The experience of psychological reactance in response to encountering fees for public land...

This article was downloaded by: [Texas A&M University Libraries]On: 20 March 2014, At: 07:28Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK

Leisure/LoisirPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rloi20

The experienceof psychologicalreactance in responseto encountering fees forpublic land recreationGerard T. Kyle a , James D. Absher b &Charles Chancellor ca Department of Recreation, Parks,and Tourism Sciences , Texas A&MUniversity , 2261 TAMU, College Station,TX, 77843–2261 Phone: (979) 862–3794 E-mail:b Forest Service, USDAc Eastern Illinois UniversityPublished online: 21 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Gerard T. Kyle , James D. Absher & Charles Chancellor(2005) The experience of psychological reactance in response toencountering fees for public land recreation, Leisure/Loisir, 29:2, 355-378,DOI: 10.1080/14927713.2005.9651335

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2005.9651335

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rloi20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14927713.2005.9651335

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14927713.2005.9651335

on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall notbe liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Experience of PsychologicalReactance in Response toEncountering Fees forPublic Land Recreation

Gerard T. KyleTexas A&M University

James D. AbsherUSDA Forest Service

Charles ChancellorEastern Illinois University

Abstract. The increasing use of fees by public leisure service providers has the poten-tial to deprive lower income users of their ability to freely choose specific leisure set-tings and experiences supported by these settings. It has been suggested that the theoryof psychological reactance captures the nature of negative affects when individuals' abil-ity to choose from a range of alternatives is impinged upon. Using data collected fromvisitors to a south-eastern National Forest in the Unites States, we tested the hypothe-sis that household income would be inversely related to the experience of psychologi-cal reactance. Our data offered partial support for this hypothesis, illustrating significantdifferences between the highest and lowest income brackets in the hypothesized direc-tion. These data suggest that lower income groups are more likely to respond negativelytoward fees than higher income groups. We also suggest that psychological reactancedeserves greater attention by leisure researchers, particularly for understanding theimpacts of fees and other management actions that can potentially displace users ofleisure services.

Keywords, public leisure services, fees

Résumé. Le fait que les prestataires de services publics en loisir font de plus en plussouvent appel aux frais de participation peut potentiellement priver les usagers auxrevenus faibles de pouvoir choisir librement les endroits où ils pratiquent leurs loisirs

Address all correspondence to: Gerard Kyle, Department of Recreation, Parks, andTourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, 2261 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2261. Telephone: (979) 862-3794. Email: [email protected]

Lelsure/Loisir, 29(2): 355-378© 2005 Ontario Research Council on Leisure

355

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4

356 Leisure/Loisir, Vol. 29 (2005)

et, par extension, les loisir mêmes dont le choix dépend largement sur les endroits oùils sont pratiqués. Il a été suggéré que la théorie de réactance psychologique met en reliefla nature des affects négatifs en situation dans laquelle la capacité d'un individu àchoisir une des activités variées devient limitée. On a testé l'hypothèse que les revenusdu ménage doivent être connectés inversement à des expériences de réactance psy-chologique en utilisant les données collectionnées parmi les visiteurs d'un forêt nationalau sud-est des États-Unis. Nos données offrent un appui partiel à cette hypothèse. Eneffet, elles montrent qu'il y a des différences signifiantes entre les groupes à revenuesélevés et faibles prévues par l'hypothèse. L'examen des données suggère que lesgroupes à revenus faibles sont plus apte à réagir négativement aux frais de participationque ceux à revenus élevés. On suggère aussi que la réactance psychologique doitrecevoir plus d'attention de chez les chercheurs en loisir, en particulier en ce qui con-cerne la compréhension de l'impact des frais de participation et d'autres actions de ges-tionnaires qui peuvent potentiellement déplacer les usagers des services en loisir.

Mots-clefs. services publics en loisir, frais

IntroductionOver the past 10 years a large body of conceptual and empirical work hasappeared in the literature documenting philosophical, theoretical, andpractical issues underlying visitor responses to fees for public leisureservices. One important issue that underlies much of the debate sur-rounding fees concerns their impact on low income groups (More,1999). That is, do fees differentially affect low income groups so as toreduce or deny their ability to enjoy certain services or resources man-aged by public agencies? While research addressing this issue hasreported mixed findings, there is some evidence suggesting the imple-mentation of use or entrance fees for public land recreation has thepotential to deprive some users of their ability to freely choose specificrecreation settings (More & Stevens, 2000). Consequently, it is possiblethat some users may experience some anxiety in response to the threat ofbeing denied access to these resources. For some, this anxiety is furthermagnified by the symbolism encapsulated by public lands within theUnited States. These lands represent a birthright afforded to all Ameri-cans regardless of economic circumstance. Fees obstruct access to thisentitlement and run contrary to founding principles of public land recre-ation. Further, with the recent introduction of some fee programs (e.g.,the Federal Fee Demonstration Program for National Park Service,Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.Forest Service lands) and the breadth of their application (e.g. as ofApril 2003, there were 376 sites across the U.S. charging fees as part ofthe Fee Demonstration Program), these programs affect millions of cit-izens across the United States. An understanding of the impact of these

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4

Kyle, Absher, & Chancellor / Fees for Public Land Recreation 357

programs on individuals' freedom to engage in leisure has importantpsychological and physiological outcomes (deCharms, 1968; Lefcourt,1973; White, 1959).

One theory that specifically examines the psychological conse-quences of loss or threats to individual freedom is that of psychologicalreactance (Brehm, 1966). Mannell and Kleiber (1997) noted that individ-uals have a set of specific behavioural freedoms which they desire toexercise. Included among these freedoms is an ability to engage inleisure. When this freedom is threatened or eliminated, the individual willevaluate that freedom more favourably and be motivated to restore it(Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981). In the context of leisure research,Mannell and Backman (1979; as cited in Mannell & Kleiber, 1997) sug-gested that psychological reactance is especially useful because it allowsresearchers to "predict the arousal of negative affect when the individualhas limited choice, which potentially could interfere with the individual'sability to enjoy and become involved in an activity" (p. 301).

