match the person's interests and abilities providing relief from the concerns that normally occupy the mind (2,3). Contiguous interviews assessing what specific activities individuals detect restorative have found several categories including creative, nature-related, social, concrete, spiritual, reflective, and travel amongst others (two). To date, all the same, research on restorative activities has focused on cognitive outcomes, such equally the power to concentrate and direct attention (4) as opposed to physiological and psychological well-beingness.

Leisure scientists accept long believed that leisure plays a role in benefiting overall well-being and buffering stress (5). This benefit may occur every bit the result of leisure encouraging positive feelings and promoting a variety of social and physical resources that allow individuals to experience refreshed and ameliorate cope with stress (six–eight). Although the majority of research in this field focuses on the determinants of leisure and leisure satisfaction, in that location are a growing number of studies tying leisure to mental and physical wellness outcomes, although the vast majority focuses on leisure that involves physical activity (ix–11).

In the context of wellness research, the most mutual approach for those studying enjoyable leisure activities is to focus on a single behavior thought to be beneficial and to look for direct effects on health or psychological outcomes. For example, exercising, engaging in social activities, having hobbies, vacationing, and spending time outdoors have all been independently shown to benefit a variety of well-beingness outcomes, both psychological (12–fourteen) and biological, ranging from improved physiological function (15–18) to less severe illness outcomes (12–21) and greater longevity (22–24). Although informative, this approach may be limited in terms of our understanding of the true impact of engaging in leisure. What may be most important to health is whether an individual is taking the time to break from daily activities and piece of work. Assessing only 1 action may incorrectly assume that individuals are not taking time for a breather. Furthermore, the cumulative occurrence of different enjoyable behaviors is likely a more meaningful predictor of health and physiology every bit opposed to the occurrence of whatsoever one activity. To date, nevertheless, the well-being touch on of the cumulative frequency of dissimilar types of leisure activities idea to be beneficial to health has not been established.

The current paper described the combined results across four studies that assess the associations between a measure of various types of enjoyable activities (Pittsburgh Enjoyable Activities Exam (PEAT)) and psychological and physiological measures associated with well-being. We tested v hypotheses. Although we were primarily interested in whether it is valuable to grouping different types of enjoyable activities into one scale, we commencement considered demographic differences in these activities and the part of socioeconomic status (SES). Given the known strong SES-health relationship (25) and the importance of financial resources for some types of leisure activities (26,27), we believed it important to consider leisure as a possible pathway past which SES could influence health. We anticipated that higher SES would be associated with greater frequency of these enjoyable activities, given the need for time and economic resource for some types of leisure. Nosotros did non have a priori hypotheses about other measured demographic characteristics, i.eastward., ethnicity, age, or gender.

For our second hypothesis, we anticipated that, to the extent that the PEAT measures breathers and restoring activities, information technology should be associated with meliorate mood states. Restoration is idea to exist associated with increased vigor, well-being, and calmness, which are all components of positive touch (PA). This indicates that PA and other positive constructs (e.one thousand., life satisfaction) should be strongly associated with the PEAT. We besides expected that the PEAT would exist associated with lower levels of negative touch (NA) as well equally more social support and larger social networks given the social nature of some types of leisure.

Tertiary, based on prior inquiry showing health benefits of individual leisure behaviors, we hypothesized that more frequent overall leisure (assessed by the PEAT) would be associated with amend physiological function, including lower blood pressure, body mass index (BMI), and stress hormones, smaller waist circumference (WC), and better self-reported physical operation. We also anticipated that the cumulative PEAT score would be a stronger correlate of these markers every bit opposed to whatsoever 1 leisure action.

Fourth, to the extent that enjoyable leisure activities are a unitary concept, we expected that PEAT activities would be associated with other wellness behaviors thought to be restorative (i.e., more physical exercise and better sleep). Nonetheless, we predictable that these activities would not be entirely responsible for any found connections betwixt the PEAT and well-existence.

Finally, leisure has been hypothesized to buffer the dissentious effects of stress (6,viii). Nosotros conceptualize that individuals who engage in more frequent enjoyable activities volition experience less distress during times of stress as compared with those who infrequently appoint in these activities.

METHODS

Participants

Iv unlike studies from the Pittsburgh Listen Body Centre were used in this paper and are described in Tabular array one. Study ane (data nerveless 1999–2004) consisted of 193 healthy customs-dwelling adults recruited from the general population (via newspaper advertisements) to participate in a study on upper respiratory illness. Study 2 (2000–2003) consisted of 262 patients with osteoarthritis and their spouses plus nineteen unmarried female participants in a study of psychosocial factors involved in aligning to osteoarthritis. Individuals in this sample were recruited from rheumatology clinics. Study 3 (1999–2005) consisted of 379 women participating in an already existing study (Pittsburgh Good for you Women Study) examining changes in cardiovascular take chances factors as a function of transitioning through menopause and beyond. The last study (2001–2004) consisted of 284 patients participating in a report of adjustment to breast cancer. Newly diagnosed and recurring patients were identified by nurses in oncologists' offices and contacted by a written report recruiter.

