Introduction of the special issue “A Social Psychology of Leisure 2.0”

The purpose of this proposed special issue “A Social Psychology of Leisure 2.0” (SPL 2.0) is to showcase cutting-edge and forward-thinking exemplars of social-psychological studies of leisure, parks, recreation, tourism, and sport, and to reimagine the roles of this sub-discipline within the wider leisure scholarship. The original idea of this special issue unexpectedly occurred at the 15th Canadian Congress of Leisure Research held in Waterloo, Canada in May 2017. After an oral presentation by Drs. Kono and Ito about leisure constraints, Dr. Loucks-Atkinson approached them and we had an animated discussion about not only leisure constraints and negotiation, but also the current situation and future directions of SPL. This might be because we are the mentees of SPL 1.0 researchers: Drs. Kleiber, Mannell, and Walker (although Dr. Walker identifies himself as SPL 1.5). Dr. Kono took an initiative role in this special issue and the three researchers who were based in different countries at that time (USA, Canada, and Japan) made a proposal for this special issue to the Journal of Leisure Research in October 2018. It seems perfect timing to have the special issue of SPL 2.0 right after the two special issues that celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Journal of Leisure Research (Payne & Janke, 2019; Schmalz et al., 2019), both of which emphasized multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary perspectives in leisure research.

This special issue has cataloged five papers that undertook a regular blind review procedure. SPL research has a history of using and developing unique quantitative data collection methods, developing and refining survey scales, and applying cutting-edge advanced statistics. Dr. Gagnon has applied a planned missing data design, a relatively new approach to survey research, to examine the effects of repeated summer camp experiences on socioemotional outcomes. This innovative research design offers much potential for SPL research to reduce participant burden (i.e., survey length), particularly when examining the impact of leisure activity on socioemotional development and multiple variables/outcomes. While Dr. Gagnon’s study did not find that parent or child level of camp experiences influenced parental perceptions of developmental outcomes, the study highlights the importance of publishing non-significant results (Amrhein et al., 2019; Ayorinde et al., 2020; Mlinarić et al., 2017) in order to disprove or revise existing theories and to provide a foundation for future studies to learn, replicate, revise and improve.

Dr. Shen’s paper focuses on a fundamental characteristic of leisure play and proposes an integrationist framework for playfulness research by developing two new scales: the Psychological Situations for Play Scale and the Playful State Scale. For the measurement development, she collected data from focus groups, expert reviews, and online surveys, and consequently performed both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The interactionist framework has been understudied although SPL 1.0 researchers (e.g., Iso-Ahola, 1980; Mannell & Kleiber, 1997) highlighted its potential to explain leisure behavior. Additionally, Dr. Shen stated that “functional studies of play and playfulness have emerged as a research powerhouse in positive psychology of leisure,” and her paper acknowledges the important intersection of leisure and positive psychology.

Drs. Kim, Kim, and Thapa’s paper further elaborate on this worthwhile relationship between leisure studies and positive psychology by examining the relationship between leisure and subjective well-being with advanced statistics (i.e., parallel latent growth curve modeling). These researchers target leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) and investigate its longitudinal association with well-being and roles of personality. One of their significant contributions is the differentiation within different levels of LTPA intensity (i.e., moderate and vigorous) and within distinct types of well-being (i.e., psychological and social) longitudinally over a defined period of time. In addition to the methodological merits of using parallel latent growth curve modeling, Kim and colleagues’ study indicates that (a) the intensity of LTPA has a different mechanism in the longitudinal association with psychological and social well-being (theoretical implications) and (b) moderate LTPA would be a more efficient strategy to enhance psychological and social well-being in the long term (practical implications).

Scholars have continued to develop new and revised theories within the field of SPL including providing an interdisciplinary cross-fertilization of theories. This has not only occurred within the broader social psychological field but also with fields such as positive psychology, sociology, anthropology, geography, tourism, economics, and marketing. Drs. Ellis, Jiang, Freeman, Lacanienta, and Jamal’s paper eloquently describes a history of the “theoretical roots” of leisure as immediate conscious experience within the fields of psychology and SPL that informed their theory of structured experience (TSE). Theories are not static; they are adjusted based on empirical work and their ability in generating explanations in different contexts. Ellis and colleagues present their body of work which led them to critique and revise the propositions of their framework; they present TSE 2.0 in this paper and discuss an agenda for new research areas.

Dr. Harmon’s paper employs sociological social psychology by responding to Scott’s (2018) critique: “rise and dominance of a social psychological paradigm that is more psychological than sociological” (p. 239). By elaborating on the links between social structures and the intricacies of merging psychological thought processes amongst music fans, Dr. Harmon examined the core properties of “communities,” and the continuing value of the concept to understanding individual meaning-making in social leisure settings. The music fans who had participated in the original data collection five years previously were asked to participate in either a semi-structured focus group or telephone interviews. His longitudinal qualitative research highlights the importance of immersion in meaningful leisure activities over long periods of time, which is conducive to social well-being.

