Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to identify the relationship between participation motivation, satisfaction and exercise adherence intention of golf range users on the basis of self-determination theory.
Design/methodology/approach
For this purpose, the authors proposed research questions and a conceptual research model as well. Then, the authors surveyed users of golf ranges located in Seoul Metropolitan City and Gyeonggi-do province.
Findings
By applying convenience sampling, the authors received a total of 313 questionnaires. Results were as follows. First, among the participation motivation sub-factors, health-oriented motivation, achievement motivation, pleasure-oriented motivation and self-displayed motivation had a significant effect on emotional satisfaction, while achievement motivation and pleasure-orientation motivation had a significant effect on performance satisfaction. Second, the following participation motivation factors had a significant effect on exercise adherence intention: health-orientation motivation, achievement motivation and pleasure-orientation motivation. Third, among the satisfaction factors, emotional satisfaction and performance satisfaction both had a significant effect on exercise adherence intention.
Originality/value
This is one of the first papers to examine the relationships that exist between golf range users’ participation motivation, satisfaction and exercise adherence intention.
Keywords
Citation
Shim, K.-R., Paek, B.-J., Yi, H.-T. and Huh, J.-H. (2017), "Relationships between golf range users’ participation motivation, satisfaction, and exercise adherence intention", Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 50-62. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJIE-04-2017-016
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2017, Kyoung-Ran Shim, Byung-Joo Paek, Ho-Taek Yi and Jong-Ho Huh
License
Published in the Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at: http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Introduction
Golf has become increasingly popular for people of all ages and skill levels. According to Seo (2013), there are more than 460 million golfers, the largest for a single event sport, around the world. Golf not only provides a means of sports and recreation but also can be a method of improving fitness and balance, especially for the old (Tsang and Hui-Chan, 2004). In the past, golf was an aristocratic sport. The costs to learn and enjoy golf were exorbitantly high to even be considered by people with an average household income. Now, however, golf has entered a period where it can be enjoyed by men and women of all ages. With drastic price bubble bursts for golf supplies, the increase in public golf courses that are more affordable than regular country clubs and the prevalence of golf driving ranges that can easily be enjoyed in urban areas, golf has fully become a leisure sport familiar to the general public. As a result, the question of why people participate in golf sports and whether they adhere to them has emerged as a research topic of interest.
Previous researches about golf exercise mainly focus on how to improve golf performance (Burden et al., 1998; Doan et al., 2006; Watanabe et al., 1998). These researches have elucidated that golf performance is influenced by golf club and swing mechanism. Several studies have investigated the effect of golf training programs, based primarily on golf theory and anecdote, and used general conditioning exercises (Doan et al., 2006; Fradkin et al., 2004; Thompson and Osness, 2004). Though these researches identify several key factors for improving golf performance, they underscore the importance of motivation in sport.
The act of participating in sports as a leisure activity and adhering to them depends on the individual’s personal choices, and among them, motivation is recognized as the most fundamental area that determines sports participation (Park et al., 2010). Motivation refers to an inner driving force that causes behavior toward a certain goal (Park and Moon, 2007), and it is especially pronounced in the leisure sector, as it not only helps to understand and analyze why people participate in sports activities in their desired manner but also aids in understanding the results of sports participation (Manfredo and Driver, 1996; Park et al., 2010).
For this reason, there have been studies across a relatively wide variety of sports areas, such as swimming, skiing, yachting, triathlon, track, dance, etc., to identify the relationship between satisfaction and exercise adherence intention through the motivation for, and participation in, particular sports situations (Bu and Yang, 2005; Cho and Ji, 2013; Cho and Kim, 2010; Jeon et al., 2014; Jung and An, 2012; Kim and Ro, 2012); not only have these studies revealed that participation motivation is the reason for participating in sports but also it has a close relationship with satisfaction and exercise adherence intention (Park et al., 2010).
Meanwhile, in the golf sports field, research on increasing the will of participants to participate in exercise has actively been conducted. The studies are largely divided into three areas:
the relationship between participation motivation and satisfaction of golf participants (Han and Kwon, 2008, Hur and Shin, 2011; Kim, 2005; Lee et al., 2011; Shin, 2009; Shin and Yoon, 2010);
the relationship between participation motivation and exercise adherence intention (Choi et al., 2010; Jeong, 2006; Kim, 2014; Kim and Jung, 2010; Oh, 2007; Shim, 2013); and
the relationship between satisfaction and exercise adherence intention (Lee, 2008; Yoo and Ryu, 2010).
