Coping with Stress in Outdoor Recreational Settings: An Application of Transactional Stress Theory

Transcription

1 Leisure Sciences, 25: , 2003 Copyright C 2003 Taylor & Francis /03 $ DOI: / Coping with Stress in Outdoor Recreational Settings: An Application of Transactional Stress Theory THERON A. MILLER STEPHEN F. MCCOOL The University of Montana School of Forestry Missoula, Montana, USA This study uses a transactional model of stress and coping as a way to understand how outdoor recreationists deal with negative setting elements during a recreation experience. Within the transactional model, coping behaviors can be viewed as the result of on-going transactions among personal and environmental factors, perceptions of threat or stress, and the perceived effectiveness of coping strategies. The current study focuses specifically on the relationship between reported levels of stress and the types of coping strategies used by recreationists in Glacier National Park. Findings suggest that certain behavioral and cognitive coping responses to stress are associated with different levels of reported stress. Specifically, respondents with lower levels of stress were more likely to engage in certain cognitive adjustments to cope with detracting situations. Respondents reporting higher levels of stress were more likely to engage in either direct action aimed at changing the environmental conditions or are displaced entirely from the recreational setting. In addition to these primary findings, the study discusses the range of coping behaviors employed. Keywords coping, stress, displacement, negative affect, path analysis, substitutions, transactional stress model Introduction The idyllic image of recreation that many people hold and the image that is perpetuated by mass media often collide with the frustrations, disappointments, or even danger involved in visiting outdoor recreation settings. Traffic jams, long lines for attractions or facilities, rude visitors, congestion, and illegal activities are some of the experiences many people are trying to escape when recreating. Still, recreationists are confronted with these types of experiences in outdoor recreation settings. The extent to which these factors are experienced during recreational engagements has important consequences to not only visitors but to management as well. Opportunities to realize benefits to people are at the heart of the provision of public recreation. To the extent that negative recreational experiences, or detractors, produce stress, the realization of certain individual and societal benefits could be inhibited. Detractors are conceptualized in this study as any elements within the setting that are perceived by the recreationist to diminish the quality of the experience. Also, the ways that recreationists choose to cope with stress can themselves present opportunities and challenges for Received 1 March 2002; accepted 15 November Address correspondence to Theron A. Miller, The University of Montana, Science Complex Room 467, Missoula, MT 59812, USA. theron@forestry.umt.edu 257

2 258 T. A. Miller and S. F. McCool managers. If, on the one hand, recreationists cope with detractions by ceasing participation, the character of the demand for future recreation settings and activities will be impacted. If, on the other hand, recreationists decide to respond to negative setting elements by direct action aimed at changing the situation, the relationship between managers and visitors may be significantly affected. In between these two extremes is the potential for a hidden cost for recreationists in terms of the mental and physical exertion to deal with negative setting elements. A major interest relating to the consequences of encountering negative elements in a recreational setting involves the coping strategies employed by recreationists. Understanding how recreationists deal with detractors helps identify the range of strategies employed as well as the intensity of negative reaction to them. Defining these issues in a behavioral sense allows for the application of stress and coping models that can provide insight into the consequences of negative setting elements in recreational settings. A recreational experience can be viewed as a transaction between the visitor and the environment (which is defined as all the natural and human attributes of an area, including the behavior of other visitors). Out of this transaction, a series of outcomes occur, which may or may not result in the visitor experiencing stress. The presence of stress then may lead to the initiation of certain coping behaviors that can be seen as a function of the amount of stress experienced. Detailed examinations of the relationship between the stress levels that result from detracting setting elements and coping responses offer important insights for managers (Miller, Freimund, & McCool, 1998; Schneider, 2000; Schneider & Hammitt, 1995a, 1995b; Schuster & Hammitt, 2000). Previous examinations have helped to focused attention on the relationship between particular conditions or situations and the emotional and behavioral consequences they produce. Understanding this relationship can help managers take actions to reduce stress and anticipate consequences. Equally significant, a stress-based examination of cognitive and behavioral responses can establish a framework for future research. This paper explores the relationship between stress and coping behaviors using transactive stress theory as the fundamental framework. The research focuses on three important questions. First, do users experience stress when confronted with detracting setting elements? Second, how do recreationists cope with this stress? Third, what is the relationship between levels of stress and identified coping behaviors? Conceptual Framework Three fundamental conceptual perspectives were used to examine the research questions. First, a conceptualization of stress was needed that focused on common or everyday annoyances. Most visitors to parks, while possibly experiencing many annoyances, will nevertheless not encounter situations that are life threatening. These annoyances, whether traffic congestion, high use density, or inappropriate behavior exhibited by other visitors, can produce stress and lead to significant coping responses. A second perspective involved identifying a measure, or indicator, of stress that was robust and efficient to administer in recreational settings. The third perspective examines way to quantitatively describe the relationship between stress and coping that take into account the possibility of using multiple coping responses to respond to stressful situations. Recent research on the stress-coping relationship has examined the relationship between conflict intensity and differentiation of coping strategies. Schneider and Hammitt (1995b) observed that conflict intensity was neither consistently related to nor differentiated visitor response to conflict (p. 264). While their study failed to find a clear relationship

