Content uploaded by Raphael Snir
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Raphael Snir
Content may be subject to copyright.
Work-Leisure Relations: Leisure Orientation and the Meaning of Work
by
Raphael Snir
Graduate School of Business
University of Haifa
Haifa 31905, Israel
Phone: 972-3-5714767
Fax: 972-3-5732278
e-mail: r.snir@iname.com
Itzhak Harpaz
Graduate School of Business
University of Haifa
Haifa 31905, Israel
Phone: 972-4-8240022
Fax: 972-4-8249194
e-mail: iharpaz@econ.haifa.ac.il
To appear in:
Journal of Leisure Research, 2002, Volume 34, Issue 2, 178-202.
January 2002
* This research was supported by a grant form the United States-Israel Binational
Science Foundation (BSF), Jerusalem, and by the Israel Association for Research
Funds.
2
Work-Leisure Relations: Leisure Orientation and the Meaning of Work
Abstract
The relationship between work and leisure, with regard to various aspects of work
and its meaning, was examined in two groups of people: leisure-oriented and work-
oriented. Leisure-to-work spillover characterized the relations between leisure
orientation and the following variables: absolute work centrality, interpersonal
contacts, intrinsic orientation, obligation norm, and weekly work hours.
Compensation for work by leisure characterized the relation between job satisfaction
and leisure orientation. The segmentation between leisure and work hypotheses,
regarding economic orientation and entitlement norm, were supported.
Key Words: Work-leisure relations, Leisure orientation, Meaning of work.
3
Work-Leisure Relations: Leisure Orientation and the Meaning of Work
Introduction
Considerable research has focused on work-non-work relations in general, and on
work-leisure relations in particular. Three basic models have been suggested in the
literature: spillover, compensation, and segmentation. The spillover model states that
the nature of one’s work experiences will carry over into the non-work domain and
affect attitudes and behaviors there (Wilensky, 1960). According to the compensation
model, workers who experience a sense of deprivation at work will compensate in their
choice of non-work activities (Wilensky, 1960). In contrast to these two models,
Dubin’s (1958, 1973) segmentation model claims that no relation exists between one’s
work and one’s non-work domains; the two are lived out independently. In reviewing
the empirical literature, Champoux (1981) concluded that the evidence does not allow
any conclusion as to which of the models is most valid. In a more recent study by Tait,
Padgett, and Baldwin (1989), the results suggest that the spillover model may be the
most accurate means of characterizing the relationship between work and non-work
satisfaction. However, a number of studies have found support for either the
compensation model or the segmentation model (Rain, Lane, & Steiner, 1991). On the
other hand, Kelly and Kelly (1994) found neither a complementary nor a compensatory
relationship between work and either family or leisure.
The inconsistency of findings caused several authors to give up searching for general
regularity in work-non-work relations, and to seek regular relations only in various
subgroups of people (Champoux, 1978; Kabanoff, 1980; Shaffer, 1987).
Elizur (1991) claimed that the varying aspects of the work and non-work domains
may be characterized by different patterns of relationship. Using the facet analysis
approach, he distinguished and defined two basic facets, namely behavior modality
4
(instrumental, affective, and cognitive) and social environment (work and home). He
found a clear distinction between work and home regions. Further analysis revealed a
compensation type of relationship between work and home in the instrumental and
cognitive items, and segmentation in the affective items. The results thus contradicted
the conventional approaches that consider work and non-work to be unitary concepts
and attempt to establish which of the three models (spillover, compensation, or
segmentation) best characterizes their relationships.
Other alternatives to the conventional approaches have focused on the direction of
influence in work-non-work relations. Kohn (1990) suggested that the flow of influence
might not be all one-way, and that family and leisure might have some influence on
work orientation. Kirchmeyer (1992) described how family and other non-work
domains can affect attitudes and behaviors at work. She argued that by active
participation in non-work domains, such as family, recreation, and community, workers
can increase the number of privileges enjoyed beyond work-related ones, buffer the
strains of work, gain contacts and information valuable to work, and develop useful
skills and perspectives for work. Cohen (1997a) found that non-work domain variables
were significantly related to withdrawal cognitions. He also found that non-work
domain variables affected organizational commitment (Cohen, 1997b). Overall, in
reviewing the empirical literature, Watkins and Subich (1995) note the increasing
accord that work is inextricably intertwined with other aspects of life.
From previous studies it may be assumed that no overall pattern exists in work-non-
work relations (Champoux, 1981; Elizur, 1991). These relations, as well as the
direction of influence in them, can vary among different subgroups of people and as a
function of the different aspects of the two domains. The present study focuses on the
relationship between work and leisure, as one of the major aspects of non-work. Since
5
little empirical research has been conducted on the association between leisure
orientation and the meaning of work, we aim to examine this phenomenon and to
scrutinize it over time.