However, unlike other sports fields, there is not yet any research that takes an integrated view of the relationship between golf participants’ participation motivation, satisfaction and exercise adherence intention; thus, there is a need for analysis in this area. In particular, the need is further emphasized, as the golf industry comprises the largest percentage of industrial relations as a single event in the sports sector, and if golf demand decreases, it could lead to decreases in consumption, a large part of the capital market, not to mention in the industry itself.
Research questions
The present study attempts to elaborate upon some hypothesized relationships in a golf range user’s behavior context. Based on self-determination theory (SDT), this study aims to identify the relationship between participation motivation and satisfaction of golf range users and investigate the factors that lead to participation satisfaction and foster motivation in golf sports for continuing exercise. Golf range users were selected as research subjects because the golf driving range is the starting point of the golf market and the golf driving range business is obviously closely related to the golf course business. Furthermore, this study aims to enable the people who enjoy golf to use golf driving ranges more frequently and to provide the data required for effective management and market strategy development of the golf industry.
To achieve the study objectives, we established the following research questions:
Is there a relationship between participation motivation and satisfaction in golf range users?
Is there a relationship between participation motivation and exercise adherence intention?
Is there a relationship between satisfaction and exercise adherence intention?
Self-determination theory: a brief overview
Self-determination theory
SDT is a theory about personality development and self-motivated behavior change. Fundamental to the theory is the principle that human beings have an innate organizational tendency toward growth, integration of the self and the resolution of psychological inconsistency (Ryan, 1995; Ryan and Deci, 2000), and this theory has been applied successfully to education and sport. SDT has shown the important role of different types of motivation factors in inducing various cognitive, behavioral and affective outcomes (Ryan and Deci, 1991; Frederick and Ryan, 1995).
These researchers argue that human behavior can be broadly categorized as intrinsically motivated, extrinsically motivated or amotivated. First, intrinsic motivated behaviors can occur without external rewards and are undertaken out of interest in the activity itself rather than the outcomes of the activity (Ryan and Deci, 1991). Second, extrinsically motivated behaviors can be found when the activity is carried out as a means to an end and not for its own sake. Finally, amotivation, which refers to the situation where individuals perceive no contingencies between outcomes and their action, is evident when people are neither intrinsically nor extrinsically motivated (Vallerand et al., 1992). The current SDT has evolved from early research on the factors shaping intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971) into different types of motivated behaviors which can be ordered along a self-determination continuum. There are seven types of self-determination from lower to higher levels: amotivation, external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, identified regulation, integrated regulation and intrinsic motivation.
Vallerand (1997) proposed a comprehensive model of motivation which argues that different motivational types are exerted through the satisfaction of certain psychological needs. Based on the proposed model and previous motivation literature in sport, this research integrates several intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, namely, health-oriented motivation (HOM), achievement motivation (AM), pleasure-oriented motivation (POM), self-displayed motivation (SDM) and relationship building motivation (RBM), and proposes the role of integrated participation motivations (Figure 1).
Method
Research target
In this study, the authors selected users of golf ranges located in Seoul Metropolitan City and Gyeonggi-do province as the research subjects. Data collection was carried out by explaining the purpose and effects of preliminary research to the responsible personnel via phone and e-mail and by collecting data directly by visiting golf driving ranges over a span of two months after receiving approval for data collection. For sample selection, the authors collected a total of 320 questionnaires by applying a non-probability sampling method of convenience sampling. Of the collected questionnaires, the authors excluded 17 that were determined to be unreliable or to have spoiled (blank or double) responses, and 313 questionnaires were used for the actual analysis. The general characteristics of the participants in this study are shown in Table I.
Research tools
The authors used a questionnaire as the research tool for achieving the objectives of this study, and they modified and supplemented the tools that have already been used to test the reliability and validity of questionnaires in previous studies. The self-report questionnaires consisted chiefly of four categories: participation motivation, satisfaction, exercise adherence intention and general characteristics.