3 Coping with Stress in Outdoor Recreational Settings 259 between intensity of conflict and type of coping response, the authors noted limitations in the use of a single-item intensity measure (level of concern), along with low levels of conflict intensity among respondents as potentially limiting factors for assessing the relationship. Consequently, Schneider and Hammitt (1995b) suggested the use of multiple intensity item indicators in future research. The current study followed this recommendation by applying multiple measures of stress intensity. The following section reviews the conceptual foundations and operationalization for each component. The Transactional Approach to Stress Research suggests that recreational conflict stems from goal interference on the part of recreationists (Jacob & Schreyer, 1980). Coping with interference might be understood as a response to the stress created by the situation. Schneider and Hammitt (1995a) made this connection by asserting, Recreationists are likely to evaluate and respond to conflicts as if they were responding to many other stressful situations and thus a stressresponse model may be applicable in outdoor recreation (p. 226). Thus, a fundamental proposition of this approach is that goal interference leads to the production of stress for recreationists. Following this notion, the approach adopted here conceptualized stress as a transaction between a person and the environment. This orientation builds on the initial application of transactive theory to recreational conflict by Schneider and Hammitt (1995a) and subsequent applications in other recreational settings (Miller, 1997; Miller et al., 1998; Schneider, 2000; Schneider & Hammitt, 1995b, 2000; Schuster & Hammitt, 2000). A transactive approach is distinguished from perspectives that examine stress as either an internal state or as an external event (Aldwin, 1994; Mason, 1975). As an internal state, stress is understood as the emotional or biophysical reactance of an organism to stress stimuli (e.g., emotional response to light deprivation, or the relationship between life-style stress and heart disease). As an external event, the focus of stress research is on the types of stressors individuals experience at different times in life. Most often the stresses examined within this perspective are major life events (significant loss, change of career, marriage, major relocation, etc.) rather than everyday annoyances (Rahe, 1998; Rahe, Ryman, & Ward, 1980). Neither of these approaches provides much guidance to answer the question of how individuals cope with more common, everyday, stress-producing elements of recreation settings. Within transactional theory, stress is the result of a perceived imbalance between the demands of a person s environment and the available resources the person possesses to respond to them (Aldwin, 1994; Cohen, Evans, Stokols, & Krantz, 1986; Evans & Cohen, 1987; Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Lazarus & Launier, 1978). Specifically, stress is defined as a relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 21). These perceptions of stress can range from common everyday annoyances to life threatening challenges. From this theory, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) offer a model of stress and coping that has five major components: 1. person and environment influencing factors, 2. cognitive appraisals, 3. stress, 4. coping response, and 5. adaptational outcomes both for the short term and long term (Figure 1).

4 260 T. A. Miller and S. F. McCool FIGURE 1 Model of stress appraisal and response. (From Schneider & Hammitt, 1995a and adapted from Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The structure of this model highlights the influence that personal and situational factors have on the appraisal of conditions that a person encounters. Thus, the primary appraisal of a threat of harm or loss depends on person s antecedent conditions of both the threatening stimulus and the psychological characteristics of the individual (Cohen et al., 1986). Based on these antecedents, Lazarus and Folkman characterize the primary appraisal as the judgment that an encounter is irrelevant, benign-positive, or stressful (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 53). Being one of several individuals searching a parking lot for scarce parking spaces at a National Park may be an example of a stressful component of a recreational setting. Stress here is understood as an appraisal of an encounter as posing some immediate harm or loss, a threat of future harm or loss, or some possible challenge that could produce opportunities for mastery challenge or gain. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) label the outcomes of the primary appraisal as harm/loss, threat, and challenge. In recreational settings, such appraisals may be represented by recreationists perceptions of a setting, for example, as too congested and thus threatened their ability to enjoy certain setting characteristics. Secondary appraisals relate to coping behaviors and involve a judgment concerning what might and can be done (Lazarus &Folkman, 1984, p. 53). The evaluative component within this appraisal focuses primarily on the availability of specific coping responses, the perceived likelihood that these responses will accomplish what they are supposed to, and the ability to apply these strategies within the specific situation. Thus, coping can be understood as an explicit attempt by an individual to deal with stressful conditions either by changing the situation or by dealing with his or her distress (Baum & Paulus, 1987, p. 563). The secondary appraisal, then, is an interaction between the person and the environment that specifically deals with the usefulness of coping strategies aimed at responding to particular stress experience. For example, a person may cope with a congested and full parking lot by using an illegal space, perceiving that the chances of negative sanction for this behavior are minimal. Alternatively, the individual may seek a substitute recreational setting. Since appraisals of stress and coping strategies are related to person-environment transactions, it seems reasonable to ask if particular stress situations, and recreational populations, exhibit discernible patterns of coping response (Baron & Rodin, 1978; Baum & Koman, 1976; Baum & Paulus, 1987). This question is relevant in heavily used national park settings where physical capacities for such activities as camping and visiting interpretive centers have not been increased in decades.