In spite of the potential utility of psychological reactance for assist-ing researchers to understand the experience of leisure contemporaryleisure researchers have, for the most part, ignored the construct. In thecontext of this investigation, we used the tenets proposed by Brehm's(1966) theory of psychological reactance to understand recreationists'negative psychological responses to encountering fees for public landrecreation. Specifically, we examined the relationship between householdincome and psychological reactance. It has been reported in the literaturethat low income consumers of public leisure services are most suscepti-ble to the discriminative impact of fees for public leisure services (Bam-ford, Manning, Foreter, & Koenemann, 1988; More & Stevens, 2000).Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationshipbetween income and the experience of psychological reactance inresponse to encountering fees for public land recreation. Consequently,we hypothesized that the intensity of psychological reactance wouldincrease as respondents' household income declined.

Literature ReviewRecreation Fees on Public LandsSince the implementation of the Fee Demonstration Program for publicland recreation, a number of studies have appeared in the leisure litera-ture documenting a broad spectrum of issues related to visitor attitudestoward fees, behaviours in response to fees, and the correlates of bothattitudes and behaviour (Bowker, Cordell, & Johnson, 1999; Kyle,Absher, & Graefe, 2003; More & Stevens, 2000; Schneider & Budruk,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4

358 . Leisure/Loisir, Vol. 29 (2005)

1999; Williams, Vogt, & Vitterso, 1999; Winter, Palucki, & Burkhardt,1999). Studies have also shown that fees displace some users. For exam-ple, Schneider and Budruk surveyed visitors to a southwestern NationalForest that was not charging an entrance or use fee and observed thatmore than half of their respondents had chosen the site because there wasno fee. Further, one-third of respondents indicated having been dis-placed from other sites by fees. Additionally, Schroeder and Lourviereobserved that entry fees for Chicago area day-use sites "had a significantimpact (p < .05) on choice of recreation sites, with choice probability(analyzed in a logit model) showing a steady drop over the entire rangeof fee levels. At a fee of 3 dollars, the choice probability for the entiresample decreases by almost 40 percent" (p. 312). Similarly, Richer andChristensen (1999), using data collected from visitors to the DesolationWilderness in California, observed declines in visitation with hypothet-ical price increases.

While visitor attitudes toward fee programs and their behaviouralresponses are important issues, in the context of the present investigation,we were primarily concerned with the relationship between respon-dents' household income and their experience of psychological reac-tance in response to encountering fees. Taking a broad contextual viewof the current environment concerning fees and disadvantaged popula-tions, More and Stevens (2000) noted that over the past 30 years, lowincome groups have experienced the greatest stress on their incomearising from four related trends. They noted that (a) legislators havebeen anxious to shrink the size of government or to limit spendingincreases; (b) agencies have been eager to supplement their budgetsthrough fee programs; (c) income inequality among segments of the pub-lic has grown exponentially; and (d) there is general ambivalence amongthe public concerning taxes and government funding.

Empirical evidence supporting More and Stevens' (2000) observa-tions is growing. For example, a recent telephone survey of the generalpublic's attitude toward fees for public land recreation conducted bySolop, Hagen, and Ostergren (2003) on behalf of the National Park Ser-vice (NPS), indicated that "a significant association exists between highentrance fees limiting visitation and income and education" (p. 20) forthose who have not previously visited a NPS unit. The authors went onto conclude that "people of lesser income and lesser education are morelikely to believe that high entrance fees are a barrier to visiting a unit"(p. 20). More and Stevens' own survey of New Hampshire and Vermonthouseholds also illustrated that low income residents were the most sus-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


ceptible to fee policies with 23% of low income respondents indicatingthat they had been displaced by fees or had reduced their visitation to feesites. Bowker et al. (1999) examined a portion of the data collectedthrough the 1995 National Survey on Recreation and the Environmentand observed that income was positively related to support for fees.They also examined the effect of income on fee support within the con-text of individual services (e.g., historic sites, camp grounds, boat ramps)but only observed a significant relationship for one service element.They suggested, however, that "The lack of significance in the individ-ual models could derive from the fact that in many forms of outdoorrecreation, individuals in similar income brackets choose similar activ-ities and sites, thus masking the effects of income differences" (p. 12).Reiling, Cheng, andTrott (1992) examined the effect of fee increases forcamping in Maine state parks and observed that low income camperstended to camp more often when fees were low and their consumptionsignificantly declined with fee increases. Finally, in a study of 14 Vermontstate parks, Bamford et al. (1988) observed that low income users weremore inclined to select lower priced campsites than higher income userseven when the price differentials were relatively minor (between $0.50and $1.50).

While not all investigations of the relationship between income andvisitation have indicated that low income groups are most adverselyaffected (e.g., Leuschner, Cook, Roggenbuck, & Oderwald, 1987), Moreand Stevens (2000) noted that a problem with some fee research has beenits reliance on visitor surveys as opposed to studies of the general pop-ulation. In an earlier analysis of issues related to fees, More (1999)noted that "Lower income people may well be underrepresented in "cus-tomer" surveys not because they have been excluded but because theyhave reduced their participation" (pp. 232-233).

Thus, on the basis of this literature, there is compelling evidence sup-porting the notion that recreationists' level of income effects their abil-ity to freely engage in desired leisure experiences within some fee-based public leisure service contexts. Given the importance of perceivedfreedom for the experience of leisure (Iso-Ahola, 1980; Mannell &Kleiber, 1997; Neulinger, 1981), threats to these freedoms have impor-tant psychological consequences. Several authors have indicated that psy-chological reactance (Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Iso-Ahola,1980; Mannell & Backman, 1979; Mannell & Kleiber, 1997) is especiallyuseful for understanding the negative psychological impact that ensuesfollowing threats to personal freedoms such as those posed by fees.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4

3 60 Leisure/Loisir, Vol. 29 (2005)

Psychological ReactancePsychological reactance was originally defined by Brehm (1966) as themotivational force to restore lost or threatened freedoms. Reactancetheory is supported by a number of theorists who have argued that indi-viduals desire a sense of personal control over their environments (Ban-dura, 1982; deCharms, 1968; White, 1959). Psychologists have used thetheory to understand psychological responses in a variety of conditionsthat could potentially restrict individual freedom. These have includedinvestigations of reactance to parental or authoritative interventionsaffecting an individual's choice of romantic partners (Driscoll, Davis, &Lipetz, 1972; Wright, Wadley, Danner, & Phillips, 1992), individualresponse to pop-up advertising over the internet (Edwards, Li, & Lee,2002), and employee response to supervisory requests (Sachau, Houli-han, & Gilbertson, 1999). In the context of the leisure literature, however,we could find no empirical work within the major journals that hasincorporated the theory within the past 20 years.