For participation motivation, the authors modified and supplemented questions used in Gill et al. (1983)’s study and participation motivation questions used in Kim (2005)’s study to fit the nature of this study and developed a total of 18 questions: HOM (six questions; improving physical strength, weight control, maintaining body balance, body care, alleviation of stress and emotional stability), AM (four questions; improving golf ability, acquiring new golf skill, self-fulfillment and acquiring honors), POM (four questions; fun, delight, happiness and vitality of living), SDM (two questions; self-expression and self-display) and RBM (two questions; promoting friendship and social interaction). For satisfaction, the authors modified and complemented questions used in Beard and Ragheb’s (1980) study to fit the nature of this study and developed a total of six questions: emotional satisfaction (two questions) and performance satisfaction (four questions). Exercise adherence intention consisted of three questions regarding possibility of exercise adherence”, “likeliness to continue exercising” and “will to adhere to exercise” based on the questions used in Yoo and Ryu’s (2010) study. General characteristics of the participants consisted of five questions regarding gender, age, golfing history, driving range usage frequency and golf practice time. In the questionnaire, questions regarding participation motivation, satisfaction and exercise adherence intention were measured on a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The details of the questionnaire configuration are shown in Table II.
Validity and reliability of the questionnaire
In this study, factor analysis was conducted to verify the construct validity of the questionnaire. Factor analysis was performed using a principle component analysis and was analyzed using the orthogonal rotation method of varimax rotation. Factors were extracted based on a minimum eigenvalue of 1.0 and only questions with factor loadings greater than 0.60 were selected. Moreover, the reliability of each factor was verified using Cronbach’s α coefficients, which assess the internal consistency of the questions.
Table III shows the results of the factor and reliability analysis for participation motivation. The factor analysis results show that with a total variance of 71.422 per cent, participation motivation consists of five sub-factors: health-oriented, achievement, pleasure-oriented, self-display and relationship building, and the reliability coefficients of participation motivation were satisfactory (0.701-0.876).
Table IV shows the factor and reliability analysis results for satisfaction. According to the factor analysis results, satisfaction consists of two sub-factors, emotional satisfaction and performance satisfaction, with a total variance of 72.248 per cent. The reliability coefficients for satisfaction were relatively satisfactory (0.789-0.836).
Table V shows the factor and reliability analysis results for exercise adherence intention. The factor analysis results show that one factor was extracted with a total variance of 67.185 per cent. The reliability coefficient for exercise adherence intention was 0.751.
Data analysis
Of the completed questionnaires, the authors excluded those deemed to have spoiled responses or low reliability, coded the remaining questionnaires with reliable data and used the following procedure using the statistical program SPSS Win ver. 18.0:
a frequency analysis was performed to examine the general characteristics of the participants;
a factor and reliability analysis was performed to test the reliability and validity of the research tools; and
a correlation analysis and a multiple regression analysis were performed to examine the relationship between participation motivation, satisfaction and exercise adherence intention.
Results
Correlation coefficients for participation motivation, satisfaction and exercise adherence intention
Correlation analysis was performed to identify the relationship between participation motivation, satisfaction and exercise adherence intention. The results indicated high correlation coefficients between participation motivation and emotional satisfaction (in descending order): AM (r = 0.683), HOM (r = 0.573), POM (r = 0.557), RBM (r = 0.397) and SDM (r = 0.390). The correlations between participation motivation and performance satisfaction were (in descending order) as follows: HOM (r = 0.540), POM (r = 0.510), AM (r = 0.469), SDM (r = 0.225) and RBM (r = 0.212). The correlation analysis between participation motivation and exercise adherence intention showed the following results (in descending order): POM (r = 0.371), AM (r = 0.332), HOM (r = 0.237), RBM (r = 0.161) and SDM (r = 0.149). Finally, in the results of correlation analysis between satisfaction and exercise adherence intention, emotional satisfaction (r = 0.330) had the highest correlation, followed by performance satisfaction (r = 0.259; Table VI).
Impact of participation motivation on emotional satisfaction
Table VII shows the results of the multiple regression analysis performed to identify the impact of golf range users’ participation motivation on emotional satisfaction. According to the results, among the sub-factors of participation motivation, HOM, AM, POM and SDM were shown to have a significant effect on emotional satisfaction at the p < 0.05 level. However, RBM did not affect emotional satisfaction. The relative influence of participation motivation on emotional satisfaction was as follows: AM (β = 0.447), HOM (β = 0.171), POM (β = 0.155) and SDM (β = 0.098). Meanwhile, the explanatory power for the impact of participation motivation on emotional satisfaction was 55.1 per cent (R2 = 0.551).
