Korean Society of Leisure, Recreation & Park
[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Leisure, Recreation & Park - Vol. 50, No. 2, pp.49-61
ISSN: 1598-0413 (Print)
Print publication date 30 Jun 2026
Received 30 Apr 2026 Revised 01 Jun 2026 Accepted 08 Jun 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26446/kjlrp.2026.6.50.2.49

심리적 지속 모델(PCM)에 따른 테니스 참여자의 여가촉진, 여가제약 및 여가제약협상의 단계별 차이 분석

강희엽1 ; 전성범2
1연세대학교 강사
2우석대학교 교수
Stage-Based Differences in Leisure Facilitators, Leisure Constraints, and Leisure Constraint Negotiation among Tennis Participants: A Psychological Continuum Model (PCM) Approach
Kang, Hee Yeob1 ; Chun, Sung Bum2
1Yonsei University
2Woosuk University

Correspondence to: Chun, Sung Bum E-mail: bumbumbum1@naver.com

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to classify tennis participants into stages based on the Psychological Continuum Model (PCM) and to examine differences in leisure facilitators, leisure constraints, and leisure constraint negotiation across these stage. A total of 330 valid responses were analyzed using SPSS and AMOS programs. The results are as follows. First, there were statistically significant differences in leisure facilitators among the PCM stage groups, with higher stages showing greater levels of facilitators. Second, no statistically significant differences were found in leisure constraints among the PCM stage groups. Third, there were statistically significant differences in leisure constraint negotiation across all sub-dimensions, with higher PCM stages associated with greater use of negotiation strategies. In conclusion, it can be seen that the higher the PCM stage, the stronger the degree of psychological connection to tennis activities for tennis participants, and accordingly, the level of leisure facilitators and leisure constraint negotiations increases. This can be seen as a result of explaining the process of participation development of tennis participants and proving the theoretical validity of PCM.

Keywords:

psychological continuum model(PCM), tennis participant, leisure facilitators, leisure constraints, leisure constraint negotiation

키워드:

심리적 지속 모델, 테니스 참여자, 여가촉진, 여가제약, 여가제약협상

Acknowledgments

이 논문은 2022년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 인문사회분야 신진연구자지원사업의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2022S1A5A8052613)

References

  • 강희엽(2020). 테니스 참여자의 단계별 참여정도와 몰입 분석: 심리적 지속 모델(PCM)을 바탕으로. 한국사회체육학회지, 80, 161-172.
  • 강희엽, 이철원, 이민석(2017). 노인들의 진지한 여가, 스트레스 관련 성장 및 행복감의 관계. 한국여가레크리에이션학회지, 41(1), 1-14.
  • 김경식, 황선환, 원도연(2008). 여가제약 협상 전략 척도의 개발과 적용. 한국체육학회지, 47(3), 365-376.
  • 김미량(2012). 여가참여수준 세분화에 따른 여가만족과 여가몰입: 진지한 여가와 레크리에이션 전문화를 중심으로. 체육과학연구, 23(3), 566-574.
  • 박상현(2026). 실내 테니스장 소비자의 선택속성, 만족도, 지속이용의도 간의 관계. 코칭능력개발지, 28(2), 41-48.
  • 송영민, 이훈(2006). 여가촉진요인의 구조모형 분석: 주5일 수업제 청소년 여가환경을 중심으로. 관광레져연구, 18(2), 7-24.
  • 우지수(2026, 4월 12일). 인플루언서 프리즘: 테니스 라켓 쥔 MZ세대, ‘랜선 코치’ 찾는다. 더팩트. https://news.tf.co.kr/read/livingculture/2311906.htm
  • 이문진, 황선환(2012). 스키 참가자의 레크리에이션 전문화 수준에 따른 여가제약 분석. 한국여가레크리에이션학회지, 36(3), 72-82.
  • 임새미, 김찬룡(2022). 생활체육 테니스동호인들의 여가문화 향유. 한국스포츠사회학회지, 35(4), 114-128.
  • 한태룡(2003). 테니스 동호인의 하위문화적 정체성에 대한 연구. 미간행 박사학위논문, 서울대학교 대학원.
  • Alexandris, K., Du, J., Funk, D., & Theodorakis, N. D. (2017). Leisure constraints and the psychological continuum model: a study among recreational mountain skiers. Leisure Studies, 36(5), 670-683. [https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2016.1263871]
  • Beaton, A. A., & Funk, D. C. (2008). An evaluation of theoretical frameworks for studying physically active leisure. Leisure Sciences, 30(1), 53-70. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400701756410]
  • Beaton, A. A., Funk, D. C., & Alexandris, K. (2009). Operationalizing a theory of participation in physically active leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 41(2), 175-203. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2009.11950165]
  • Brandon-Lai, S. A., Funk, D. C., & Jordan, J. S. (2015). The Stage-Based Development of Behavioral Regulation within the Context of Physically Active Leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 47(4), 401-424. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2015.11950368]
  • Crawford., & Godbey, G. (1987). Reconceptualizing barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 9(2), 119-127. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01490408709512151]
  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. [https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104]
  • Funk, D. C., Beaton, A., & Pritchard, M. (2011). The stage-based development of physically active leisure: A recreational golf context. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(2), 268-289. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2011.11950236]
  • Funk, D. C., & James, J. (2001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework for understanding an individual's psychological connection to sport. Sport management review, 4(2), 119-150. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3523(01)70072-1]
  • Gucciardi, D. F., & Jackson, B. (2015). Understanding sport continuation: An integration of theories of planned behavior and basic psychological needed. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 18(1), 31–36. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2013.11.011]
  • Heo, J., Lee, Y., McCormick, B. P., & Pedersen, P. M. (2010). Daily experience of serious leisure, flow and subjective well-being of older adults. Leisure studies, 29(2), 207-225. [https://doi.org/10.1080/02614360903434092]
  • Heo, J., Stebbins, R. A., Kim, J., & Lee, I. (2013). Serious leisure, life satisfaction, and health of older adults. Leisure Sciences, 35(1), 16-32. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2013.739871]
  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118]
  • Hubbard, J., & Mannell, R. C. (2001). Testing competing models of the leisure constraint negotiation process in a corporate employee recreation setting. Leisure sciences, 23(3), 145-163. [https://doi.org/10.1080/014904001316896846]
  • Jackson, E. L., Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1993). Negotiation of leisure constraints. Leisure sciences, 15(1), 1-11. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409309513182]
  • Jeon, J. H., & Casper, J. M. (2021). An examination of recreational golfers’ psychological connection, participation behavior, and perceived constraints. Journal of Leisure Research, 52(1), 62-76. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2020.1746708]
  • Raymore, L. A. (2002). Facilitators to leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(1), 37-51. [https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2002.11949959]
  • Scott, D. (2012). Serious Leisure and recreation specialization; An uneasy marriage. Leisure Science, 34(4), 366-371. [https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2012.687645]
  • Shi, F., Samaniego-Chavez, C. E., Chen, N., Feng, Y., & Li, Y. (2025). From peripherals to devotees: delineating psychological connections, participation constraints and perceived risks among China’s ski tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Horizons, 1(2), 110-127. [https://doi.org/10.1108/JHTH-03-2025-0040]