Brehm (1966) noted that the strength of reactance is dependent onseveral factors that hold particular relevance for understanding theimpact of fees for public land recreation. First, the greater the expecta-tion of freedom, the more psychological reactance will be experiencedas a result of the threat or loss of that freedom. Until recently, access torecreational opportunities on most public land was free of charge and,perhaps, considered a right of the citizenry (Dustin, More, & McAvoy,2000). The imposition of fees, however, has the potential to threaten vis-itors' freedom to choose their recreation experiences. Thus, users whohave long enjoyed free access to public lands are likely to experiencemore reactance than those for whom the expectation of free access is notas strong. For those in the lower income strata, the expectation of accessmay even be more salient given their limited ability to enjoy setting sub-stitutes. Tied to this idea is the symbolism encapsulated by public lands.This proposition has been supported in the pricing literature where con-sumers' price expectations or internal reference price for a particulargood are said to be a function of the prices most recently paid. Conse-quently, prices are rejected by consumers if they are not proximatelyclose to the individual's internal reference price (McCarville, Cromp-ton, & Sell, 1993).

The second element affecting the salience of reactance concernsthe perceived strength or severity of the threat (Brehm, 1966). In the con-text of fees for public land recreation, recreationists' perceptions ofthreat strength might be related to the impact of the fee on their access

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


to the setting; that is, their ability to financially accommodate the feeintroduction or increase. For these users, fees represent a relatively newbarrier to their access. While their income is a relatively stable condition,the introduction of fees is a circumstance with which they have limitedpower to negotiate. For this reason, it would seem logical that lowincome users would be among the first to sense a threat to their freedomof access given their limited ability to afford continued consumption(More & Stevens, 2000; Reiling et al., 1992). Also, the larger the feeincrease, the greater the perception of threat by this group.

Finally, the experience of psychological reactance is affected byperceptions of the threat affecting other freedoms (Brehm, 1966). Asnoted by More and colleagues (Dustin et al., 2000; More, 1999, 2002),there are many who perceive fees for public land recreation as symptomsof a growing trend in the privatization of government services. For thosedependent on government services (employees and consumers), theimposition of fees could signal further erosion of other personal free-doms.

MethodsStudyAreaData were collected over the summer and fall of 2002 from visitors to theChattahoochee National Forest (CNF) in northeast Georgia. The forestcovers approximately 750,000 acres in the southeastern region of theAppalachian Range. The CNF supports a variety of recreation opportu-nities that can be found in most National Forests across the U.S. such asinterpretive programs provided at visitor centres, hunting and shootingranges, white water rafting and kayaking, and ATV trails. Many of thevisitors to the CNF travel from the Atlanta region (located approxi-mately 90 minutes to the south) for day and weekend getaways.

Fees for recreational uses (beyond camping) in the CNF were initi-ated as part of the Fee Demonstration Program in 1998. Currently, theFee Demonstration Program in the CNF is implemented through theapplication of parking fees (a single fee per vehicle) which vary by typeof setting. Overall, most areas throughout the CNF where vehicles canbe parked require parking fees. This includes trail heads, picnic areas, vis-itor centres, and ORV use areas. The only way to avoid the payment offees within the CNF is to either use non-motorized transportation or notvisit any of the designated recreation areas. Given the terrain and distancefrom residential areas of the recreation settings, most visitors use motor-ized transportation and pay a fee.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


SampleThe data presented here were collected as part of a broader investigationof visitors' attitudes and preferences related to the Fee DemonstrationProgram within the CNF and service quality issues. Most visitors whocome to recreate within the forest pay some type of fee, either as a dayparking pass or as part of some other weekly or annual fee (e.g., GoldenEagle/Golden Age pass).

Components of several sampling protocols were utilized to obtainour sample. First, sampling points throughout the CNF were stratified toreflect the diversity of settings and activities that required fee paymentas part of the Fee Demonstration Program. To help ensure that adequatenumbers were obtained for each type of setting, we selected the two mostheavily visited sites for each setting type (i.e., a total of eight samplinglocations). Precise visitation numbers were not available at the time ofthis study, so use intensity was based on Forest Service personnel esti-mates. Our budget allowed for 60 sampling days beginning MemorialDay weekend 2002 through late October. Thus, seven to eight samplingdays were dedicated to each site spread across weekdays and weekends.

We utilized a systematic sampling design for sampling respondents'onsite. Sampling occurred between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Every thirdvisitor was approached to participate in a short interview lasting approx-imately three minutes. At the conclusion of the interview, researchersrequested the respondent's name and address in order that they might besent a more extensive mailback survey instrument. From this, weobtained 1,353 useable names and addresses with 68 refusals. Of thissample, 42 names and addresses were incorrect leaving us with 1,311valid names and addresses.

The mailback questionnaire was administered using a modified Dill-man (2000) procedure: (a) subjects were first sent a survey instrumenttwo weeks after their onsite contact; (b) two weeks following this, areminder/thank you postcard was sent; (c) a second survey instrumentwas then sent to non-respondents approximately one month following theinitial contact; (d) a second reminder/thank you postcard was sent tonon-respondents six weeks following their initial contact; and (e) a thirdsurvey instrument was sent to non-respondents approximately twomonths following their onsite contact. This procedure yielded 562 com-pleted survey instruments (43% response rate).

The response rate, however, was below our expectation. We used twoprocedures to explore issues related to non-response bias. First, therewere several identical items (e.g., previous visitation, time spent onsite,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


fee attitude questions) that we used in both the onsite and mailback sur-veys. We compared the responses of non-respondents to those of respon-dents for both the onsite and mailback questionnaires. No significant dif-ferences between respondents and non-respondents were observed.