Impact of participation motivation on performance satisfaction
Table VIII shows the results of the multiple regression analysis performed to identify the impact of golf range users’ participation motivation on performance satisfaction. According to the results, among the participation motivation sub-factors, AM and POM had a significant impact on performance satisfaction at the p < 0.05 level. However, HOM, SDM and RBM did not affect performance satisfaction. The relative influence of participation motivation on performance satisfaction was as follows: POM (β = 0.298) and AM (β = 0.203). Meanwhile, the explanatory power for the impact of participation motivation on emotional satisfaction was 16.4 per cent (R2 = 0.164).
Impact of participation motivation on exercise adherence intention
Table IX shows the results of the multiple regression analysis performed to identify the impact of participation motivation on exercise adherence intention, and according to the results, among the participation motivation sub-factors, HOM, AM and POM had a significant impact on exercise adherence intention at the p < 0.05 level. However, SDM and RBM did not affect exercise adherence intention. The relative influence of participation motivation on exercise adherence intention was as follows: HOM (β = 0.312), POM (β = 0.237) and AM (β = 0.195). Meanwhile, the explanatory power for the impact of participation motivation on exercise adherence intention was 36.6 per cent (R2 = 0.366).
Impact of satisfaction on exercise adherence intention
Table X shows the results of the multiple regression analysis performed to identify the impact of golf range users’ satisfaction on exercise adherence intention. Among the satisfaction sub-factors, emotional satisfaction and performance satisfaction both had a significant impact on exercise adherence intention at the p < 0.05 level. The relative influence of satisfaction on exercise adherence intention was the strongest for emotional satisfaction (β = 0.456), followed by performance satisfaction (β = 0.108). Meanwhile, the explanatory power for the impact of satisfaction on exercise adherence intention was approximately 25.3 per cent (R2 = 0.253).
Discussion
Anticipated findings and managerial implications
The purpose of this study was to identify the relationship between golf range users’ participation motivation, satisfaction and exercise adherence intention. Following is a discussion focusing on the major findings derived from the correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis.
The authors identified the impact of golf range users’ participation motivation on satisfaction and found that the participation motivation sub-factors of HOM, AM, POM and SDM have a significant impact on emotional satisfaction, while AM and POM have a significant impact on performance satisfaction. Moreover, there is positive relationship between golf range users’ participation motivation sub-factors, except RBM and exercise adherence intention. Some managerial implications of these findings are that golf driving range personnel should take an interest in HOM, AM, POM, SDM, etc., among the various motivations that users can have in the participation process and devise ways to increase their levels. In particular, intensive focus on inducing users’ AM and POM may be necessary, as among the participation motivation sub-factors, AM and POM were found to be effective in enhancing both emotional satisfaction and performance satisfaction.
The positive relationship among golf range users’ satisfaction sub-factors – emotional and performance satisfaction and exercise adherence intention – indicates that as participants who are satisfied with golf exercise participation are more likely to demonstrate exercise adherence, it may be necessary to enhance the users’ satisfaction. Therefore, to enable users to continue with golf exercise, golf driving range personnel should devise various marketing plans to improve achievement and emotional satisfaction; in particular, the methods and measures to improve the emotional satisfaction of users should be given prime consideration.
Conclusion and suggestions
Conclusion
By analyzing the relationship between golf range users’ participation motivation, satisfaction and exercise adherence intention, this study aims to provide a higher quality service to golf range users and to provide the basic data required for the popularization of golf through increased participation in golf exercise.
To achieve the above objectives, users of golf ranges located in Seoul Metropolitan City and Gyeonggi-do province were surveyed through convenience sampling, and a total of 313 questionnaires were completed. Then, frequency analysis, factor analysis, reliability analysis, correlation analysis and multiple regression analysis were performed using the statistical program, SPSS Win ver. 18.0, through which the following results were obtained:
among the participation motivation sub-factors, HOM, AM, POM and SDM had a significant impact on emotional satisfaction, while AM and POM had a significant impact on performance satisfaction;
among the participation motivation sub-factors, HOM, AM and POM had a significant impact on exercise adherence intention; and
both emotional satisfaction and performance satisfaction, the sub-factors of satisfaction, had a significant impact on exercise adherence intention; in particular, emotional satisfaction had a higher relative influence on exercise adherence intention compared to performance satisfaction.