5 Coping with Stress in Outdoor Recreational Settings 261 Measuring Stress: Negative Affect as an Indicator Schneider and Hammitt (1995a), in their application of transactional theory, operationalized stress as a perceived threat to some important experience element. This approach is consistent with the theory offered by Lazarus and Folkman (1984). It has also been suggested that stress has an affective component (Hull, 1990; Hull & Michael, 1995). As an alternative to explicitly identifying perceived threat to elements experienced in a recreation setting, this study used indicators of stress and efficient measures of those indicators. It has been suggested that affective appraisals of situations can serve as indicators of stress (Hull & Michael, 1995; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Watson, 1988). Measures of negative affective responses to life events and situations have received a significant amount of research (Clark & Watson, 1988; Diener & Emmons, 1984; Watson, 1995, 1988; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988; Watson & Pennebaker, 1989; Watson & Tellegen, 1985). The Positive Affect, Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) has emerged as a useful tool to assess affective responses (Watson et al., 1988). The negative affect items developed by Watson and others (1988) make use of Negative Emotionality scales from Tellegen s Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (Tellegen, 1982). The negative affect portion of the scale (PANAS NA) is the most useful as a potential indicator of stress. The PANAS NA scale focuses specifically on the experience of negative affect and contains no somatic complaint or health-related item (Watson & Pennebaker, 1989). The negative affective items used in this portion of the scale include distressed, upset, guilty, scared, hostile, irritable, ashamed, nervous, jittery, and afraid. Since the application of this scale to recreational conflict situations is new, all of the scale items were used in this initial application. Thus, some of the items like guilty or ashamed may seem out of place for this context. Still, the application of these items here has some merit in this exploratory study. For example, it is conceivable that a respondent may have played a role in escalating the negative situation and, upon reflection, felt guilty or ashamed about it. A motorist-to-motorist conflict, or road-rage incident, in which both parties contribute to feelings of anger and frustration, might fit this scenario. Coping with Stress in Recreational Settings: An Array of Strategies The recreation literature suggests that, when confronted with undesirable conditions, recreationists are likely to either change their behavior, attempt to change their environment, or change the way they evaluate the situation (Anderson & Brown, 1984; Becker, Nieman, & Gates, 1980; Hammitt & Patterson, 1991; Kuentzel & Heberlein, 1992; Schneider & Hammitt, 1995a; Shelby & Vaske, 1991; Ziemann & Haas, 1989). Behavioral changes have been understood primarily in terms of substitution. Brunson and Shelby (1993) define substitution as the interchangeability of recreation experiences such that acceptably equivalent outcomes can be achieved by varying one or more of the following: the timing of the experiences, the means of gaining access to the setting, and the activity (p. 69). Shelby and Vaske (1991) described the consequences of varying these experiences using a substitution typology (Figure 2). This typology has been a useful tool for describing and examining behavioral choices available to recreationists (Gramann & Burdge, 1981; Miller & McCool, 1994; Ziemann & Haas, 1989). Thus, for the purposes of this research, the range of substitution behavioral changes examined included: 1) visiting the site at a different time (temporal substitution), 2) maintaining the preferred activity but visiting a different location (resource substitution), 3) utilizing the same resource but changing the activity (activity substitution), or 4) changing both the resource and the activity (resource and activity substitution, or absolute displacement). One of the issues of particular interest in this study was the relationship between different levels of perceived stress and engagement in