In addition to these regular papers, this special issue also includes commentaries from two SPL 1.0 researchers Drs. Kleiber and Walker. Both papers not only concisely summarize the past journey of SPL 1.0 but also indicate future avenues in SPL. Dr. Kleiber’s paper particularly emphasizes the importance of applied social psychology of leisure from the practical point of view (e.g., managing leisure services and resources). Leisure theory (e.g., leisure constraints theory: Jackson, 1993) has played a significant role in advancing our understanding of leisure; however, it is also important to acknowledge that such theory-driven SPL insights need to be applied in the real world where leisure is situated. He stresses the importance of the study of the social aspect of leisure—the “social” of social psychology of leisure. Dr. Kleiber highlights various challenges in SPL research including little concerns for downstream effects (vs. immediate experience) and compromises of autonomy and perceived freedom in arranged leisure situations by recreation program designers (possibly, as well as by researchers in experimental settings).

Dr. Walker also reviews theoretical advancement of SPL by introducing culturally informed theories (self-construal theory, Markus & Kitayama, 1991; affect valuation theory, Tsai, 2007) in leisure settings and the DRAMMA model of leisure and subjective well-being proposed by positive psychologists (Newman et al., 2014). In terms of the former, he acknowledges accumulated insights of non-Western and cross-cultural/national leisure phenomena as a significant advancement since SPL 1.0. In terms of the latter, the special issue in The Journal of Positive Psychology entitled “Leisure and positive psychology: Complementary science for health and well-being” (Schmalz & Pury, 2018) and an addition of a leisure satisfaction item to the next Gallup World Poll (Lambert et al., 2020) can be regarded as an acknowledgment of the important role of SPL in well-being and quality of life. Having acknowledged these contributions from SPL 1.0, Dr. Walker believes that the Chinese adage lu chang er dao yuan (“There is still a long way to go”) is still apt for SPL 2.0.

Fortunately, this special issue includes another commentary paper from an industrial/organizational psychologist Dr. Kuykendall and her colleagues. Their commentary paper attempts to further leisure constraints theory by including the insights of industrial/organizational psychology (i.e., labor practices, organizational norms, work supervisors). Given that COVID-19 appears to have a large impact on these three potential work-related constraints (e.g., remote work), leisure constraints theory will play a pivotal role in reconsidering the association between leisure and work after the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, as Dr. Kuykendall published a meta-analysis of leisure engagement and subjective well-being (Kuykendall et al., 2015), their commentary paper stresses the importance in “understanding how to enhance employees’ leisure experiences and subsequently their overall well-being.”

This special issue offers several exciting future directions in SPL. First, research on new as well as revised SPL theories is required. For example, evaluating the TSE 2.0 propositions including the similarities and differences among various immediate conscious experiences (Ellis et al., this issue, 2020) can be considered as the first step of this inquiry. Additionally, the validity and reliability of the Psychological Situations for Play Scale and the Playful State Scale (Shen, this issue, 2020) should be examined with non-Western samples and possibly cross-culturally (Walker, this issue, 2020). SPL research can have a major impact on the world’s call for equality and equity. We encourage non-Western and cross-cultural studies of SPL and the study of SPL in diverse contexts (e.g., gender, race and ethnicity, social class, disability, sexuality, age, religion). Furthermore, in terms of leisure theories, metatheorizing, which is the process of systematically studying theory, will offer a deeper understanding of leisure theory (Walker et al., 2016). Second, innovative and unique research data collection methods such as the application of planned missing data design (Gagnon, this issue, 2020), technology-assisted methods such as smartphones, GIS, and visual data should be encouraged for SPL research. SPL research could also be advanced by the use of big data research (Wood et al., 2019) as well as natural experiments (Leatherdale, 2019; Tully et al., 2013). SPL researchers also need to overcome a dearth of qualitative methods (Harmon, this issue, 2020) and mixed methods for SPL. Third, as with Kim et al.’s paper, rigorous research design (e.g., longitudinal and experimental design) with advanced statistics (e.g., Bayesian, multi-level modeling, rigorous structural equation modeling practice) and advanced missing value treatment should be employed for SPL. Lastly, SPL should be approached from a lens of multiple disciplines, such as positive psychology (Kim et al., this issue, 2020; Walker, this issue, 2020), industrial/organizational psychology (Kuykendall et al., this issue, 2020), sociology (Harmon, this issue, 2020), physiology, geography, economics, and/or anthropology. Moreover, critical approaches to leisure research and SPL can co-exist alongside one another and in fact, inform each other. We assert the field of leisure studies can survive and flourish when multiple theoretical and disciplinary perspectives work on interdisciplinary research; we seek “paradigm proliferation” (Parry et al., 2013, p. 84).

Finally, we would like to thank people who supported this special issue, especially the Journal of Leisure Research’s editorial team including the Editor-in-Chief Dr. Laura Payne, the Senior Associate Editors, and Associate Editors who have provided valuable feedback on our initial special issue idea. We also acknowledge the support we have received from our former supervisors/current mentors Drs. Gordon Walker, Douglas Kleiber, and Roger Mannell. We also want to thank the authors who contributed to this special issue. We are also grateful for the reviewers who offered their insights and helped the rigorous review process.