To summarize the above findings, golf range users’ participation motivation, HOM, AM and POM have a positive impact on improving performance satisfaction and emotional satisfaction. Moreover, performance satisfaction and emotional satisfaction generated by the comfortable athletic facilities of the driving range, sense of accomplishment, relief of stress following exercise, etc., have a positive impact on exercise adherence. However, SDM and RBM with an objective other than relationships based on friendship did not affect exercise adherence intention. Therefore, to enhance the satisfaction and exercise adherence intention of golf range users, means to induce HOM, AM and POM which should be actively sought.
Study limitations and future research suggestions
Based on the issues encountered during the implementation process of this study, study limitations and suggestions for future research directions are as follows:
Major limitation pertains to the study context. As data were collected with a limited sample of golf range users in Seoul Metropolitan City and Gyeonggi-do province, it is difficult to completely rule out the possibility that the findings indicate characteristics unique to these groups. Thus, taking into consideration these potential limitations, subsequent empirical research should cover additional sport fields and countries to enhance the possibility of generalizing this study’s findings.
This study did not consider differences according to the general characteristics of the golf range users such as gender, age, golfing history, golf driving range usage frequency, golf practice time, etc. Therefore, follow-up studies need to analyze the differences in participation motivation, satisfaction and exercise adherence intention according to the socio-demographic, psychological and behavioral characteristics of the golf range users.
While this study only used a quantitative research method of using a questionnaire as the research tool to identify the relationships between golf range users’ participation motivation, satisfaction and exercise adherence intention, follow-up studies should conduct an in-depth analysis of the relationships between golf range users’ participation motivation, satisfaction and exercise adherence intention through qualitative research methods using in-depth interviews, focus groups, etc.
Figures
Figure 1.
Proposed research model
General characteristics of research participants
| Frequency (N) | (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male Female |
197 106 |
65.0 35.0 |
| Age | ||
| Under 30 years 30s 40s 50s Over 60 years |
132 44 83 38 6 |
43.6 14.5 27.4 12.5 2.0 |
| Golfing history | ||
| Under 2 years 3 and over ∼ under 4 5 and over ∼ under 6 7 and over ∼ under 8 Over 9 years |
122 65 46 28 42 |
40.3 21.5 15.2 9.2 13.9 |
| Driving range Usage frequency |
||
| Once a week Twice a week 3 times a week 4 times a week Over 5 times a week |
46 69 87 59 42 |
15.2 22.8 28.7 19.5 13.9 |
| Golf Practice time |
||
| Under 1 h 1 and over ∼ under 2 3 and over ∼ under 4 Over 5 h |
91 124 73 15 |
30.0 40.9 24.1 5.0 |
Details of questionnaire configuration
| Item | Item content | Sum |
|---|---|---|
| Participation motivation | Health-oriented motivation (HOM) Achievement motivation (AM) Pleasure-oriented motivation (POM) Self-displayed motivation (SDM) Relationship building motivation (RBM) |
6 4 4 2 2 |
| Satisfaction | Emotional satisfaction (ES) Performance satisfaction (PS) |
2 4 |
| Exercise adherence intention (EAI) | 3 | |
| General characteristics of research participants | 5 | |
| Total number of questions | 32 | |
Validity and reliability test results for participation motivation
| Item | Factor 1 | Factor 2 | Factor 3 | Factor 4 | Factor 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOM | AM | POM | SDM | RBM | |
| HOM 1 | 0.607 | 0.081 | 0.407 | 0.210 | 0.037 |
| HOM 2 | 0.631 | 0.156 | 0.314 | 0.284 | 0.155 |