TABLE 1

Characteristics of Each Report Participant Sample and the Combined Sample

	Cohort ane	Cohort 2	Cohort 3	Cohort four	Combined Samples
due north	193	543	379	284	1399
% female person (n)	50.viii (98)	51.6 (280)	100 (379)	100 (284)	74.four (1041)
% non-white (n)	44 (85)	13.1 (71)	vi.9 (26)	12.3 (35)	15.v (217)
Median pedagogy category	Some college or associates degree	Some higher or associates degree	Higher graduate	Some college or associates caste	Some college or associates degree
Median income category	$xv,000–xix,000	$30,000–39,999	$l,000–59,999	$50,000–59,999	$twoscore,000–49,999
Median birth Twelvemonth	1964	1932	1937	1950	1937
PEAT score (SD)	22.20 (5.85)	21.xv (v.68)	23.47 (5.35)	21.87 (five.40)	22.xi (5.63)
Cronbach's α	0.72	0.68	0.65	0.66	0.68

Design and Process

The research was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at Carnegie Mellon Academy and the Academy of Pittsburgh. All four studies administered a common bombardment of sociodemographic, psychological, and physiological measures. WC, BMI, and resting systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures were measured either at home (Cohorts 2 and 4) or in a laboratory (Cohorts ane and three) by report experimenters using a standardized protocol. Salivary cortisol was nerveless at five preset times after waking upwards in the morning time over two days. Because of the additional requirements unique to each study, the timing of each measurement component could not be precisely standardized. Even so, with only a few exceptions, participants completed their psychosocial batteries within 2 weeks of physiological information collection, typically with questionnaires completed start followed by biological measures in the ensuing weeks. The exception was Study 1, which had participants collect cortisol samples before psychosocial measure completion.

Measures

Sociodemographic Characteristics

Five questions were used to assess demographic information about the participants, including engagement of birth, sex, race, teaching, and income. We categorized participants as white/Caucasian or not-white/Caucasian because of the low percentage of minorities in our total sample (<fifteen%). Educational attainment was scored on an 18-point calibration ranging from "no formal didactics" (1 point) to "doctoral caste" (18 points). Yearly household income (earlier taxes) was assessed on a thirteen-point categorical calibration ranging from "Less than $5,000" (i point) to "$150,000 or more" (13 points).

PEAT

Nosotros considered a broad array of leisure activities, specifically focusing on those that might heighten well-being by acting as breathers, restorers, and stress buffers. Afterward investigating various scales that assess leisure and restorative behaviors, we realized that no single alphabetize was available to appraise the frequency with which individuals engage in diverse types of enjoyable leisure activities. Although in that location were existing scales, they were often too specific (e.g., leisure-time concrete activity measures), too detailed (e.g., >50 items) making them implausible due to subject brunt, or focused on leisure preferences or satisfaction as opposed to the cumulative frequency across activities, which we reasoned was the most important wellness determinant. We, therefore, constructed the PEAT equally a cursory alphabetize that would appraise the frequency of engagement in a spectrum of enjoyable activities that could be done solitary or with others, in an array of locations, and were both active and inactive. To do this, six items were drawn from an existing mensurate of leisure satisfaction, which had been developed to measure caregiver satisfaction with leisure fourth dimension activities (28). Four additional items believed to be restorative or offer a breather were generated by the report investigators.ⁱ The ten total items were: spending tranquility fourth dimension alone; spending time unwinding; visiting others; eating with others; doing fun things with others; order, fellowship, and religious group participation; vacationing; communing with nature; sports; and hobbies. Although this list was non all inclusive, it tapped many different types of leisure (discussed in the to a higher place literatures) ensuring that no 1 demographic group went ignored.

Instructions for the PEAT were: "We are interested in how frequently in the last month you were able to spend fourth dimension in activities that you enjoyed. Over the past month, how frequently have you been able to spend fourth dimension doing the following?" Response options ranged from "Never" (0 point) to "Every Day" (4 points) and "Non Applicable/Practice Not Savour" (0 signal). The PEAT was scored every bit the sum of all items (maximum = 40).

Table 1 displays the means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients of the PEAT across the four cohorts and for the combined sample. We did non conceptualize that that these items would be correlated strongly, given that individuals take different leisure preferences; however, the overall reliability coefficient of the alphabetize was a 0.67, indicating some overlap. Based on the Scree Plot extraction method (29), ane gene emerged in the PEAT (Eigenvalue = ii.seventy, accounting for approximately 30% of the variance). Eight items loaded >0.40, with two items having a lower loading (quiet time = [0.35] and church building/fellowship = [0.25]), once again suggesting that the PEAT items are tapping different types of activity preferences non necessarily correlated with i some other.