6 262 T. A. Miller and S. F. McCool FIGURE 2 A typology of substitution alternatives. From: Shelby and Vaske, substitution behaviors. Are higher levels of stress, for example, more likely to be associated with absolute displacement? Cognitive processes, such as product shift or rationalization, have also been identified as coping responses in recreational settings (Gleason, 1980; Heberlein & Shelby, 1977; Shelby, Bregenzer, & Johnson, 1988; Shelby & Heberlein, 1986; Stankey & McCool, 1984; Hammitt & Patterson, 1991; Schneider & Hammitt, 1995b). Product shift involves a change in the definition of the experience and standards for the importance of characteristics of that experience (Shelby et al., 1988, p. 276). Product shift also represents an overall change in the definition of the area. The net result of this is that satisfaction remains high and recreationists are not obliged to remove themselves either physically or temporally from the area. Rationalization represents a process whereby recreationists reevaluate an undesirable situation in a more favorable light. Rooted in the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) this concept was advanced as a description of how recreationists construct evaluations of experiences such that inconsistencies and associated stress are alleviated. Some people may rationalize and report that they had a good time regardless of conditions, since recreation activities are voluntarily selected and sometimes involve a substantial investment of time, money, and effort (Manning, 1986, p. 61). This coping response has been offered as a possible explanation of why reported satisfaction remains high even in settings where its elements have changed dramatically over time (Heberlein & Shelby, 1977). Direct action is another coping alternative available to recreationists; people can engage in behaviors directed toward changing the undesirable conditions or situations. This action can take the form of complaints to authorities, letter writing, or political action for the purpose of influencing desirable changes in the recreation environment (Ziemann & Haas, 1989). Like cognitive adjustments, this coping strategy does not require individuals to substitute resource or activity elements of their experience to maintain satisfaction. This strategy, however, is likely to be associated with higher levels of stress. The assumption is that a higher perceived threat will justify the greater expenditure of energy associated with directly changing the environment. Coping Assessment Lazarus and Folkman (1984) proposed the use of a checklist as a means of assessing coping responses applied to general, or daily, life events or stressors. While this approach has been useful for addressing coping issues for general life experiences, the application of this

7 Coping with Stress in Outdoor Recreational Settings 263 technique to recreational settings required a modification of its content to represent the specific challenges and resources within recreational settings (Schneider & Hammitt, 1995a). For this study we adopted a checklist approach but used items consistent with behavioral and cognitive adjustments suggested by the recreation literature. Although we used different items than those developed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), the general technique and subsequent analysis of the coping checklist was consistent with their approach. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which each of 21 statements described their response to the negative situations or conditions they experienced (Table 1). A five-point scale, from does not describe to describes very well was administered to evaluate the use of specific coping responses. Taken together, this checklist provided a mechanism to assess both the range of available coping options and the utility of the theoretical coping options available in recreational settings. Use of transactive stress theory, affective indicators of stress, and recreational coping behaviors suggest certain hypothesized relationships between reported stress levels and coping responses. Namely, as stress increases recreationists will be more likely to engage in absolute displacement behaviors. Conversely, lower levels of stress will be associated with cognitive adjustment coping strategies. At relatively moderate levels of stress recreationists will be more likely to employ substitution behaviors to cope with detracting experience elements. Methods Data were collected during the summer 1996 as part of a study of Glacier National Park visitors. The study was designed to help inform park planners of various issues associated within the Park s General Management Planning process (Miller, 1997; Miller, McCool, & Freimund, 1996). While the majority of the survey instrument was designed for site-specific assessments within the General Management Plan, a section was developed to address issues of stress and coping strategies. The survey instrument consisted of two parts, an on-site and a mail-return questionnaire. The population was summer visitors, 18 years of age and older, to specific front-country locations at Glacier National Park. Sampling occurred at three locations between July 22 and August 21, The choice of sample locations addressed specific information needs that the Park identified within the General Management Planning process. The sites included Swiftcurrent Pass trailhead, the Trail of the Cedars, and Logan Pass Visitor Center. Visitors were sampled at each location for a total of 5 7 days. Visitors were sampled by a Probability Proportionate to Size (PPS) method based on historic visitation for the three locations. On each sampled day, visitors were contacted immediately following a visit to a trail or the visitor center. All visitors encountered during the daily sampling period were asked to cooperate in the study. Approximately 5% of contacted visitors refused to participate in the survey. Each sampled visitor completed both the on-site and mail-return questionnaires. The mail-return portion of the study was primarily designed for the collection of dissatisfaction, stress, and coping variables. A total of 1,554 on-site and mail-return questionnaires were administered and 1,161 mail-return questionnaires were returned. Thus, the overall response rate was 75%. Measures Respondents to the mail survey were asked if they had experienced a situation or condition that detracted from their experience at Glacier National Park. For those respondents who experienced a condition or situation that detracted from the quality of the experience, a