| HOM 3 | 0.786 | 0.166 | 0.139 | 0.040 | 0.034 |
| HOM 4 | 0.781 | 0.164 | 0.125 | 0.000 | 0.148 |
| HOM 5 | 0.800 | 0.266 | 0.147 | 0.008 | 0.094 |
| HOM 6 | 0.661 | 0.215 | 0.202 | 0.274 | 0.071 |
| AM 1 | 0.181 | 0.674 | 0.195 | 0.230 | 0.170 |
| AM 2 | 0.333 | 0.765 | 0.219 | 0.051 | 0.023 |
| AM 3 | 0.283 | 0.797 | 0.166 | 0.117 | 0.013 |
| AM 4 | 0.080 | 0.719 | 0.187 | 0.029 | 0.283 |
| POM 1 | 0.096 | 0.233 | 0.809 | 0.026 | 0.167 |
| POM 2 | 0.226 | 0.205 | 0.820 | 0.066 | 0.132 |
| POM 3 | 0.323 | 0.183 | 0.803 | 0.080 | 0.110 |
| POM 4 | 0.416 | 0.200 | 0.614 | 0.263 | 0.041 |
| SDM 1 | 0.072 | 0.062 | 0.097 | 0.842 | 0.168 |
| SDM 2 | 0.190 | 0.196 | 0.093 | 0.793 | 0.139 |
| RBM 1 | 0.190 | 0.068 | 0.110 | 0.331 | 0.802 |
| RBM 2 | 0.098 | 0.241 | 0.172 | 0.071 | 0.846 |
| Eigenvalue | 7,415 | 1.649 | 1.424 | 1.305 | 1.063 |
| % variance | 41.192 | 9.159 | 7.912 | 7.251 | 5.905 |
| % Total variance | 41.192 | 50.352 | 58.264 | 65.515 | 71.422 |
| Cronbach’s α | 0.876 | 0.828 | 0.871 | 0.701 | 0.753 |
Validity and reliability test results for satisfaction
| Item | Factor 1 | Factor 2 |
|---|---|---|
| ES | PS | |
| ES 1 | 0.821 | 0.254 |
| ES 2 | 0.865 | 0.176 |
| PS 1 | 0.289 | 0.767 |
| PS 2 | 0.109 | 0.867 |
| PS 3 | 0.169 | 0.795 |
| PS 4 | 0.332 | 0.715 |
| Eigenvalue | 1.072 | 3.263 |
| % variance | 17.867 | 54.381 |
| % total variance | 17.867 | 72.248 |
| Cronbach’s α | 0.789 | 0.836 |
Validity and reliability test results for exercise adherence intention
| Item | Factor 1 | Cronbach’s α |
|---|---|---|
| EAI | ||
| EAI 1 | 0.789 | 0.751 |
| EAI 2 | 0.808 | |
| EAI 3 | 0.860 | |
| Eigenvalue | 2.016 | |
| % variance | 67.185 | |
| % total variance | 67.185 |
Correlation coefficients for participation motivation, satisfaction and exercise adherence intention
| Variable | HOM | AM | POM | SDM | RBM | ES | PS | EAI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOM | 1 | |||||||
| AM | 0.555** | 1 | ||||||
| POM | 0.617** | 0.545** | 1 | |||||
| SDM | 0.376** | 0.341** | 0.325** | 1 | ||||
| RBM | 0.364** | 0.396** | 0.363** | 0.425** | 1 | |||
| ES | 0.573** | 0.683** | 0.557** | 0.390** | 0.397** | 1 | ||
| PS | 0.540** | 0.469** | 0.510** | 0.225** | 0.212** | 0.492** | 1 | |
| EAI | 0.237** | 0.332** | 0.371** | 0.149** | 0.161** | 0.330** | 0.259** | 1 |
p < 0.01
Impact of participation motivation on emotional satisfaction
| Independent variable | B | SE | β | T | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Constant) | 0.245 | 0.183 | 1.336 | 0.183 | |
| HOM | 0.187 | 0.058 | 0.171 | 3.198 | 0.002 |
| AM | 0.436 | 0.049 | 0.447 | 8.867 | 0.000 |
| POM | 0.165 | 0.056 | 0.155 | 2.956 | 0.003 |
| SDM | 0.087 | 0.040 | 0.098 | 2.186 | 0.030 |
| RBM | 0.053 | 0.040 | 0.060 | 1.321 | 0.187 |
R2 = 0.551; F = 72.927; p = 0.000
Impact of participation motivation on performance satisfaction
| Independent variable | B | SE | β | T | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Constant) | 2.084 | 0.243 | 8.557 | 0.000 | |
| HOM | −0.063 | 0.078 | −0.059 | −0.812 | 0.418 |
| AM | 0.192 | 0.065 | 0.203 | 2.947 | 0.003 |
| POM | 0.309 | 0.074 | 0.298 | 4.163 | 0.000 |
| SDM | 0.009 | 0.053 | 0.010 | 0.166 | 0.868 |
| RBM | −0.009 | 0.053 | −0.010 | −0.166 | 0.869 |
R2 = 0.164; F = 11.623; p = 0.000
Impact of participation motivation on exercise adherence intention
| Independent variable | B | SE | Β | T | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Constant) | 0.563 | 0.249 | 2.262 | 0.024 | |
| HOM | 0.390 | 0.079 | 0.312 | 4.918 | 0.000 |
| AM | 0.217 | 0.067 | 0.195 | 3.249 | 0.001 |
| POM | 0.289 | 0.076 | 0.237 | 3.800 | 0.000 |
| SDM | −0.010 | 0.054 | −0.010 | −0.194 | 0.846 |
| RBM | −0.060 | 0.055 | −0.060 | −1.105 | 0.270 |
R2 = 0.366; F = 34.229; p = 0.000
Impact of satisfaction on exercise adherence intention
| Independent variable | B | SE | β | T | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Constant) | 1.154 | 0.258 | 4.471 | 0.000 | |