Psychosocial Measures

Several measures of positive and negative psychological attributes were assessed in the electric current study. Positive and negative melancholia states were measured with a reduced (eighteen-item) version of the Profile of Mood States (30) as determined by a cistron assay of the adjectives. The scale consists of three PA subscales assessing vigor, well-being, and calm, and iii NA subscales assessing low, anxiety, and anger in the past week (α values: range = 0.76–0.92) with the factor analysis indicating independent factors for PA and NA. Depressive symptoms were assessed with the ten-detail version of the Heart for Epidemiological Studies Low scale (31), a scale that correlates well with other measures of depressive symptoms and is used widely in various populations (α = 0.84). Global life satisfaction was measured with the Satisfaction with Life Scale (32) (α = 0.87) where participants rate how much they agree with self-descriptive sentences about their satisfaction of life. This measure has been shown not to correlate with social desirability and is associated in the expected management with other measures of subjective well-being. Purpose in life was measured using the Life Date Test (33), a calibration designed to assess the extent to which a person has a sense of purpose and significant in life (α = 0.87).

Social network size and diversity was assessed with the 12-item Social Network Index (21), a measure of participation in unlike types of social relationships. It assesses network diversity too equally the number of people in the social network. Social support was assessed past the short form (12-item) Interpersonal Support Evaluation Listing (34), a well-validated measure assessing the perceived availability of different types of social back up (appraisement, belonging, and tangible) (α = 0.88).

Recent stressful life events were assessed using 15 items fatigued from the "Life Events Calibration" (35) and the Elders Life Stress Inventory (36). Participants answered yes/no to whether detail events (e.g., death of a close friend; modify in finances) had been experienced in the past 6 months. A sum score of "yes" answers was calculated.

Health Behaviors

Physical activity was assessed via the Paffenbarger Activity Questionnaire (37), an established, brief mensurate which assesses general level of exercise using kilocalories expended weekly. Sleep behaviors were assessed using a modification of the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (38), an eight-particular calibration with the ability to distinguish reliably betwixt adept and poor sleepers (α = 0.83). All scales are described in the high scoring management.

Physical/Physiological Measurements

Participants completed the physical functioning scale from the Short-Class Health Survey, with higher scores meaning better functioning (39) (α = 0.80). BMI was calculated by dividing weight (in kilograms) by the foursquare of meridian in meters. WC was measured with a nonstretchable measuring tape to the nearest ½ inch (1.27 cm) at the narrowest area in the waist region (above the level of the umbilicus).

SBP and DBP measures were taken at the midpoint of the upper arm on the ascendant arm as the participants were in a seated position. Participants rested quietly for 5 minutes with feet apartment on the floor before measurement with their arms resting on a flat surface at the level of the centre. Three blood pressure level measures were taken with approximately 2 minutes between readings.

Salivary cortisol levels were adamant using a competitive immunoassay procedure. Participants provided cortisol samples via "Salivette" (Sartstedt, Numbrecht, Germany) five times per solar day (1, 4, ix, 11, and 14 hours after waking upward) for 2 consecutive days and were told not to eat or castor their teeth during the hr before the sample, and not to fume within the one-half hour before the sample. Samples were excluded if the sample was >60 minutes off the scheduled time or if the cortisol value was an outlier (>three standard deviations from the sample mean). Area under the curve (AUC) with respect to ground was calculated for each day to assess total cortisol production and averaged for a 2-day mean score (forty). AUC was not calculated if any of the v samples were missing. Additionally, we assessed boilerplate cortisol slope over the 2 days (using the same exclusionary criteria) every bit an indicator of cortisol rhythm and calculated by random coefficient model in which the participants were treated equally a random cistron (41).

Statistical Analysis

To determine if there were any differences in PEAT scores as a function of sociodemographic variables, we conducted univariate linear regression for each variable separately. To test the offset hypothesis that higher SES was related to higher PEAT scores, we conducted a multivariate linear regression analysis that included education and income, covarying age, race, and study sample. To test the remaining hypotheses, we offset assessed the basic clan between the PEAT and the dependent variable of interest (behavior, psychosocial trait, physical measures) using linear regression. This was followed past an assessment of the PEAT minus any items that were assessing a conceptually similar event every bit the dependent measure out (e.g., PEAT sports item removed for exercise; social items removed for social measures). Next, we examined the association of the full PEAT with the dependent measures, controlling for basic demographic characteristics (twelvemonth of nativity, sex, race, sample), besides as an additional step decision-making for the basic variables and SES variables (income, education). Adjusting for SES may be inadvertently overcontrolling. However, nosotros included these adjustments for those readers who may want to know if the obtained associations remained after full adjustment. Finally, to exam whether enjoyable leisure activities buffer the negative affect of stressful life events, we conducted regression analyses with the standard covariates, the PEAT, the life events calibration, and the PEAT × Life Events product (all variables centered) as the predictor variables and the psychological and physiological well-existence measures discussed in a higher place equally the dependent variables.

RESULTS

Are Higher PEAT Scores Associated With Higher SES or Other Demographic Differences?

Demographic findings are shown in Tabular array 2. Caucasians and those with higher income and instruction engaged in more frequent PEAT activities. Age was non associated with the PEAT. Multivariate analyses including all demographic items showed that education and income remained significant predictors of PEAT scores (β = 0.xix and 0.15, respectively; p < .001), independent of age, sample, gender, and ethnicity.