We then conducted a follow-up telephone survey of non-respondentsto test for potential non-response bias as well as to further explore rea-sons why respondents had not returned their survey instruments. Re-spondents' telephone numbers were collected from an internet-basedsearch engine. Fifty telephone interviews were completed (eight respon-dents refused to be interviewed). The telephone survey lasted approxi-mately three minutes. Questions on the telephone survey examined pastvisitation, fee-related issues, and visitor demographics. Again, weobserved no significant differences between the telephone and mail-back samples on all items. On the basis of these non-response checks, weconcluded that bias arising from non-response was not severely skewingour data.

MeasuresIn addition to questions related to respondents' socio-demographic char-acteristics, several questions were asked of their previous use history ofthe CNF (e.g., past visitation, length of stay) and their general attitudestoward the Forest Service Fee Program (e.g., "Overall, the fee programis a good thing," "Fees are fair"). Psychological reactance was measuredusing items adapted from Hong and Faedda's (1996) psychological reac-tance scale. This scale was designed to measure two dimensions of reac-tance; behavioural freedom and freedom of choice. Behavioural freedomreferred to the desire to maintain the freedom to engage in specificbehaviours (e.g., "Fees engender feelings of discontent because theyrestrict my ability to act on my own free will," "The Forest Service FeeProgram will not influence my intention to visit sites throughout this For-est"). Alternately, freedom of choice, referred to the psychological re-sponse ensuing from constraints impinging individuals' ability to chooserecreation settings and leisure experiences (e.g., "I am frustrated bycompulsory fees because they restrict my ability to make free and inde-pendent decisions about where to visit and recreate," "I become angrywhen I encounter fees because I feel as though my freedom of choice isrestricted").

The following directions were provided to respondents to completethe fee attitude and reactance items:

We would like to understand your feelings toward the Forest Service FeeProgram. Following are a series of statements that have been expressed by

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


the public and media. Please indicate your level of agreement with eachstatement below.

These items were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale where1 = "strongly disagree" through 5 = "strongly agree." The means of theitems measuring psychological reactance are reported in Table 1. Over-all, most respondents indicated that they did not experience high levelsof psychological reactance in response to encountering fees. The factorloadings and significant ^-values, also reported in Table 1, provide evi-dence of convergent validity.1 While not reported, we also observedevidence of discriminant validity.2 When holding the latent factor corre-lations to 1.0, we observed a significant deterioration in the model fitindices compared to the model allowing the free estimation of theseparameters. Each dimension demonstrated adequate internal consistencywith Cronbach alphas ranging between .77 for behavioural freedom and.85 for freedom of choice (Nunnally, 1978).

AnalysesTo test the hypothesis that household income is inversely related to theexperience of psychological reactance, we examined the latent meanstructure of three income groups using LISREL (version 8.5). Ninehousehold income categories were pooled to form three categories rep-resenting $0 to $39,999 (« = 120), $40,000 to $99,999 (n = 288), and$100,000 or more (« = 154).3 Covariance matrices for the psychologicalreactance items were then constructed for each income group to be usedfor our examination of their latent mean structures.4 Prior to formallytesting the hypothesis, we first examined respondents' personal charac-teristics (e.g., age education, gender distribution), their history of use ofthe CNF, and their attitudes toward the Forest Service Fee Program.

While the majority of studies that have examined mean differencesbetween groups related to psychological phenomena have relied onobserved rather than latent variable means, Byrne (1988) noted thatsuch analyses may be limited by three factors: (a) observed means maybe contaminated with measurement error; (b) the analysis implicitlyassumes factoral invariance of observed variables; and (c) the adequacyof the measure (i.e., validity and reliability) cannot be determined accu-rately. These limitations can be overcome using latent structure meananalysis. For example, latent means are error free and, consequently, rep-resent the true value of the construct under study. Also, the estimationsof latent means also take into account a priori information concerningvarious degrees of invariance for the observed measures (e.g., pattern offactor loadings, factor variances/covariances, error dependencies).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4

Table 1Construct Items, Mean, Standard Deviations, Factor Loadings, and T-values

Overall Low Medium HighItems8 a M SD X /-value* M SD M SD M SD

Behavioural FreedomBF] Fees engender feelings of discontent because they

restrict my ability to act on my own free willBF2 I deliberately choose to avoid fee sitesBF3 The Forest Service Fee Program will not influence

my intention to visit sites throughout this Forestb

BF4 When someone forces me to do something, likepaying fees, I feel like doing the opposite

Freedom of ChoiceFC] Fees trigger a sense of resistance in meFC2 I am frustrated by compulsory fees because they

restrict my ability to make free and independentdecisions about where to visit and recreate

FC3 I become angry when I encounter fees because Ifeel as though my freedom of choice is restricted

FC4 I become angry when my freedom of choice isrestricted by Forest Service rules and regulations

77

85

2.00

2.001.90

2.15

1.93

2.012.03

2.04

1.91

2.04

.64

.85

.82

.85

.80

.73

.92

.86

.82

.88

.73

.73

.55

.68

2.12.78

.79

.82

.70

2.13

16.00

11.85

14.97

.73—

18.41

19.42

15.77

.68

2.182.03

2.31

2.01

2.012.10

2.22

2.09

2.10

1.99

.80

.89

.86

.82

.75

.92

.88

.86

.89

.62

1.971.93

2.12

1.92

1.832.05

2.03

1.89

2.06

1.85

.85

.84

.82

.78

.67

.96

.84

.81

.90

.63

1.851.69

2.02

1.85

1.86

1.79

1.73

1.93

.85

.69

.84

.79

.83

.78

.77

.86

a Respondents were requested to indicate the level of agreement on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 = "Strongly disagree" through 5 = "Strongly agree."b Reverse coded.* /-values > 1.96 are statistically significant for a = .05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


Based on the work of Hong and Faedda (1996) and Hellman andMcMillin (1997), we hypothesized a two-dimensional structure of psy-chological reactance consisting of behavioural freedom and freedom ofchoice. The analysis progressed in three stages. First, the data wereexamined separately for each income group using confirmatory factoranalytic procedures to establish baseline models.5 Second, since severalauthors have suggested that any discussion of mean differences is prob-lematic unless it is known that the measures and the structure of the con-struct under study are equivalent across groups (Byrne, Shavelson, &Muthen, 1989; Marsh & Grayson, 1994), measurement invariance wasestablished before considering differences in latent psychological reac-tance means. Finally, group differences in reactance scores were tested.