The literature lacks an empirical examination of human behavior across time in
general, and work-leisure relations in particular. Methodological problems, as well as
the practical complexities of such studies, mainly account for this lacuna.
Nevertheless, studies focusing on work-leisure relations' phenomena over time seem
to be important and are of a potential contribution. Society is not static, organizations
and their environments are constantly changing. Within this dynamic structure, the
nature of the relationship between work and leisure should also be examined over
time. Such an investigation has a potential to contribute to analysis and prediction of
possible trends, and to better generalisations about consequences of meaning of
work/leisure patterns.
Growth in Leisure Importance and Leisure Orientation
There are indications that the importance of leisure in individuals’ lives is increasing.
Analyzing the 1980 USA Census Data, Hunnicutt (1988) has found support to the
conventional construct of a negatively inclined supply curve of labor – once a certain
wage level was reached, higher wages were associated with shorter work hours. In the
USA, free time increased from an average of 34 hours a week in 1965 to 40.5 hours a
week in 1985 (Robinson, 1990). Calculations from some preliminary estimates in 1993-
96 diary studies showed that the amount of free time was close to the 1985 figures
(Robinson & Blair, 1995). Moreover, Neulinger (1976) observed that one-third of free
time was reported to be experienced as leisure, demonstrating the growing impact of
leisure on individuals and society. According to the results of a survey on time-use
6
patterns of Israelis, 24% of their daily time was dedicated to leisure activities in 1991-
92 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 1995). The daily unstructured leisure time (i.e.,
marginal leisure time, which does not include time dedicated to unpaid work, education,
or religion) of Israelis was forecast to increase from an average of 5.54 hours in 1992 to
5.9 hours in 2010, and to 7.0 hours in 2025 (Interdisciplinary Center for Technological
Analysis and Forecasting, 1998).
Several authors (Offe, 1984; Opaschowski, 1985; Quintanilla-Ruiz & Wilpert, 1991)
claim that the increment in leisure importance signifies a decrease in work importance.
Offe (1984) describes the subjective-normative influence of working as becoming more
marginal in the individual’s life space, as reflected in the reduction of working hours
and the growing importance of leisure. The notion of the steady advance of leisure-
related values at the expense of work-related values is echoed by Opaschowski (1985),
who characterizes this apparent trend as a farewell to the work society. Changes, though
small, in the meaning of work have been reported by Quintanilla-Ruiz and Wilpert
(1991). They found a decrease in work centrality among German samples over a six-
year period, with the value of work roles decreasing and the value of leisure activities
increasing. In 1989, the relative importance of leisure was even higher than that of
work. However, these authors argued that neither society as a whole nor individuals
could completely forgo the function of work as a central mechanism of distributing
goods and benefits. Work remained important in the development and maintenance of a
person’s identity (Quintanilla-Ruiz & Wilpert, 1991). Nevertheless, even if the role of
work remains important, the role of leisure is apparently assuming significantly greater
importance in most developed countries (England, 1991; Harpaz, 1999; MOW-
International Research Team, 1987).
7
This increase in leisure importance, whether or not it is at the expense of work, is
perhaps an indication of the need to research leisure orientation more systematically.
Burdge (1961) defined leisure orientation as the attitude of an individual or a group of
individuals to leisure. Studies have addressed this topic (e.g., Beatty, Jeon, & Albaum,
1994; Dattilo, Dattilo, Samdahl, & Kleiber, 1994; van Delden, 1971; Spreitzer &
Snyder, 1987; Weiner & Hunt, 1983) and some related topics, such as leisure
motivation (e.g., Manfredo, Driver, & Tarrant, 1996) and leisure ethic (e.g., Hirschfeld
& Feild, 2000). For instance, Weiner and Hunt (1983) found that students were
positively oriented toward work as well as leisure. Dattilo et al., (1994) found that self-
esteem is differently correlated with different aspects of leisure orientation among low
income overweight women.
However, unlike most studies concerning leisure orientation, the present study has
high external validity, since it is based on two representative samples of the (Israeli)
labor force. Furthermore, the fact that data was gathered from the first sample in 1981
and from the second sample in 1993, through the Meaning of Work project (MOW -
International Research Team, 1987), enables an examination of stability or change
over time, concerning the association between leisure orientation and the meaning of
work.
Leisure participation has a beneficial effect on satisfaction, psychological well-being,
and health (Coleman, 1993; Coleman & Iso-Ahola, 1993). Among the psychological
aspects listed by many scholars as conducive to these positive outcomes is the
opportunity for skill utilization, self-expression and self-actualization, need
gratification, freedom of choice, and an avenue to develop one’s sense of competence
(Melamed, Meir, & Samson, 1995).