8 264 T. A. Miller and S. F. McCool TABLE 1 Coping Checklist Domains and Individual Items. Items Describe Visitor Response to Detracting Conditions or Situations Encountered at Glacier National Park. Items were Measured on a Five-Point Scale from Does Not Describe (1) to Describes Very Well (5) Absolute displacement Planned to never visit Glacier National Park again because of this condition or situation Decided to never [site specific activity] again because of this condition or situation Planned to leave Glacier National Park now because of the condition or situation Temporal substitution Decided that, if you visited this area in the future, visiting at a different season would help you avoid this condition or situation Decided that, if you visited this area in the future, visiting at a different time of day would help you avoid this condition or situation Realized that you could avoid the condition or situation in the future by visiting this area at a different time. Activity substitution Planned to do other things besides [site specific activity] to avoid this condition or situation. Realized that doing some activity other than [site specific activity] would allow you to avoid this condition or situation Decided [site specific activity] is no longer important to me because of this condition or situation. Resource substitution Decided you would come back to the Park at the same time, but would visit a different area of the Park to avoid this condition or situation Decided you would come back to the Park at the same time, but would [site specific activity] to avoid this condition or situation Realized that visiting different areas of the Park would allow you to avoid this condition or situation Rationalization Saw the condition or situation as a positive chance to grow personally Told yourself that there was nothing you could do about it, so you just enjoyed the experience for what it was Told yourself the condition or situation was actually a symptom of some larger problem Product shift Realized that the condition or situation you experienced was really suitable after all Told yourself it was unreasonable to expect that things should have been different at this area. Decided that, for this area, condition or situation was what it should be. Direct action Talked with other members of your group about the condition or situation. Decided to talk with Park personnel about the condition or situation. Decided to talk to someone who could do something about the condition or situation list of nine setting elements was offered. The items presented on the detraction list were drawn from an analysis of indicator elements for the Park (Miller & Freimund, 1996). Specifically, the items included: the number of other people encountered, difficult access to facilities, evidence of human impacts, excessive rules or regulations, human caused

9 Coping with Stress in Outdoor Recreational Settings 265 noise, impediments to wildlife viewing, rude visitor behavior, encounters with wildlife, and restricted access to informational materials. Respondents were asked to select one option that best described the element that detracted from their visit at the particular sample area. Survey participants could also write in any detracting elements that were not included on the list, or select none, indicating that no detracting elements were experienced at the particular location. For the mail-return respondents, 56% indicated that some condition or situation detracted from their visit. Thus the sample size for the stress and coping analysis was 637. Two major constructs were measured in this study: perceived stress and coping behavior. Measures of stress included the level of concern that detracting elements caused, a singleitem stress evaluation measure, and items from the PANAS NA scale. Coping responses were obtained through the use of a modified ways of coping checklist (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). All analytical procedures were completed using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) personal computer (version 8.0). A path analysis for the stress and coping model was conducted using the LISREL software program within SPSS (see Joreskog & Sorbom, 1986). To assess negative affect, respondents were presented the PANAS NA items (Tellegen, 1982) and then asked to indicate the extent to which they experienced each of the following emotions regarding the condition or situation they identified as detracting from their visit. Each item was rated on a five-point scale from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). A characterization of overall negative affect was accomplished by the development of a summative index using the individual PANAS NA scale items. Reliability analysis for this scale yielded an acceptable Chronbach s coefficient alpha (α =.79). Level of concern was measured by using a single question to assess the level of concern that respondents felt regarding the identified detraction. A five-position scale was used to assess amount of concern with the detracting element, with 1 being a minor concern and 5 representing a major concern. Respondents were also asked to report their level of perceived stress associated with the detracting experiences. For the detracting condition or situation respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the statement, created a stressful situation. Responses were recorded on a five-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The stress variables used in this study employed both affective (trait) and evaluative (state) measures as self-reported indicators of stress. Multiple measures were used to enhance the possibility of characterizing respondents in terms of their relative stress level. While mixing these two measures introduced some imprecision in measurement, the goal of identifying respondents who self-reported states of stress was enhanced by multiple measures. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) do not reject the examination of both affective and evaluative measures, but they maintain that examinations of emotionality in stress situations should be focused on specific rather than general arousal states, that emotional responses should be tied to specific situations, and that treatments of emotionality should be tied to specific cognitions and not treated separately. They observe that, Traditionally, emotion has been treated separately from cognition. It is an error to postulate that feelings precede cognition or that cognition precedes emotion. Causality is bi-directional. It is also an error to view emotion and cognition as separate; in nature they are conjoined (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 285). The use of emotionality lists are criticized by Lazarus and Folkman when they are used in a way that reduces the range of emotional response or that are disassociated from the factors that elicited an emotional response. In the present study affective response statements are used as only one indicator of an evaluation of threat or stress. Affective statements are not used to describe an overall