In covariance structure analysis, Byrne (1988) suggested that theextent to which a proposed model fits the observed data should be deter-mined using multiple criteria. Assessment of fit in the present study wasbased on several empirical indicators (i.e., RMSEA, NFI, CFI, IFI, sig-nificant f-values, and the modification indices provided by the LISRELprograms) and knowledge of substantive and theoretical research in thisarea.

ResultsSocio-demographic ProfileAs shown in Table 2, most respondents were white (95.4%), middle-aged(M= 44.90, SD = 13.30), male (58.4%), and relatively well educatedwith most possessing some form of post-high school education (87.1%).In terms of respondents' household income, most indicated incomes inexcess of $40,000 per annum. Lastly, reflecting the Forest's relativelyclose proximity to the Atlanta region, a large portion of respondents hadtraveled between 50 and 150 miles to visit the Forest.6 While not reportedin the table, no significant variation was observed between the threeincome categories with regard to the distance they had traveled to visitthe Forest (x2 = 12.49, df= 14).

Forest Use HistoryAs reflected in Table 3, no significant variation was observed among thethree income groups with regard to several indicators of previous use his-tory. These indicators examined: (a) whether or not the visit in which theywere asked to participate in this investigation was their first (x2 = .94,df=2); (b) the number of days they had spent on the forest the preced-ing 12 months (F = 2, 357); (c) duration of this visit (F = .14, df = 2,346); (d) the year of their first visit (F = .32, df= 2,345), and their useof other outdoor recreation settings (F= .91, df— 2,463).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


Table 2Sample Socio-Demographic Characteristics

Variable

Sex MaleFemale

Age (M, SD)

Education 8 the grade or lessSome high schoolHigh school graduate or GEDBusiness school, trade school, some collegeCollege graduateSome graduate schoolMasters, doctoral, or professional school

Household Income Less than $20,000$20,000 to $39,999$40,000 to $59,999$60,000 to $79,999$80,000 to $99,999$100,000 to $119,999$120,000 to $139,999$140,000 to $159,999$160,000 or more

Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino

Race Black or African AmericanAsian AmericanWhiteAmerican Indian or Alaskan NativeNative Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

Residential Proximity Less than 10 miles11-50 miles51-100 miles101-150 miles151-250 miles251-500 miles501-1000 milesMore than 1000 miles

Frequency

309220

44.90, 13.30

11057

14915148

112

2579

108836160262126

5

89

49970

1455

15860568065

5

(%)

(58.4)(41.6)

(.2)(1.9)

(10.8)(28.2)(28.6)

(9.1)(21.2)

(5-1)(16.2)(22.1)(17.0)(12.5)(12.3)(5.3)(4.3)(5.3)

(•9)

(1.5)(1.7)

(95.4)(1.3)

(.0)

(2.8)(11.2)(32.0)(12.2)(11.4)(16.2)(13.2)(1.0)

Attitudes Toward the Forest Service Fee ProgramPrior to examining the relationship between psychological reactanceand household income, we examined respondents' attitudes toward theForest Fee Program (see Table 4). An analysis of variance procedure(with Scheffe's post hoc tests) was conducted for each of the items7 toexamine mean variation across the income groups. While, overall, therewas general support for recreation fees and little behavioural change inresponse to their implementation, statistically significant relationshipswere observed. Recall that our hypothesis suggested that income wouldbe inversely related to psychological reactance. These findings illus-trate that, as income increased, respondents were more supportive of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4

Table 3Visitor Use History

Income Group

Variable Low Medium High

Was this your first visit to the Chattahoochee National Forest (%yes) 34.0 84.0 42.0

About how many days have you spent on the Chattahoochee in the last 12 months?(M.SD) 12.1 (16.3) 8.8 (9.4) 9.9(16.3)

Typically, when you visit the Chattahoochee National Forest, how long do you stay?(M,SD hours) 36.1(57.0) 34.4(39.0) 37.8(63.3)

In what year did you make your first visit? 1988 (14.2) 1987 (13.2) 1986 (12.8)

During the past 12 months, how many trips have you made to other outdoorrecreation settings not including the Chattahoochee National Forest? (M, SD) 7.1(11.6) 9.4(22.8) 7.3 (8.8)

X2(2,= 0.94

^(2.357) = 1-74

''(2,346)

F(2,345)

= 0.14

= 32.0

r (2,463) = .91

Table 4Attitudes toward the Forest Service Fee Program

Low Medium High

Variable

4.01

2.4"2.4'

3.92.0'

(.8)

(•9)(.9)(.8)(.9)

M(SD)

4.0'2.22.11

4.0

1.9"

(.8)

(9)(9)(.8)(.8)

4.2b

2.0b

2.1b

4.1

1.7"

(.8)

(.9)(1.0)(.8)

(.7)

^(2,483) = 3-50*

^(2,481) = 4 . 1 4 *F(2i475) = 3.84*

^(2,430)= l-!2Fa 4841 = 5.59*

Overall, the fee program is a good thingBecause of fees, I prefer to visit other sites nearbyFees are inappropriate because they exclude some visitorsFees are fairI did not expect to encounter a fee for access to the Chattahoochee National Forest

Note. Different superscripts indicate significant difference.*p<.05.**p<.0\.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


fee program and were less likely to visit other settings. While thesefindings do not offer direct support for our hypothesis, the data do indi-cate a pattern of findings illustrating that fees have the potential toimpact lower income users most.

Baseline ModelsThe first step in the analyses to test for latent mean differences among thethree incomes groups was to determine a baseline model for each group.Displayed in the top half of Table 5, the baseline model tested ade-quately fit each of the income groups' covariance matrices (Low In-come— x2

(i7) = 18.53, RMSEA = .000, NFI = .96, CFI = 1.0, IFI = 1.0;Medium Income—y}{X1) = 27.82, RMSEA = .052, NFI = .97, CFI = .99,IFI = .99; High Income—y}{V1) = 16.55, RMSEA = .000, NFI = .96,CFI = 1.0, IFI = 1.0). The modification indices provided in the LISRELoutput indicated that by allowing the error (uniqueness) of several itemsto covary, substantial improvements in model fit could be made (i.e.,BF, <-> FC, and BF, -^YC^). Byrne (1988), describing the same procedureused in one of her own investigations, indicated that "These error covari-ances represented nonrandom measurement error that was introduced bya particular measurement method, and they are not uncommon to analy-ses of psychological constructs" (p. 58). In the context of this investiga-tion, the covariation among error terms resulted from a common sourceof error; the close proximity of the items on the questionnaire, the samelevel of measurement, and similarity in item wording.