8
Since both leisure and work occupy a major part of a person’s life, first it is important
to comprehend the meaning of work concept as a framework for examining its relation
with leisure.
Meaning of Work: Theoretical Model and Conceptualization
Despite the relatively recent interest in this topic, a well-articulated theory of the
meaning of work (MOW) has not yet been developed. The pioneering classic project
of the Meaning of Work International Research Team resulted only in a heuristic
model based on the conception that the meaning of work is determined by the choices
and experiences of individuals, and by the organizational and environmental context
in which they work and live (MOW - International Research Team, 1987). The
conceptualization presented here is based on the MOW research project, carried out
comparatively in eight countries (Belgium, Britain, Japan, Netherlands, USA, West-
Germany, former Yugoslavia and Israel). It portrays the meaning of work in terms of
six major notions or dimensions: work centrality, economic orientation, interpersonal
relations, intrinsic orientation, entitlement norm, and obligation norm. The core
concept addressed by each dimension is described below (for the empirical process
leading to the extraction of these six variables, see Method).
Work Centrality
Work is one of the most basic and important activities for people in modern society.
The assertion that work plays a central and fundamental role in the life of individuals
has been supported empirically in most industrialized countries (Brief & Nord, 1990;
England & Misumi, 1986; Mannheim, 1993). Studies by Dubin and others (Dubin,
Champoux, & Porter, 1975; Dubin, Hedley, & Taveggia, 1976) were helpful in
9
developing this concept, which refers to the degree of general importance that
working has in one's life at any given time (MOW - International Research Team,
1987).
There are two major theoretical components of the work centrality construct, each
with specific properties. The first, absolute work centrality, involves a belief or value
orientation toward work as a life role. The second, relative work centrality, involves a
decision orientation about preferred life spheres for behavior. The relative work
importance component parallels Dubin’s (1956) central life interests and Barker’s
(1968) theory of behavioral settings. In general, work has been found to be of
relatively high importance as compared with other areas of life (England, 1991;
Quintanilla-Ruiz & Wilpert, 1991). It is usually considered to be of more importance
than leisure, community, and religion and was found in several studies to be ranked
second only to family (Harding & Hikspoors, 1995; Harpaz, 1999; MOW -
International Research Team, 1987). High work centrality has been found to be
positively related to important organizational variables, such as job satisfaction,
participation in decision making (Kanungo, 1982), and longer job tenure (Dubin et al.,
1975). Individuals with high work centrality seem to be more committed to their
organizations and derive a purpose and contentment from their jobs. Hence, it is
conceivable that a sudden acquisition of a large sum of money or wealth would not
prompt these individuals to relinquish their jobs.
Economic Orientation
This sphere stems from one’s disposition to instrumental or extrinsic work
outcomes. It assumes that people work mainly for, are motivated by, and enjoy
obtaining the instrumental aspects of their work context. The importance of
10
instrumental rewards tends to vary according to their attractiveness to individuals and
their ability to satisfy various needs (Lawler, 1994). In the Meaning of Work project,
in the six countries where this question was posed, income was the most dominant
valued work outcome, preceding various expressive and other aspects (MOW -
International Research Team, 1987). In Israel, income was selected as the most
important work outcome by more than 30 percent of the sample representing the labor
force in the 1980s, and by 43 percent in the 1990s (Harpaz, 1999).
There are a number of contentions and findings claiming that contrary to common
belief, intrinsic or expressive needs are not the only important aspect of work for
people, and that instrumental variables are important as well (Dubin et al., 1975;
Kanungo & Mendonca, 1992). It was disclosed that the most important role of work
with which people identify is that of providing income for sustaining life and fulfilling
other important needs (England & Harpaz, 1990; MOW - International Research
Team, 1987). Accordingly, it seems that people with an acute inclination to
instrumental or economic values perceive work as a main vehicle for providing
income.
Interpersonal Relations
Humans are social beings and interaction among them is essential for their mental
health (McAdams, 1988). The importance of interpersonal relations among people, for
their well being and subsistence, has been extensively discussed by various scholars
(Battle, 1990; Kulik, Mahler, & Moore, 1996; Wright, 1984). The need for affiliation,
and specifically the desire for friendly and close interpersonal relationships, is part of
most need theories (McClelland, 1985). In their classic typology of the meanings and
functions of work that seem to incorporate the findings of most of the research,
11
Kaplan and Tausky (1974) emphasize the prominence of ‘satisfying interpersonal
experiences,’ and point out that satisfaction stems from affiliations established at
work (Kaplan & Tausky, 1974). The influence of social relations at work was also
demonstrated by the results attained by the MOW project’s outcomes (England, 1991;
MOW - International Research Team, 1987).