10 266 T. A. Miller and S. F. McCool emotional state. Also, the use of emotional trait measures is grounded in the context of the cognitive appraisals of a person/environment transaction. As Lazarus and Folkman point out, Cognitive appraisals lead to specific emotional qualities rather than to a general arousal (Lazarus &Folkman, 1984, p. 284). Another potential concern regarding the use of both trait and state measures of stress relates to the influence of individual differences in attention to potentially stressful conditions. That is, evaluation of stress as a state may be influenced by attentional bias in respondents. Mogg and Bradley (1998) suggest that the tendency of individuals to attend to or avoid stimuli is influenced by underlying cognitive vulnerabilities toward anxiety states. Thus, individuals with higher trait anxiety levels will be more likely to attend to potentially threatening stimuli. This greater attention on the stimuli can produce a lowered threshold for evaluating stimuli as threatening. However, as Mogg and Bradley (1998) observe, mildly aversive situations, like the ones most identified by recreationists in this study, may either produce no attentional bias or even a mild aversive response. Given these considerations, the benefits of multiple indicators of stress appeared to outweigh the potential confusion and uncontrolled effect of using both trait and state measures for stress. Justification for assessing negative affect (PANAS NA) independently of positive affect (PANAS PA) has been demonstrated in tests of the developed scales (Clark & Watson, 1988). Examinations of the PANAS NA scale have produced good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach s coefficient alpha from.84 to.87 for multiple trials of PANAS NA items), reliability over time, and good convergent and discriminant validity for the PANAS PA and NA scales measured (Watson et al., 1988; Watson & Pennebaker, 1989). These tests were primarily conducted on student populations, but limited testing was also done on non-student samples, again with good reliability (α =.87). On the strength of these tests the use of a PANAS NA scale, independent of the positive affect elements, seemed justified. To identify coping strategies, responses to the coping checklist were factor analyzed, resulting in a reduction of the data to a manageable dimensionality. The factor scores for this reduced set of variables representing the core factors were then introduced into a structured equation model. Table 2 details the results of a principal components factor analysis of all 21 items. A Varimax rotation produced six factors with Eigen values greater than one. Eigen values for the analysis indicated that 60.1% of the variance was explained by the identified factors. In instances where factor analysis is aimed primarily at data reduction, principal components analysis is the appropriate methodology (Fabrigar, Wegener, MacCallum, & Strahan, 1999). Analysis of the Relationship Between Stress and Coping A primary concern for this research was the relationship between levels of reported stress and coping strategies. A test of this relationship was accomplished through the use of a structural equation analysis (path analysis) of the identified ways of coping factors and the stress measures used in the study. A path analysis allows one to view the effects of the multiple contributions of individually observed variables in the measurement of their latent variables, as well as an analysis of the relationship between the latent variables. Path analysis, or latent variable analysis, is a multivariate technique where one or more variables are latent or unobserved. In this case, the latent variables were stress and the coping factors. The observed variables were the individual stress and coping variables measured within this study. A structural equation analysis provides a description of the relationships between all observed and latent variables.

11 TABLE 2 Rotated Principal Components Factor Analysis Loadings for Individual Coping Items (Varimax Rotation with Only Loadings >.4 Shown) Factors One Two Three Four Five Six Resource Temporal Absolute Cognitive Environmental Reflective Coping items substitution substitution displacement adjustment change substitution Different area.81 Rec. on different route.79 Rec. in different area Change activity Different time.79 Different season.77 Different time of day.69 Never recreate in Park.81 Never visit GNP.78 No activity in Park.72 Leave Park now.55 Situation as should be.79 Situation suitable.78 Unreasonable expectations.63 Opportunity to grow.56 Talk to Park personnel.81 Talk to change situation.79 Just enjoyed it.54 Talk to group.65 Different activity Symptom of larger problem.56 Cronbach s alpha

12 268 FIGURE 3 The stress/coping relationships for recreationists experiencing negative outdoor recreation setting conditions, using structural equation analysis.