Table 5Model Fit Indices

Model

Baseline ModelsLowMediumHigh

Final ModelsModel AModel B

18.5327.82*16.55

138.42147.90

df

171717

7777

RMSEAb.

.000

.052

.000

.069

.071

NFIC

.96

.97

.97

.93

.93

CFIC

1.00.99

1.00

.97

.97

IFIC

1.00.99

1.00

.97

.97

a Byrne (1998) noted that the x2 statistic is overly sensitive to sample size (N > 100). Conse-quently, we chose to use other indicators of model fit.

b Root means square error of approximation (RMSEA) values < 1.0 are considered adequate(Kenny, 2002).

c The normed fit index (NFI) (Bentler & Bonett, 1980), comparative fit index (CFI) (Bentler,1990), and incremental fit index (IFI) (Bollen, 1989) values range between 0 and 1.0. Values >.90 are considered adequate (Kenny, 2002)

*/><.05.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4

370 Leisure/Loisin Vol. 29 (2005)

Tests oflnvariance and Latent Mean DifferencesTests for the equivalency of psychological reactance measurements andstructure involved the analysis of covariance matrices to estimate param-eters simultaneously across income groups. Byrne (1998) has suggestedthat an important assumption in testing for mean differences is that themeasurement and structure of the underlying constructs are equivalentacross groups. Thus, LISREL assumes that both variable intercepts (ts)and the factor loadings (ks) are invariant (i.e., constrained to be equal)across groups. To test group differences among the three income groups,the latent mean for one group was specified to be zero and the latentmean for the other groups were freely estimated. Thus, two models weretested; one that contrasted the low income group against the medium andhigh income groups, and one that contrasted the medium income groupagainst the low and high income groups. The parameters tested in thesemodels are depicted in Figure 1. Note that paths with broken lines wereheld invariant across both groups. All other paths were freely estimated.Interpretation of the model can be summarized as: (a) variances of theexogenous factors (§s) were freely estimated in each group, as were thecovariances among them (the <j>s); (b) variances of the measurementerrors associated with the observed measures (5 s) were freely estimatedin each group; (c) except for factor loadings (ks) fixed to 1.00, all wereconstrained equal across groups (see Table 4); (d) all intercepts for theobserved measures (tj-Tg) were constrained equal across groups; and(e) in each model tested (i.e., Model A and Model B), factor intercepts(K,-K2) were freely estimated in one group and constrained equal tozero in the two other groups (i.e., reference groups).

Figure 1Model Tested for Latent Mean Differences among

Low, Medium and High Income Groups

I Constant f

Constant}-:':'.':."-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


The fit indices for the final models analyzed are reported at the bot-tom of Table 5 and indicate an acceptable fit (Model a—y}ai) = 138.42,RMSEA = .069, NFI = .93, CFI = .97, IFI = .97; Model b—y}(17) =147.90, RMSEA =.071, NFI =.93, CFI =.97, IFI =.97). Each of the mod-els (i.e., Model A and Model B) refer to the separate planned contrasts.As shown in Table 6, the Kappa (K) estimates for Model A indicated thatthere were significant differences between the low income andmedium/high income groups on both dimensions of psychological reac-tance (behavioural freedom—K - .25, t = 3.59; freedom of choice—K =.22, t - 2.68). The positive sign indicated that the low income group'sscores on the dimensions of psychological reactance were significantlyhigher than the medium and high income groups. For Model B, the con-trast between the medium and low/high income groups was not statisti-cally significant (behavioural freedom—K = .05, t = .94; freedom ofchoice—K = .11, t - 1.68). Thus, these results suggest that significant dif-ferences in psychological reactance scores lay between the low and highincome groups only. These results offer partial support for our hypoth-esis suggesting that household income is inversely related to the experi-ence of psychological reactance in response to encountering fees for pub-lic land recreation.

Table 6Kappa Estimates

Kappa (K) /-value

Model ABehavioural Freedom .25 3.59*Freedom of Choice .22 2.68*

Model BBehavioural Freedom .05 .94Freedom of Choice .11 1.68

*p < .05.

DiscussionConceptual IssuesThe purpose of this investigation was to examine the relationshipbetween household income and the experience of psychological reac-tance in response to encountering fees for public land recreation. Wehypothesized that household income would be inversely related to psy-chological reactance such that respondents who reported lower house-hold incomes would be more likely to score significantly higher on ourmeasures of psychological reactance than higher income groups. Ourdata offered partial support for this hypothesis. While psychological

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


reactance scores declined as household income grew, only the low andhigh income groups were significantly different from one another. Con-sequently, these findings also provided further empirical support for theidea that those earning less are more adversely affected by fees than arehigh income groups (see Bamford et al., 1988; Bowker et al., 1999;More, 1999; More & Stevens, 2000; Reiling et al., 1992). In this studycontext, those earning less were more inclined to indicate that feesthreatened their freedom to engage in desired leisure experiences.

While these data indicate an inverse relationship between householdincome and the experience of psychological reactance, they raise ofhost of questions concerning why this may be so. Earlier, we noted thatfees for public land recreation, particularly those initiated as part of theFee Demonstration Program, are relatively new. Consequently the expec-tation of free access to these resources may still be high for all respon-dents. For low income users, however, the threat posed by fees may beespecially salient given their limited ability to accommodate fees or feeincreases. While their incomes are remaining relatively constant, thecost of living and leisure, in particular, continues to rise. Fees representa psychological barrier to access that they, for the most part, are unableto negotiate. Faced with ever diminishing options while maintainingtheir current contribution to the tax base, negative emotional responsesare likely to be aroused.

Fees may also be representative of the declining government supportoffered to low income households (Dustin et al., 2000; More & Stevens,2000). The imposition of fees maybe indicative of the continued erosionof choice that has accompanied the withdrawal of government services.While our data offers only tangential insight on these issues, they shouldremain the focus of investigations examining the impacts of fees.