| ES | 0.521 | 0.060 | 0.456 | 8.630 | 0.000 |
| PS | 0.127 | 0.062 | 0.108 | 2.046 | 0.042 |
R2 = 0.253; F = 50.671; p = 0.000
References
Beard, J.G. and Ragheb, M.G. (1980), “Measuring leisure satisfaction”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 20-33.
Bu, G. and Yang, M. (2005), “An inductive content analysis on initiating motivation, continuing motivation and satisfaction of parasitic volcano trekking”, Journal of Korean Society for the Study of Physical Education, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 73-97.
Burden, A.M., Grimshaw, P.N. and Wallace, E.S. (1998), “Hip and shoulder rotations during the golf swing of sub-10 handicap players”, Journal of Sports Sciences, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 165-176.
Cho, S. and Ji, S. (2013), “Effect of sailing school participants’ motive and satisfaction on continuous participation”, Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 128-138.
Cho, Y. and Kim, H. (2010), “The relationship between participation motivation, flow, marketing-mix satisfaction and reuse intent of swimming participants”, Korean Journal of Sports Science, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 497-508.
Choi, Y., Kim, D. and Park, S. (2010), “Relationship between steady participation intention and inner motive of private golf practice range members”, Korean Journal of Sports Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 525-531.
Deci, E.L. (1971), “Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 105.
Doan, B.K., Newton, R.U., Kwon, Y.H. and Kraemer, W.J. (2006), “Effects of physical conditioning on intercollegiate golfer performance”, Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 62-72.
Fradkin, A.J., Sherman, C.A. and Finch, C.F. (2004), “How well does club head speed correlate with golf handicaps?”, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 465-472.
Frederick, C.M. and Ryan, R.M. (1995), “Self-determination in sport: a review using cognitive evaluation theory”, International Journal of Sport Psychology, Vol. 26, pp. 5-23.
Gill, D.L., Gross, J.B. and Huddleston, S. (1983), “Participation motivation in youth sports”, International Journal of Sport Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 1-14.
Han, J. and Kwon, O. (2008), “Analysis of leisure satisfaction by the participation motivation of golf players at golf driving ranges”, Journal of Leisure and Recreation Studies, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 69-83.
Hur, N. and Shin, W. (2011), “The influence of motivation on leisure satisfaction of screen golf users”, Sports Science Studies, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Jeon, B., Lee, S. and Kim, J. (2014), “The relationship among participation motivation, life satisfaction, and continuous participation intention of triathlon enthusiasts”, The Korean Journal of Physical Education: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 309-320.
Jeong, H. (2006), “The effects of motivations was participation and sustainable intention of leisure sports in golf”, Journal of Leisure and Recreation Studies, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 15-29.
Jung, S. and An, B. (2012), “A study on the relationship of dance program participation motivation, participation satisfaction and sustained participation intention among elderly women”, The Korean Journal of Dance Studies, Vol. 37, pp. 111-127.
Kim, D. and Ro, D. (2012), “Motivation of the participants according to the liberal ski goal orientation, class satisfaction, impact on exercise adherence”, Korean Journal of Sports Science, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 785-794.
Kim, G. and Jung, Y. (2010), “Relationships between basic psychological needs satisfaction, participation motivation, and intention of continuance in golf participants”, Journal of Sport and Leisure Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 1219-1229.