TABLE two

Standardized β Values From Linear Regression Analyses Examining the Association Between the PEAT and Sociodemographic Variables, Adapted for Cohort

	PEAT
Sex activity (female person = 2; male = 1)	0.096**
Birth year	0.020
Race (white = i; non-white = 2)	−0.14**
Teaching	0.23***
Income	0.25***

Women had higher PEAT scores than men (Table ii). Exam of sex differences at the item level with t tests showed that all of the items were endorsed more than ofttimes by women (all p < .05) with the exception of the sports detail that was more endorsed by men (t(1315) = iii.00, p < .01), and the vacation and fun things with others items that were endorsed at a similar frequency by both sexes (p > .06). There were no significant PEAT by sex interactions.

Are College PEAT Scores Associated With More Positive and Less Negative Psychosocial Characteristics?

Higher PEAT scores were associated with greater PA, life satisfaction and life date, and lower levels of NA and depression (Table iii). All three subcomponents of PA were associated with the PEAT (vigor: β = 0.32; calm: β = 0.18; well-being: β = 0.29; all p < .001). Social markers and religiosity were too associated positively with the PEAT (Table 3). Specifically, the PEAT was associated with having a larger and more than diverse social network in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. The PEAT and the religious coping scale, on the other hand, were not associated once the church detail was removed from the PEAT full score.

TABLE iii

Standardized β Values From Linear Regression Analyses Examining the Association Between the PEAT and Psychosocial Measures

Covariates Psychosocial Measures	None	Overlapping Item(south) Removed	Historic period, Sex activity, Race, and Cohort	Age, Sex, Race, Cohort, Instruction, and Income
Positive affect	0.33***	Due north/A	0.34***	0.33***
Negative bear on	−0.22***	Northward/A	−0.24***	−0.22***
Depression (CES-D)	−0.32***	N/A	−0.33***	−0.29***
Life satisfaction	0.31***	North/A	0.32***	0.26***
Life engagement	0.28***	North/A	0.28***	0.25***
Religiosity	0.fifteen***	0.021	0.15***	0.18***
Perceived social support	0.33***	0.24***	0.33***	0.30***
Social network diversity	0.30***	0.26***	0.29***	0.25***
Social network size	0.34***	0.28***	0.33***	0.29***

When both PA and NA were entered simultaneously into the regression model predicting the PEAT (including all covariates), just PA remained associated with the PEAT scores (PA: β = 0.35, p < .001; NA: β = 0.029, p = .42). A follow-up analysis examining all positive and negative psychological measures entered simultaneously indicated that PA was the strongest predictor (β = 0.24, p < .001), followed by life engagement (β = 0.11, p < .001) and life satisfaction β = 0.083, p < .05), whereas NA and depression were non significant.

Are Higher PEAT Scores Associated With Amend Physiological Role?

College PEAT scores were correlated with lower WC, BMI, SBP, DBP, and cortisol AUC and college cocky-reported physical part (Tabular array 4). Inclusion of instruction and income reduced the clan of DBP and BMI with the PEAT scores. Given that exercise is likely a strong correlate of many of these outcomes, we redid the analyses of the PEAT with the physiological outcomes after removing the sports particular. All physical outcomes remained significantly associated with the PEAT (minus sports item). The PEAT was not associated with cortisol rhythm as assessed by average slope.

Table iv

Standardized β Values From Linear Regression Analyses Examining the Clan Between the PEAT and Physical Measures

Covariates	None	Age, Sexual practice, Race, and Cohort	Age, Sexual activity, Race, Cohort, Educational activity, and Income
Cortisol: AUC	−0.088*	−0.074*	−0.065*
Cortisol: gradient	0.017	0.022	0.025
Systolic claret pressure level	−0.13***	−0.11***	−0.096**
Diastolic blood pressure	−0.069*	−0.060*	−0.044
Waist circumference	−0.15***	−0.12***	−0.076*
Body mass index	−0.088**	−0.089*	−0.046
Perceived physical function (SF-36)	0.27***	0.24***	0.22***

Given that many of the activities represented by PEAT items have been tied independently to various physiological outcomes, nosotros besides tested whether the relative forcefulness of the association between any one item of the scale was a stronger correlate of the outcomes than the PEAT in its entirety. After accounting for the standard covariates, we found that no item was significantly associated with as many concrete or psychological outcomes as the overall PEAT.

Finally, this scale has a number of socially relevant items raising the question of whether the benefits of the PEAT are merely due to that of social back up. Similarly, benefits of the PEAT may also arise considering of the psychological well-being that engaging in leisure endows. We, therefore, tested whether the associations betwixt the PEAT and the physiological outcomes would persist if we controlled sequentially for PA, NA, social support, and life satisfaction. We institute that in only ane case was the clan of the PEAT with the physiological variables reduced to nonsignificance. When either PA or life satisfaction was included in the analysis of BMI, the initial association between the PEAT and BMI was reduced approximately 30% to marginal levels (p < .1).

Are PEAT Scores Associated With Other Types of Health Behaviors?

Greater PEAT scores were associated with better sleep and do outcomes (Table v). To test whether the PEAT is a stronger correlate of psychological and physiological role than these health behaviors, we examined the impact of including them with the PEAT in the regression equation. Most outcomes remained significantly associated (p < .05) with the PEAT later on including the standard covariates and either sleep efficiency or exercise (KCal per calendar week). The one exception was BMI, which became nonsignificant when practice was included (β = −0.036, p = .28). None of the health beliefs measures correlated with every bit many well-being outcomes equally the PEAT.