13 Coping with Stress in Outdoor Recreational Settings 269 The path diagram (Figure 3) thus incorporates two types of variables: exogenous (independent) and endogenous (dependent). A change in an exogenous variable is associated with some change in a endogenous variable. Arrows, or paths, represent the relationships between the variables. These relationships are such that a change in the variable at the tail of the arrow will result in a change in the variable at the head of the arrow, all else being equal (i.e., all other variables in the diagram held constant) (Loehlin, 1992, p. 4). The relationship, however, is one-way; a change in the variable at the head does not produce a change in the variable at the tail. In Figure 3 variables in circles are latent variables, and those in rectangular boxes are observed variables. The arrows in the path diagram point away from the latent variables. This reflects the appropriate causal path between latent and measured variables. The coefficients associated with the paths between variables represent standardized regression coefficients. These coefficients indicate the strength of the relationship of the variables along the paths: Because they are regression coefficients, they tell us to what extent a change on the variable at the tail of the arrow is transmitted to the variable at the head of the arrow. Because they are partial regression coefficients, this is the change that occurs with all other variables in the diagram held constant. Because they are standardized partial regression coefficients, we are talking about changes measured in standard deviation units (Loehlin, 1992, p. 13). The observed variables used to measure the latent variable of stress include the PANAS NA items, the level of concern variable, and the single item stress measure. The standardized regression coefficients, or beta coefficients, from the latent variables of stress to the observed stress measures indicate that most of the observed variables are good measures of the stress. Observed measures of coping behavior used in this analysis included the variables associated with the factors identified in the previous factor analysis. Again, the beta coefficients associated with these paths suggest that these variables provided good measures of the latent variables of resource substitution, temporal substitution, absolute displacement, cognitive adjustment, and environmental change. The factor identified as reflective substitution was excluded from this analysis because of its relatively weak place within the factor analysis discussed earlier. Results Conditions or Situations That Detract from Visitor Experience For the 56% of respondents who experienced a detraction, the most common source of that detraction was the number of other people encountered at the area (32%) (Table 3). Access to visitor facilities, rude behavior by other visitors, construction delays and inconveniences, and human caused noise were other elements commonly identified by respondents. Together, these items accounted for 80% of the detracting elements that respondents identified. Stress Measures Taken together, the three measures of stress (PANAS NA, level of concern, and perceived stress) suggested that detracting elements encountered led to low to moderate levels of stress. In general, the level of negative affect for respondents was low (µ = 1.4 on a scale from 1 to 5). Results of the PANAS NA measure suggested that, while respondents can identify detracting conditions or situations, these elements produced a low level of negative

14 270 T. A. Miller and S. F. McCool TABLE 3 Distribution of Responses to Detraction Elements for Respondents Who Identified a Detractor. Percentages Are Only for Those Respondents Who Experienced Some Detractor Identified detracting element Frequency Percent Number of other people Access to facilities Rude visitor behavior Construction Human-caused noise Evidence of human impacts Impediments to wildlife viewing Access to informational materials Excessive rules or regulations Encounters with wildlife Weather Other 6.9 Poor service 2.3 emotionality. The negative experience elements, then, could be characterized as hassles or annoyances for the visitor. This type of daily or low level stressors is what a transactive approach to stress and coping intends to address. Responses to the level of concern measure indicated that, overall, the incidents identified as detracting were seen as being of moderate concern. Only 11% of respondents indicted that the detractor was a major concern. The average rating of concern was 2.8 out of a possible 5. Regarding the single item stress measure, slightly more respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that the detracting experienced element created a stressful situation (37%), than those that disagreed or strongly disagreed (35%). For those respondents reporting stress, a very small percentage (7%) indicated strong agreement that the situation or condition was stressful. The mean response to this measure was 2.9 indicating a moderate level of perceived stress. Coping Strategy Identification The results of a principal components factor analysis on the coping checklist revealed five distinct coping factors (Table 3). Factor one, resource substitution, contained coping behaviors aimed at changing the location of preferred recreational activities. Within this factor, one activity substitution variable was observed with a relatively high factor loading. One possible explanation for the inclusion of this variable could stem from the way the question was phrased. Specifically, this option stated, I realized that doing some activity other than [current activity] in Glacier National Park would allow me to avoid the condition or situation. The wording of this item may have placed an overemphasis on area-specific activity engagement. It was also possible that associations with activity and location were so strong for visitors to the Park that a change in area was equated with a change in activity. A second factor represents temporal substitution behaviors. For this coping response both the preferred recreational activity and location remained the same. Coping responses within this factor focused on behavioral change in the form of visiting the Park at a different time, a different season, or a different time of day.