Kim, H. (2005), “A study of the participation factors and satisfaction degrees of indoor golf range members”, Korea Sports Research, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 997-1003.
Kim, J. (2014), “Effects of participation motivation on exercise adherence of golf participants”, Journal of Lifelong Education Leadership, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-73.
Kim, Y. (2005), “The relationship between perceived freedom self-actualization and leisure satisfaction according to leisure sports participation”, Unpublished PhD. Thesis, Chung-Ang University, Seoul.
Lee, G. (2008), “The influence of service satisfaction on the continuous behavior after participation of customers in golf raining facilities”, The Korean Journal of Physical Education: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 39-49.
Lee, S., Yu, H. and Kim, S. (2011), “A research on satisfactions of female golfer according to participative motivations and characteristics: the effects of female golf on their satisfactions”, The Journal of Korea Society for Wellness, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 53-68.
Manfredo, M. and Driver, B.L. (1996), “Measuring leisure motivation: a meta-analysis of the recreation experience preference scales”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 188-213.
Oh, S. (2007), “An influence of motivation to participate with the desire of golf consumer on continuous behavior”, Korean Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 179-192.
Park, H., Seo, S. and Kang, S. (2010), “The relationship among the participation motive, exercise immersion, leisure satisfaction, and intention of exercise duration of ski club members”, Journal of Korean Physical Education Association for Girls and Women, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 115-128.
Park, S. and Moon, T. (2007), “The relationship of participatory motivation, leisure commitment, leisure satisfaction and living satisfaction in cultural leisure programs at local community center”, Korea Sports Research, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 573-592.
Ryan, R.M. (1995), “Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 397-427.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (1991), “A motivational approach to self: integration in personality”, in Deinstbier, R. (Eds), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Perspectives on Motivation, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, Vol. 38, pp. 237-288.
Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000), “Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being”, American Psychologist, Vol. 55 No. 1, p. 68.
Seo, C. (2013), Leisure Industry Yearbook, Kole, Seoul.
Shim, S. (2013), “Effects of enjoyment and exercise adherence on participation motivation in golf participants”, Journal of the Research Institute of Curriculum Instruction, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 771-787.
Shin, J. (2009), “Research on life satisfaction by participation motive of golf practice range users”, The Korean Journal of Sport, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 29-43.
Shin, J. and Yoon, H. (2010), “The effects of screen golf users' participation motive upon their participation satisfaction by demographic characteristics”, Journal of Tourism & Leisure Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 319-337.
Tsang, W.W. and Hui-Chan, C.W. (2004), “Effects of exercise on joint sense and balance in elderly men: Tai Chi versus golf”, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 658-667.
Thompson, C.J. and Osness, W.H. (2004), “Effects of an 8-week multimodal exercise program on strength, flexibility, and golf performance in 55-to 79-year-old men”, Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 144-156.
Vallerand, R.J. (1997), “Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 29, pp. 271-360.
Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Blais, M.R., Briere, N.M., Senecal, C. and Vallieres, E.F. (1992), “The academic motivation scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 1003-1017.
Watanabe, K., Kuroki, S., Hokari, M. and Nishizawa, S. (1998), “Golf swing and skill”, Science and Golf III, Proceedings From the 1998 World Scientific Congress of Golf, Human Kinetics, St. Andrews, pp. 29-39.
Yoo, K. and Ryu, W. (2010), “Effects of golf participants involvement, exercise addiction, life satisfactions on exercise adherence”, Korean Journal of Sports Science, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 165-177.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a research grant from Seoul Women’s University (2016).
Corresponding author
About the authors
Kyoung-Ran Shim is an MS Student at the Department of Golf, Yongin University, Yongin, Korea. Her main research areas are sports management, golf business and consumer behavior.
Byung-Joo Paek is a Professor at the Department of Golf, Yongin University, Yongin, Korea. He researches on the topics of sports management, golf business and consumer behavior.
Ho-Taek Yi is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Business Administration and Vice-Provost at IAC Supervision Office and Research Support Office, Keimyung University, Daegu, Korea. He researches on retail service, B2B marketing, co-marketing alliances and distribution strategy.
Jong-Ho Huh is an Associate Professor at the Department of Business Administration and the Head of Center for Teaching and Learning, Seoul Women’s University, Seoul, Korea. His main research areas are consumer behavior, marketing strategy and brand strategy.