TABLE 5

Standardized β Values From Linear Regression Analyses Examining the Clan Between the PEAT and Health Behavior Measures

Covariates	None	Overlapping Item(due south) Removed	Age, Sex, Race, and Accomplice	Age, Sex, Race, Cohort, Teaching, and Income
Kilocalories burned in a calendar week	0.34***	0.26**	0.35***	0.32***
Exercised at to the lowest degree one time per calendar week	0.34***	0.26***	0.34***	0.30***
Sleep efficiency	0.12***	Due north/A	0.11***	0.081**
Sleep quality	0.15***	N/A	0.17***	0.25***

Do PEAT Activities Buffer the Negative Affect of Stressful Life Events?

After decision-making for the standard covariates, stressful life events were found to be associated with lower PA (β = −0.24, p < .001), life satisfaction (β = −0.twenty, p < .001), and life date (β = −0.15, p < .001), in addition to greater NA (β = 0.25, p < .001) and depression (β = 0.27, p < .001). Stressful life events were also associated with greater WC and BMI (β = 0.11 and 0.13, respectively, p < .01), greater resting SBP (β = 0.085, p < .05), and worst self-reported physical function (β = −0.15, p < .05). DBP and cortisol were not significantly associated with stressful life events (p > .05).

Meaning (or marginal) interaction terms were found for all of the psychological measures with the strongest association being found for depression (β = −0.35, p < .01) and the weakest for PA (β = 0.22, p = .07). Figure one depicts the buffering effect of enjoyable leisure activities on stress for PA and NA (β = −0.31, p < .05) showing that stressful life events have a lesser negative impact on mood when PEAT activities are high. The slopes between high and low stress groups were significantly different for both PA and NA in these analyses (F = 3.78 and 4.44, p < .05). In that location were no significant interactions between the PEAT and stress for the concrete outcomes.

Buffering effects of enjoyable leisure activities on stressful life events. Variables are assessed continuously and are depicted as a dichotomous carve up for effigy purposes just.

Does the PEAT Mediate the Association Between SES and Health?

Given the associations between the PEAT and SES, and the findings that the associations between the PEAT and physiological variables were reduced past the inclusion of SES variables, we explored whether inclusion of PEAT scores reduced the associations between SES variables and physiological health outcomes. Start, pedagogy was associated significantly with all physiological variables with β values ranging from −0.06 (DBP) to 0.xv (physical function). Income level was associated significantly with all but BP with β values ranging from 0.005 (SBP) to −0.23 (waist). Inclusion of the PEAT in the regression equations resulted in the original associations being reduced upward to 50% for the instruction variable (in this example, WC) and up to 35% for the income variable (with physical function).

DISCUSSION

Consistent with study hypotheses, individuals who engaged in more than frequent enjoyable leisure activities had better psychological and physical functioning. They reported greater PA, life satisfaction, life engagement, social support besides as lower depression and NA; they had lower blood pressure, cortisol AUC, BMI, WC, and ameliorate perceived physical office, even after adjusting for the standard demographic variables. The PEAT scores were not associated with cortisol gradient possibly because a flatter cortisol slope is establish typically in chronically stressed or burned out populations (42,43), whereas AUC varies with psychological function and mood (44). BMI, WC, and blood pressure level are tied to increased run a risk of early mortality and morbidity (43,45–47). The frequent occurrence of enjoyable leisure activities may play some role in bookkeeping for the morbidity and mortality associated with greater weight, fat distribution, and blood pressure level. However, because the analyses are cantankerous sectional, we cannot conclude that these activities cause these outcomes as information technology is also possible that good wellness encourages engagement in leisure activities.

Consistent with our hypothesis, the PEAT scores were correlated positively with better self-reported sleep and more than exercise, even after removing the items of the scale almost relevant to these behaviors. These findings suggest that the PEAT has convergent validity with other health behaviors. Including these activities with the PEAT did not remove the original associations with well-existence, indicating that benefits from these enjoyable leisure activities are not due to associations with other positive health behaviors.

Equally predicted, the PEAT was correlated positively with SES. This is consequent with the leisure field (26,48) and may exist indicative of a pathway past which SES influences health. We establish preliminary evidence for this in our data: PEAT scores account for up to 50% of the association between SES and physiological outcomes. In addition, higher PEAT scores were apparent for women and Caucasians. This may be due to women placing greater importance on social and artistic aspects of leisure (represented past at to the lowest degree four items) whereas men place more value on sports and outdoor activities (two items) (49). Interestingly, although men scored college than women on the single exercise detail, there was no departure in reported outdoor activity. Race differences in the PEAT were likewise consequent with previously found leisure differences in Caucasians/African-Americans (50,51).