15 Coping with Stress in Outdoor Recreational Settings 271 Absolute displacement, or a discontinued engagement with the Park, was a third factor identified by this analysis. This factor represents behavioral changes that alter both the recreational activity and location for that activity. Within this factor, a cessation of recreational activity in the Park, never visiting the Park again, and leaving the Park were coping responses identified for the detracting conditions or situations. A fourth factor of coping response was characterized as a cognitive adjustment. These were coping responses that suggested a change in the way recreationists viewed their experiences within the Park. Specifically, respondents re-evaluated the conditions and concluded that they were actually suitable; they were as they should be, only seemed to be a problem because of unreasonable expectations, or were actually a positive chance to grow personally. Both rationalization and product shift elements are included in this factor. Attempts to effect environmental change characterized a fifth identifiable factor. The focus of coping here was to produce some change in the detracting conditions or situations. Items within this factor focused on effecting change by contacting people who could do something to change the conditions or situations. A negative association with the response of simply accepting the situation for what it was strengthened this characterization. A final factor identified coping responses that were somewhat more difficult to characterize. Here the types of responses suggested both a change in recreational behavior, and a sense of reflection and group process. Detracting conditions or situations here occasioned a response of behavior change, talking about the situation with group members, and a cognitive adjustment. This factor was characterized as reflective substitution. Low factor loadings and low Cronbach s alpha measures for this factor raised concerns about its inclusion in subsequent stress and coping analyses. The Relationship Between Stress and Coping The solution for the paths in this model produced acceptable measures of overall fit. The goodness of fit index for the model was.905, with an adjusted goodness of fit of.878, and a root mean square residual of.060. The Chi-square statistic (with 215 degrees of freedom) was The most preferable adjusted goodness of fit would be.900 or greater; however, with the degrees of freedom associated with this analysis (215),.878 provided an acceptable fit for this model (Loehlin, 1992). An examination of the paths between the latent variables of stress and coping revealed patterns that were generally consistent with the hypothesized relationships. As stress increased by one standard deviation, absolute displacement increased by.354 standard deviations. Higher levels of stress were found to be negatively associated with coping strategies characterized as cognitive adjustment (.410). That is, as stress levels increased respondents were less likely to employ cognitive adjustment strategies. These cognitive adjustments were more likely to be associated with lower levels of stress, for the variables measured in this analysis. Substitution coping responses such as resource and temporal adjustments showed a slightly negative association with the measures of stress used in this analysis (.024 and.129, respectively). As stress levels increased, the likelihood of engaging in substitution behaviors decreased slightly. This suggests that substitution behaviors were more likely to be associated with moderate stress levels. Also, as stress levels increased the likelihood of engagement in substitution behaviors showed little positive change. The highest beta coefficient between the latent variable of stress and coping was for the factor characterized as environmental change. As stress increased by one standard deviation, environmental change increased by.382 standard deviations. That is, as perceptions of stress

16 272 T. A. Miller and S. F. McCool increased, the likelihood of engaging in behaviors that effect a change in the environment increased. Thus, for the interactions of stress and substitution/displacement coping responses, this analysis provided support of the hypothesized relationships. Also, this analysis highlighted the role of direct action to change the environment as a response to a stress producing experience element for respondents experiencing high levels of stress. Conclusions and Implications The results reported help describe the relationships between stress levels and coping in outdoor recreational settings. Higher stress levels were more strongly related to absolute displacement behaviors, while the lower stress levels were occasions for cognitive adjustments. Moderate stress levels were associated more with substitution behaviors. These observations offered support for the notion that an individual s judgment concerning what might and can be done (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 53) is related to the level of perceived stress. Interestingly, the highest levels of perceived stress were associated with direct action (e.g., talking with someone who could change the situation). This association has intuitive appeal. Direct action was used when the perceived threat increased to the point where the options of changing one s own behavior, or understandings, were no longer seen as adequate responses. At this point one will turn to some means of changing the environment. Interrupting one s recreational activities to complain to Park staff, or some other authority, can be viewed as a significant expenditure of energy in this setting. From a methodological standpoint, path analysis appears to be a useful tool for describing the multiple associations among stress and coping responses. Although this type of analysis does not imply causality, the relative strength of the associations provides a means of evaluating the overall theoretical model of the stress/coping relationship. This approach is designed to take into account the interrelated nature of coping behaviors chosen in recreational settings. Studies that help to explain the on-going transaction between the person, the environment, and results of coping, can also further our understanding of the long-term changes that occur in recreational populations and settings. Recreational settings are constantly changing as a result of natural processes, social processes, and as a result of management decisions. As recreationists interact with these changing environments a range of coping behaviors are employed. These behaviors can help maintain satisfaction for individual recreationists but can also further influence change in the recreational setting. Thus, individuals may respond to stress-producing transactions by employing displacement behaviors, thereby changing the social dynamic of the areas they now choose to visit. The results of these successional changes set the stage for further transactive evaluations and stress relationships. Through all of these steps, the processes of coping, stress, and change continue over time. While a description of the stress and coping processes is important to the development of a general understanding of these behaviors, further research examining a alternative array of potential coping responses would advance the understanding of stress and coping behaviors. In particular, the direct action response might actually contain distinct types of behavioral adjustments or patterns of coping that are related to perceived stress. A focused examination of recreationists who engage in direct action could provide important insights into the consequences of detracting experience elements. Moreover, this type of analysis could provide useful information for managers responding to direct action on the part of recreationists. This shift in focus toward examining individual coping responses coupled with a move to examine the consequences of conflict situations rather than simply causal