Quality of Life and Leisure Activities: How do Leisure Activities Contribute to Subjective Well-Being?

Abstract

The quality of life is determined with objective factors and also with subjective perception of factors which influence human life. Leisure activities play a very important role in subjective well-being because they provide opportunities to meet life values and needs. Through participation in leisure activities people build social relationships, feel positive emotions, acquire additional skills and knowledge, and therefore improve their quality of life. In this report we will explore how leisure activities improve subjective well-being. We will try to distinguish among different types of leisure activities and find those which contribute more to the subjective well-being. Particularly, we will explore which leisure activities contribute to the subjective well-being of women and men of different age. Our study is based on data from a representative sample of Croatian citizens (N = 4,000), who estimated their subjective well-being and participation in various leisure activities. First, we will describe the subjective well-being of various groups of people who differ by gender and age. Afterward, we will identify important leisure activities which determine subjective well-being across age and gender groups. Overall, our results show that engagement in leisure activities contributes to subjective well being, while the pattern of important leisure activities somewhat varies across different age and gender groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Auld, C., & Case, A. (1997). Social exchange processes in leisure and non-leisure settings: A review and exploratory investigation. Journal of Leisure Research, 29, 183–200.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bejaković, P., & Kaliterna Lipovčan, L. J. (2007). Quality of life in Croatia: Key findings from national research. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cummins, R. A. (2002). International wellbeing index, version 2. Retrived May 8, 2008, from http://acqol.deakin.edu.au/inter_wellbeing/Index-CoreItemsDraft2.doc.

  4. Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., Van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian unity wellbeing index. Social Indicators Research, 64, 159–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2000). Explaining differences in societal levels of happiness: Relative standards need fulfilment, culture, and evaluation theory. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 41–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annul Review of Psychology, 54, 403–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eurostat. (2009). Youth in Europe. A statistical portrait. Luxembourg: European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fukumoto, N., & Yamaguchi, Y. (2002). A study of relationship between leisure and life satisfaction of the elderly. Bulletin of the Faculty of Human Development, 9(2), 419–425.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Henderson, K. A., Hodges, S., & Kivel, B. D. (2002). Context and dialogue in research on women and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(3), 253–271.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Iwasaki, Y. (2007). Leisure and quality of life in an international and multicultural context: What are major pathways linking leisure to quality of life? Social Indicators Research, 82, 233–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kaliterna Lipovčan, L. J., & Prizmić-Larsen, Z. (2006). Kvaliteta življenja, životno zadovoljstvo i osjećaj sreće u Hrvatskoj i europskim zemljama. [Quality of life, life satisfaction and happiness in Croatia in comparison to European countries]. In K. Ott (Ed.), Pridruživanje Hrvatske Europskoj uniji. Izazovi sudjelovanja (pp. 181–198). Zagreb: Institut za javne financije & Zaklada Friedrich Ebert.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kemperman, A. D. A. M., & Timmermans, H. J. P. (2008). Influence of socio-demographic and residential environment on leisure activity participation. Leisure Sciences, 30, 306–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lemon, B. W., Bengtson, V. L., & Peterson, J. A. (1972). An exploration of the activity theory of aging: Activity types and life satisfaction among in-movers to a retirement community. Journal of Gerontology, 27, 511–523.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Leung, L., & Lee, P. S. N. (2005). Multiple determinants of life quality: the roles of Internet activities use of new media, social support, and leisure activities. Telematics and Informatics, 22, 161–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lloyd, K. M., & Auld, C. J. (2002). The role of leisure in determining quality of life: issues of content and measurement. Social Indicators Research, 57, 43–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McCormick, B., & McGuire, F. (1996). Leisure in community life of older rural residents. Leisure Sciences, 18, 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6(1), 10–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nimrod, G., & Adoni, H. (2006). Leisure-style and life satisfaction among recent retirees in Israel. Aging & Society, 26, 607–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Oishi, S., Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). Cross-cultural variations in predictors of life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 980–990.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Passmore, A., & French, D. (2001). Development and administration of a measure to assess adolescents’ participation in leisure activities. Adolescence, 36(141), 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Raboteg-Šarić, Z., Sakoman, S., & Brajša-Žganec, A. (2002). Stilovi roditeljskog odgoja, slobodno vrijeme i rizično ponašanje mladih. [Parental child-rearing styles, leisure time activities and adolescent risk behaviour]. Društvena istraživanja, 58–59, 239–263.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Robinson, J. P., & Martin, S. (2008). What do happy people do? Social Indicators Research, 89, 565–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rodríguez, A., Látková, P., & Sun, Y.-Y. (2008). The relationship between leisure and life satisfaction: application of activity and need theory. Social Indicators Research, 86, 163–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Scott, D., & Willits, F. K. (1998). Adolescent and adult leisure patterns: A Reassessment. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(3), 319–330.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Shinew, K. J., Floyd, M. F., McGuire, F. A., & Noe, F. P. (1996). Class polarization and leisure activity preferences of African Americans: Intragroup comparison. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(4), 219–232.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Silverstein, M., & Parker, M. G. (2002). Leisure activities and quality of life among the oldest in Sweden. Research on Aging, 24, 528–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sylvia-Bobiak, S., & Caldwell, L. L. (2006). Factors related to physically active leisure among college students. Leisure Sciences, 28(1), 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tinsley, H. E. A., & Eldredge, B. D. (1995). Psychological benefits of leisure participation: A taxonomy of leisure activities based on their need-gratification properties. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(2), 123–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tinsley, H. A., Tinsley, D. J., & Croskeys, C. E. (2002). Park usage, social milieu, and psychosocial benefits of park use reported by older urban park users from four ethnic groups. Leisure Sciences, 24, 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Trenberth, L., & Dewe, P. (2002). The importance of leisure as a means of coping with work related stress: An exploratory study. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 15(1), 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Veenhoven, R. (2000). The four qualities of life: Ordering concepts and measures of the good life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 1–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Wachter, C., & Kelly, J. (1998). Exploring VCR use as a leisure activity. Leisure Sciences, 20, 213–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Wendel-Vos, G. C. W., Schuit, A. J., Tijhuis, M. A. R., & Kromhout, D. (2004). Leisure time physical activity and health-related quality of life: Cross-sectional and longitudinal associations. Quality of Life Research, 13, 667–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was conducted as a part of two research projects ‘Development of national indicators of quality of life’ and “Determinants of parenting, family relationships and children’s well-being” funded by the grant from the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia. The earlier version of this paper was presented at the 9th Conference of the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (Florence, Italy, 2009).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iva Šverko.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 3.

Table 3 Frequency of participation in various leisure activities measured by Leisure activities scale: average scores

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Brajša-Žganec, A., Merkaš, M. & Šverko, I. Quality of Life and Leisure Activities: How do Leisure Activities Contribute to Subjective Well-Being?. Soc Indic Res 102, 81–91 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9724-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Leisure activities
  • Subjective well-being
  • Quality of life
  • Age
  • Gender