As predicted, we also institute prove that engaging in multiple types of leisure activities plays a office in buffering the negative psychological touch of stress. Individuals who had experienced more stressful life events in the past but who likewise typically appoint in more PEAT activities showed lower levels of negative moods and depression, and higher PA, life satisfaction, and engagement than their low PEAT counterparts. This is congruent with the idea that enjoyable leisure activities offer a breather from stress and increase restoration (52). Physiological measures associated with stressful events were not buffered past enjoyable activities. This matches previous piece of work showing stronger buffering furnishings on psychological outcomes as opposed to physical outcomes (53,54). Information technology may be that the concrete benefits of these activities occur directly equally opposed to only during times of stress. Future studies should exam whether individuals who engage in more of these activities testify stress-buffering furnishings on physiology during times of stress.

Analyses on the relative importance of PA and NA with the PEAT establish that, when both were entered simultaneously in the model, NA was no longer significant. Similarly, when all positive and negative measures were entered together, but positive constructs remained significantly associated with the PEAT. This may be due to the presence of PA (but not a lack of NA) encouraging exploration, creativity, and socialization corresponding to the Broaden and Build theory of positive emotions (55). Although we cannot determine the directionality of these associations nor the possibility that there may be a feedback loop of leisure activities and PA, it is clear that positive measures are tied markedly to these activities. Future studies should further explore the possibility that leisure time behaviors are a unique pathway by which PA influences well-being.

There seems to exist value in aggregating leisure activities together as opposed to studying any one specific activity. No 1 activity blazon was associated with as many outcomes as the total PEAT, and although certain items were logically more tied to certain outcomes (e.g., exercise with WC; information not shown), this does not necessarily contend against the value of having a greater number of wellness-relevant associations by using a broader array of items. We also take preliminary evidence that the PEAT is associated with physiological outcomes (except for BMI) to a higher place and across the furnishings of social back up and affect, providing support that these activities are associated independently with physical well-being.

Our written report has a number of advantages and disadvantages related to combining the iv study samples. Regarding advantages, our combined sample provided an opportunity to assess the PEAT in a large number of individuals who were diverse in SES, gender, ethnicity, and age. It provided a context to test initially the reliability and validity of the PEAT items, with adequate statistical controls, and it immune us to test the associations of the PEAT with multiple psychological, social, and physical outcomes.

Regarding disadvantages, there were some small differences in data drove techniques (e.g., completing questionnaires with or without an interviewer). Similarly, because of the different study-specific requirements, timing of measurement could non exist standardized. Nonetheless, the majority of the variability in timing was betwixt studies every bit opposed to within, and the vast majority of participants completed the questionnaires and physiological samples within a 2-week period. Thus, pocket-size differences in timing and protocol were statistically adjusted past controlling for accomplice in all analyses. Nosotros too examined the PEAT by study interactions and no significant patterns emerged. Finally, although the categories of enjoyable activities in the PEAT are rather wide, the PEAT may take missed some activities that are important for specific individuals or cultural groups.

The PEAT was tested as a brief, cumulative scale that is useful for assessing a wide range of enjoyable leisure activities that may serve a health-benefiting part by acting as breathers or restorers. The bulk of the items held together in the internal reliability analysis and the PEAT was related to sleep and physical practise, suggesting that to some extent unlike types of enjoyable leisure activities go hand in hand. On the other hand, the low α of 0.68 suggests that engaging in 1 activity is non necessarily indicative of participation in another. This is peculiarly truthful of the item assessing club/church participation. This was the simply detail that individuals endorsed a "not applicable or do not savor" response (8.iv% of the total sample) and information technology as well had the lowest extraction score in the factor assay.

One remaining open question is whether or non these activities are actually restorative. Restoration is typically marked by greater feelings of well-being, calm, and vigor—a pattern confirmed in this report—indicating that these enjoyable activities may in fact serve every bit restorers and breathers. Nevertheless, considering these data were not assessed longitudinally after periods of stress or nonstress within person, farther studies are necessary to determine whether or not these leisure activities truly restore individuals to baseline functioning later on disruption by a stressful effect. Hereafter work is also needed to disentangle whether wellness benefits are due to direct associations with physiological functioning (56), indirect effects by altering emotions, expectations, self-evaluations, and social network qualities (besides tied to health) (57–59), or via stress-buffering effects, although in this report they were non found for physiological health outcomes. Information technology is likewise plausible that being denied the opportunity to engage in usual leisure may serve equally an additional source of distress itself, another issue which should exist addressed. Longitudinal studies testing these questions would prove invaluable every bit would enquiry examining whether these enjoyable leisure activities predict improve affliction outcomes, or whether good for you individuals are able to engage in more leisure. The PEAT may facilitate answering some of these questions.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported past Grants HL076852 (K.A.M.), HL076858 (M.South.), and HL07650 (Due south.D.P.) from the National Institutes of Health.

Glossary

PEAT

Pittsburgh Enjoyable Activities Index

SBP

systolic blood force per unit area

DBP

diastolic blood pressure

BMI

body mass index

WC

waist circumference

SES

socioeconomic status

Footnotes

¹The six items drawn from the Stevens Leisure Satisfaction scale (28) were: spending quiet fourth dimension by yourself; attending church building/fellowship/club meetings; hobbies; going out for meals with friends and/or relatives; visiting family and friends; and doing fun things with others. The remaining four items generated past the authors were: engaging in sports; taking vacations out of town; being in parks and other outdoor settings; and "unwinding" at the end of the day.