Another issue raised by these data that we consider worthy of con-tinued investigation concerns the consequences of experiencing reac-tance. Beyond a negative emotional response, Iso-Ahola (1980) notedthat "When a person is faced with an uncontrollable event preventing thepursuit of a given leisure activity that has been freely accessible previ-ously, the resulting reactance generates certain effects which can bechannelled in a number of ways and in various directions" (p. 192).Brehm and colleagues (Brehm, 1966; Wortman & Brehm, 1975) notedseveral of the most common effects; (a) increased attractiveness of thethreatened or eliminated freedom; (b) direct attempts to pursue thethreatened freedom; (c) attempts to compensate for the loss by engagingin related behaviours; and (d) hostile and aggressive feelings and actions.While there is evidence that low income groups are displaced or have

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


reduced their consumption in response to fees (Bamford et al., 1988;More & Stevens, 2000; Reiling et al., 1992), much remains to be under-stood about psychological and behavioural mechanisms these groupsemploy to accommodate threats to their leisure. While our analysis illus-trated that income had little effect on respondents' use of the CNF overthe past 12 months, when asked directly about the displacing effect offees (e.g., "Because of fees, I prefer to visit other sites nearby") it wouldappear that some form of behavioural adjustment occurs given that thelower income group indicated significantly stronger agreement than thehigh income group. Given what is at stake (i.e., the psychological andphysiological well being of a large and growing disadvantaged popula-tion), we would think that continued investigation ought to be a priorityfor both researchers investigating fee issues and public leisure serviceproviders.

Some guidance in this area has already been provided by researchersexamining issues related to recreation substitution. For example, Iso-Ahola (1986) proposed that individuals are more willing to substituteactivities when their desire to do so is intrinsically motivated. In the con-text of understanding how low income groups respond to fees, his propo-sitions may have considerable merit. He suggested that psychologicalreactance is likely to be aroused in situations where (a) there is externalpressure for individuals to substitute; (b) the reasons underlying theneed for substitution are perceived to be unfair; (c) substitute alternativesare few; and (d) the need for substitution is unexpected. While we did notexplicitly measure each of these circumstances, arguments suggestingthat fees impact low income groups in this manner could be presented foreach of them. For example, McCarville, Reiling, and White (1996)reported that local users of six Army Corps of Engineers day-use areasreported lower incomes than the rest of their sample and also reportedlower "fair prices" for access to boating and picnic areas than thosewho lived further from the recreation areas. They defined fairness as the"subjective assessment of that which is just, right, or honest" (p. 192).Using Iso-Ahola's framework, McCarville et al.'s results imply that feesset beyond what is perceived fair by the low income groups, perhaps atthe sample's mean or median, could potentially arouse reactance amongthe low income groups given that this price estimate would be abovewhat they considered fair.

With regard to viable substitute settings, the CNF also providesrecreation opportunities that are relatively scarce (e.g., Whitewater kayak-ing, ORV use areas). Enjoyment of these opportunities also often requiresconsiderable investment in related equipment. It is possible that these

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


"sunk costs" combined with relatively few viable setting alternativesleads to the experience of reactance among some visitors in response tothem having little choice but to accept whatever fee they encounter.

Two caveats need to be considered when interpreting these findings.First, in spite of the linear pattern observed among the income groups interms of their scores on the dimensions of reactance, all groups' reactancescores were low (i.e., below neutrality). Clearly, for most of these respon-dents, encountering $2/$3 parking fees does not present a problem.Second, the magnitude of these fees could also be considered minor inlight of the total costs associated with visits that often include one/twohour drive from the Atlanta metropolitan area. Thus, in light of their totalcosts, these fees arouse little in terms of negative sentiment.

Measurement IssuesOur measure of psychological reactance was adapted from Hong andFaedda's (1996) psychological reactance scale (i.e., the Hong Psycholog-ical Reactance Scale). While this scale's psychometric properties havebeen established in the psychology literature (Hong & Faedda, 1996;Thomas, Donnell, & Buboltz, 2001), to our knowledge, we are the firstto utilize the scale within the context of leisure. While these findings pro-vided further empirical support for the scale (as evidenced in factorloadings, /-values, and reliability coefficients), we would encourage fur-ther testing in other contexts.

Beyond concerns related to the low response rate, our samplingprotocol also suffers from the concerns expressed by More (1999);namely, the use of visitors who have already paid their fee to gain access.More suggested that these sampling protocols have the potential to auto-matically exclude low income groups. While this may have contributedto the relatively low means for each of the reactance items noted above,it could also imply that these findings are even more pertinent. After hav-ing excluded many of the potential respondents who could possiblyincrease the power of our findings, we still observed statistically signif-icant relationships in the hypothesized direction. It would be interestingto examine reactance among a sample more representative of the generalpopulation and we certainly echo More's call for more inclusive sam-pling designs. Our sampling design was determined by the needs of thefunding agency and the limited resources available to meet their needs.

Beyond the psychological impact of fees, psychological reactancecould also assist leisure researchers with understanding the psycholog-ical consequences associated with other recreational contexts whereindividual freedoms are impinged upon. Specifically, these would include

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


instances where individuals might be displaced because of other users(e.g., crowding, conflict) or management decisions (e.g., use restric-tions, fees).

Concluding CommentsOur findings have illustrated that as household income declines, per-ceived threats to individuals' freedom to enjoy leisure opportunitieswithin the context of public lands increase. In this investigation, thenegative psychological outcome that is associated with this threat wasconsidered in terms of the theory of psychological reactance. It hasbeen our contention that the theory of psychological reactance providesresearchers with a valuable framework for understanding and quantify-ing the negative psychological outcomes that are aroused when certainfreedoms are threatened. As discussed above, there may also be manyother factors that influence the experience of reactance in response tofees. We feel these unanswered questions present interesting opportuni-ties for continued investigation.

ReferencesAdler, A. (1964). Superiority and social interest: A collection of later writings.

Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Bamford, T.E., Manning, R.E., Foreter, L.K., & Koeneman, E.H. (1988). Dif-

ferential campsite pricing: An experiment. Journal of Leisure Research,20,324-339.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psy-chologist, 37,122-147.

Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psycholog-ical Bulletin, 707,238-246.

Bentler, P.M., & Bonett, D.G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit inthe analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88,588-606.

Bollen, K.A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural models.Sociological Methods and Research, 17, 303-316.

Bowker, J.M., Cordell, H.K., & Johnson, C.Y. (1999). User fees for recreationservice on public lands: A national assessment. Journal of Park andRecreation Administration, 77(3), 1-14.

Brehm, S. S. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: AcademicPress.

Brehm, S.S., & Brehm, J.W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of free-dom and control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Byrne, B.M. (1988). Adolescent self-concept, ability grouping, and social com-parison: Reexamining academic track differences in high school. Youthand Society, 20(1), 46-67.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, andSIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthen, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalenceof factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measure-ment invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105,456-466.

deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinantsof behavior. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: A tailored design method. NewYork: Wiley.

Driscoll, R., Davis, K.W., & Lipetz, M.E. (1972). Parental interference andromantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24,1-10.

Dustin, D.L., More, T.A., & McAvoy, L.H. (2000). The faithful execution of ourpublic trust: Fully funding the National Parks through taxes. Journalof Park and Recreation Administration, 18(4), 92-103.

Edwards, S.M., Li, H., Lee, J. (2002). Forced exposure and psychological reac-tance: Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness ofpop-up ads. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 83-95.

Hellman, CM., & McMillin, W.L. (1997). The relationship between psycholog-ical reactance and self-esteem. The Journal of Social Psychology, 137,135-138.

Hong, S.M., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reac-tance Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56,173-182.

Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1980). The social psychology of leisure and recreation.Dubuque, LA: Wm. C. Brown.

Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1986). A theory of substitutability of leisure behavior. LeisureSciences, 8, 367-389.

Kenny, D.A. (2002, December 18). Measuring model fit. In Structural equationmodeling. Retrieved September 23,2003, from <http://users.rcn.com/dakenny/fit.htm>.

Kyle, G.T., Absher, J.D., & Graefe, A.R. (2003). The moderating role of placeattachment on the relationship between attitudes toward fees andspending preferences. Leisure Sciences, 21,33-50.

Lefcourt, H.M. (1973). The function of the illusions of control and freedom.American Psychologist, 28,417-425.

Leuschner, W.A., Cook, P.S., Roggenbuck, J.W., & Oderwald, R.G. (1987). Acomparative analysis for wilderness user fee policy. Journal of LeisureResearch, 19,101-114.

Mannell, R.C., & Backman, S.J. (1979). The effects of perceived freedom ofchoice and locus of control on transient "leisure" experiences. In E.M.Avedon, M. Lelevre, & T. Stewart (Eds.), Contemporary leisure re-search. Waterloo, ON: Ontario Research Council on Leisure.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4


Mannell, R.C., & Kleiber, D.A. (1997). A social psychology of leisure. State Col-lege, PA: Venture.

Marsh, H.W., & Grayson, D. (1994). Longitudinal stability of latent means andindividual differences: A unified approach. Structural Equation Mod-eling, 1, 317-359.

McCarville, R.E., Crompton, J.L., & Sell, J.A. (1993). The influence of outcomemessages on reference prices. Leisure Sciences, 15, 115-130.

McCarville, R.E., Reiling, S.D., & White, CM. (1996). The role of fairness inusers' assessments of first-time fees for a public recreation service.Leisure Sciences, 18, 61-76.

More, T.A. (1999). A functionalist approach to user fees. Journal of LeisureResearch, 31,227-244.

More, T.A. (2002). "The parks are being loved to death" and other frauds anddeceits in recreation management. Journal of Leisure Research, 34,52-78.

More, T.A., & Stevens, T. (2000). Do user fees exclude low-income people fromresource-based recreation? Journal of Leisure Research, 32,341-357.

Neulinger, J. (1981). The psychology of leisure (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL:Charles C. Thomas.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Reiling, S.D., Cheng, H., & Trott, C. (1992). Measuring the discriminatoryimpact associated with higher recreational fees. Leisure Sciences, 14,121-137.

Richer, J.R., & Christensen, N.A. (1999). Appropriate fees for wilderness dayuse: Pricing decisions for recreation on public land. Journal of LeisureResearch, 31,269-280.

Sachau, D.A., Houlihan, D., & Gilbertson, T. (1999). Predictors of employeeresistance to supervisors' requests. The Journal of Social Psychology,139, 611-617.

Schneider, I.E., & Budruk, M. (1999). Displacement as a response to the federalrecreation fee program. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,77(3), 76-84.

Schroeder, H., & Louviere, J. (1999). Stated choice models for predicting theimpact of user fees at public recreation sites. Journal of LeisureResearch, 31, 300-324.

Solop, EL, Hagen, K.K., & Ostergren, D. (2003). National Park Service fees:An examination of public attitudes technical report. Retrieved August21st, 2003, from <http://www.nps.gov/socialscience/waso/NPS_Fees_Report.pdf>.

Thomas, A., Donnell, A.J., & Buboltz, W.C. (2001). The Hong PsychologicalReactance Scale: A confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement andEvaluation in Counseling and Development, 34(April), 2-13.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4

378 Leisure ILoisir, Vol. 29 (2005)

White, R.W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psy-chological Review, 66,197-333.

Williams, D.R., Vogt, C.A., & Vitterse, J. (1999). Structural equation modelingof users' response to wilderness recreation fees. Journal of LeisureResearch, 31,245-268.

Winter, P.L., Palucki, L. J., & Burkhardt, R.L. (1999). Anticipated responses toa fee program: The key is trust. Journal of Leisure Research, 31,207-226.

Wortman, C.B., & Brehm, J.W. (1975). Responses to uncontrollable outcomes:An integration of reactance theory and the learned helplessness model.In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 8, pp. 277-336). New York: Academic Press.

Wright, R.A., Wadley, V.G., Danner, M., & Phillips, P.N. (1992). Persuasion,reactance, and judgments of interpersonal appeal. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 22, 85-91.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tex

as A

&M

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

28 2

0 M

arch

201

4

The experience of psychological reactance in response to encountering fees for public land...

Documents

Transcript of The experience of psychological reactance in response to encountering fees for public land...