References

1. Lazarus RS, Kanner Advert, Folkman S. Emotions: A cognitive-phenomenological analysis. In: Plutchik R, Kellerman H, editors. Theories of Emotion. New York: Academic Press; 1980. [Google Scholar]

ii. Jansen DA, von Sadovszky 5. Restorative activities of customs-dwelling elders. West J Nurs Res. 2004;26:381–99. discussion 400–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol. 1995;15:169–82. [Google Scholar]

4. Cimprich B. Development of an intervention to restore attending in cancer patients. Cancer Nurs. 1993;16:83–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

v. Iwasaki Y, Mackay KJ, Mactavish JB, Ristock J, Bartlett J. Voices from the margins: stress, agile living, and leisure as a contributor to coping with stress. Leisure Sci. 2006;28:163–eighty. [Google Scholar]

half-dozen. Iwasaki Y, Schneider IE. Leisure, stress and coping: an evolving expanse of inquiry. Leisure Sci. 2003;25:107–13. [Google Scholar]

7. Iwasaki Y, Mannell RC. Hierarchical dimensions of leisure stress coping. Leisure Sci. 2000;22:163–81. [Google Scholar]

viii. Coleman D, Iso Ahola S. Leisure and wellness: the part of social support and self determination. J Leisure Res. 1993;25:11–28. [Google Scholar]

9. Wong CH, Wong SF, Shen L. Correlates of habitual walking and sports/leisure-time physical activity in older persons in Singapore: interaction effects between educational attainment and gender. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2003;32:801–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Szabo A, Meskó A, Caputo A, Gill ET. Examination of exercise induced feeling states in four modes of exercise. Int J Sport Psychol. 1998;29:376–ninety. [Google Scholar]

11. Batty GD, Shipley MJ, Marmot 1000, Davey Smith One thousand. Leisure time physical action and coronary heart disease bloodshed in men symptomatic or asymptomatic for ischemia: bear witness from the Whitehall report. J Public Health Med. 2003;25:190–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Diener E, Lucas RE, Oishi S. Subjective well-being: the science of happiness and life satisfaction. In: Snyder CR, Lopez SJ, editors. Handbook of Positive Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]

13. Ryff CD, Singer BH, Dienberg Love G. Positive health: connecting well-being with biology. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004;359:1383–94. [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Watson D. Intraindividual and interindividual analyses of positive and negative touch: their relation to health complaints, perceived stress, and daily activities. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54:1020–30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

xv. Benca RM, Quintas J. Sleep and host defenses: a review. Sleep. 1997;20:1027–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

sixteen. Simon HB. Exercise and human being allowed role. In: Ader R, editor. Psychoneuroimmunology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1991. [Google Scholar]

17. Staats H, Gatersleben B, Hartig T. Change in mood as a function of environmental design: arousal and pleasure on a imitation forest hike. J Environ Psychol. 1997;17:283–300. [Google Scholar]

xviii. Ulrich RS, Simons RF, Losito BD, Fiorito E, Miles MA, Zelson M. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. J Environ Psychol. 1991;eleven:201–30. [Google Scholar]

xix. Ayas NT, White DP, Al-Delaimy WK, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Speizer FE, Patel South, Hu FB. A prospective study of self-reported slumber duration and incident diabetes in women. Diabetes Care. 2003;26:380–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

twenty. Ayas NT, White DP, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Speizer Iron, Malhotra A, Hu FB. A prospective written report of slumber duration and coronary heart disease in women. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:205–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Skoner DP, Rabin BS, Gwaltney JM., Jr Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold. JAMA. 1997;277:1940–iv. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Gump BB, Matthews KA. Are vacations practiced for your wellness? The nine-yr bloodshed feel after the multiple risk factor intervention trial. Psychosom Med. 2000;62:608–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. House JS, Landis KR, Umberson D. Social relationships and health. Science. 1988;241:540–5. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Tominaga K, Andow J, Koyama Y, Numao S, Kurokawa Due east, Ojima M, Nagai M. Family environment, hobbies and habits as psychosocial predictors of survival for surgically treated patients with breast cancer. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1998;28:36–41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Adler NE, Ostrove JM. Socioeconomic condition and wellness: what nosotros know and what we don't. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;896:3–xv. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Lindstrom M, Hanson BS, Ostergren PO. Socioeconomic differences in leisure-time physical action: the role of social participation and social capital letter in shaping health related behaviour. Soc Sci Med. 2001;52:441–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. He XZ, Baker DW. Differences in leisure-time, household, and work-related physical activity past race, ethnicity, and instruction. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:259–66. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Stevens AB, Coon D, Wisniewski South, Vance D, Arguelles S, Belle S, Mendelsohn A, Ory K, Haley Due west. Measurement of leisure time satisfaction in family caregivers. Aging Ment Health. 2004;8:450–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Cattell RB. The scree examination for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav Res. 1966;i:245–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

xxx. Usala PD, Hertzog C. Measurement of affective states in adults: Evaluation of an adjective rating scale instrument. Res Crumbling. 1989;11:403–26. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for inquiry in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1:385–401. [Google Scholar]

32. Diener East, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49:71–five. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

33. Scheier MF, Wrosch C, Baum A, Cohen S, Martire LM, Matthews KA, Schulz R, Zdaniuk B. The life engagement test: assessing purpose in life. J Behav Med. 2006;29:291–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

34. Cohen Due south, Mermelstein R, Kamarck T, Hoberman H. Measuring the functional components of social support. In: Sarason IG, Sarason BR, editors. Social Support: Theory, Research and Applications. The Hague, Holland: Martinus Nijhoff; 1985. [Google Scholar]

35. Fried LP, Borhani NO, Enright P, Furberg CD, Gardin JM, Kronmal RA, Kuller LH, Manolio TA, Mittelmark MB, Newman A. The cardiovascular wellness study: pattern and rationale. Ann Epidemiol. 1991;1:263–76. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Aldwin CM. The Elders Life Stress Inventory (ELSI): research and clinical applications. In: Keller PA, Hyman SR, editors. Innovations in Clinical Do: A Source Book. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Printing/Commutation; 1991. [Google Scholar]

37. Paffenbarger RS, Jr, Blair SN, Lee IM, Hyde RT. Measurement of physical activeness to assess health effects in free-living populations. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1993;25:lx–70. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF, 3rd, Monk TH, Berman SR, Kupfer DJ. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Alphabetize: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res. 1989;28:193–213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Ware JE, Snow KK, Kosisnki Thousand, Gandek B. Manual and Estimation Guide. Boston, MA: Nimrod Printing; 1993. SF-36 Wellness Survey. [Google Scholar]

xl. Pruessner JC, Kirschbaum C, Meinlschmid G, Hellhammer DH. Two formulas for computation of the surface area under the curve represent measures of total hormone concentration versus time-dependent alter. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2003;28:916–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Stone AA, Schwartz JE, Smyth J, Kirschbaum C, Cohen South, Hellhammer D, Grossman Southward. Private differences in the diurnal cycle of salivary free cortisol: a replication of flattened cycles for some individuals. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2001;26:295–306. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Pruessner JC, Hellhammer DH, Kirschbaum C. Burnout, perceived stress, and cortisol responses to awakening. Psychosom Med. 1999;61:197–204. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

43. Sephton SE, Sapolsky RM, Kraemer HC, Spiegel D. Diurnal cortisol rhythm as a predictor of breast cancer survival. J Nat Canc Inst. 2000;92:994–chiliad. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Smyth J, Ockenfels MC, Porter 50, Kirschbaum C, Hellhammer DH, Stone AA. Stressors and mood measured on a momentary basis are associated with salivary cortisol secretion. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 1998;23:353–370. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Folsom AR, Kaye SA, Sellers TA, Hong CP, Cerhan JR, Potter JD, Prineas RJ. Body fatty distribution and 5-year hazard of death in older women [Erratum appears in JAMA 1993 Mar 10;269:1254] JAMA. 1993;269:483–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Kaplan GA, Camacho T. Perceived health and mortality: a ix-year follow-upwardly of the human population laboratory cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 1983;117:292–304. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. Vasan RS, Larson MG, Leip EP, Evans JC, O'Donnell CJ, Kannel WB, Levy D. Bear upon of loftier-normal blood pressure on the risk of cardiovascular affliction. N Engl J Med. 2001;345:1291–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. White RC. Social class differences in the uses of leisure. AJS. 1955;61:145–150. [Google Scholar]

49. Cutler SJ, Hendricks J. Leisure and time use across the life course. In: Binstock RH, George LK, editors. Handbook of Crumbling and the Social Sciences. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]

50. Crespo CJ, Smit E, Andersen RE, Carter-Pokras O, Ainsworth Be. Race/ethnicity, social course and their relation to concrete inactivity during leisure time: results from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. Am J Prev Med. 2000;18:46–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. Washburn RA, Kline G, Lackland DT, Wheeler FC. Leisure fourth dimension physical activity: are there black/white differences? Prev Med. 1992;21:127–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. Folkman Due south, Moskowitz JT. Positive affect and the other side of coping. Am Psychol. 2000;55:647–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

53. Cohen Due south, Edwards JR. Personality characteristics as moderators of the relationship between stress and disorder. In: Neufeld RWJ, editor. Advances in the Investigation of Psychological Stress. New York: Wiley; 1989. [Google Scholar]

54. Cohen Due south, Hoberman HM. Positive events and social supports as buffers of life alter stress. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1983;thirteen:99–125. [Google Scholar]

56. Steptoe A, Gibson EL, Hamer M, Wardle J. Neuroendocrine and cardiovascular correlates of positive affect measured past ecological momentary cess and by questionnaire. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2007;32:56–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. Antonucci TC, Jackson JS. Physical wellness and self-esteem. Fam Community Health. 1983;6:1–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

58. Pressman SD, Cohen S. Does positive affect influence health? Psychol Bull. 2005;131:925–71. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

59. Cohen South. Social relationships and health. Am Psychol. 2004;59:676–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

jordanwhislove.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2863117/

Share this post