Intrinsic Orientation
This concept emphasizes individuals’ needs, including their evaluation of their
competence for the job and whether or not the work task allows them an appropriate
level of self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1985). It is generally agreed that intrinsic or
expressive variables include work aspects such as an interesting job, variety,
autonomy, challenging work, and so on. Such expressive work aspects were found to
be important for the development of a strong job involvement among employees
(Kanungo, 1982; Vroom, 1962). Several scholars define or equate job involvement or
components of it with work centrality or with the view of work as a central life
interest (Lodahl & Keiner, 1965; Pinder, 1998).
Interesting work was the most dominant work goal for a representative sample of
the labor force in seven countries. This finding was consistent internationally, across
different managerial and organizational hierarchies, as well as demographic variables
(MOW – International Research Team, 1987). Intrinsic orientation emerged as the
strongest predictor of work centrality in Germany, Israel, Japan, and the United
States, prompting the researchers to argue that intrinsic orientation seems to be a
universal phenomenon (Harpaz & Fu, 1997).
12
Entitlement and Obligation: Societal Norms Regarding Work
Based on Triandis’s (1972) work on subjective culture, a set of normative
assumptions were developed about what one should expect from work and working
(opportunities or entitlements) and what one should expect to contribute through
working (obligations). The entitlement norm represents the underlying rights of
individuals and the work-related responsibilities of society and organizations to all
individuals (i.e., all members of society are entitled to have work if they so desire).
These notions of entitlements or rights derive from standards or reasoning about
property rights and the psychological contract as applied to the work setting. The
obligation norm represents the work duties of all individuals to organizations and to
society (i.e., everyone has a duty to contribute to society by working). The notion of
obligations or duties derives from standards of reasoning about internalized personal
responsibility and social or institutional commitment, in accordance with the
Protestant work ethic (Randall & Cote, 1991). In the Meaning of Work study, an
evaluative rather than a descriptive meaning of norms was utilized. That is, norms
indicate what should be, rather than what is; they involve general expectations about
appropriate behavior concerning working (MOW - International Research Team,
1987). Moreover, it appears that if a society generally holds positive norms and
attitudes towards work, work is central and highly cherished; in such a society, it
would be considered a deviation from the norm to stay away from the work force, or
not actively to seek employment.
Finally, some additional variables were examined in the MOW study to provide
information on a number of other aspects of the work situation and work-related
attitudes (MOW - International Research Team, 1987). Two of these variables are
13
especially relevant for the present research topic: weekly work hours and job
satisfaction.
Leisure Orientation and the Meaning of Work
Based on the notion that there is no overall pattern in work-non-work relations
(Champoux, 1981; Elizur, 1991), this section examines the relationship between work
and leisure,
as one of the major aspects of non-work, in two different groups of people
(the leisure-oriented and the work-oriented)
concerning various aspects of work and its
meaning. A comparison between leisure-oriented and work-oriented people does not
necessarily imply that the two groups are totally distinct. Operationalizations of
multiple roles have begun to take into account the quality of the role rather than
merely role occupancy (McBride, 1990). Furthermore, even the two domains, work
and leisure, are not utterly differentiated. Primeau (1996) demonstrated how
distinctions between work and leisure are culturally bound and perpetuated the
assumption that they are dichotomous experiences.
Building on the available scant literature, a set of hypotheses was developed and
tested in the present study:
Absolute Work Centrality
We did not find studies that attempted directly to examine the relationship between
leisure orientation and absolute work centrality. Using data from 349 employed
individuals, Hirschfeld and Feild (2000) found negative correlation between leisure
ethic and work centrality. There is also reference in the literature to the relationship
between relative work importance and absolute work importance. According to Harpaz
(1990), relative work importance and absolute work importance do have some
14
conceptual similarities. Both include properties of involvement; both have relational
properties (the relational property in absolute work importance is the work in relation
to self, while in relative work importance it is work in relation to other life aspects);
and both are concerned with a person’s identification with working in general. Based
on these conceptual similarities, we predicted:
Hypothesis 1. Leisure will spill over into work. Valuing leisure more than work will
reduce absolute work importance; that is, the absolute work importance of leisure-
oriented people will be lower than that of work-oriented people.
Economic Orientation
We did not find studies focusing specifically on the relation between leisure
orientation and economic (work) orientation. However, there are indications in the
literature on the importance of economic reasons for working. Money plays an
important role in the life of most people (Lawler, 1971). Economic reasons for
working are as important as ever, and to that extent work remains central in people’s
lives (Haywood, Kew, Bramham, Spink, Capenerhurst, & Henry, 1989). Even if work
is defined as a means to some other end, like leisure, generating income still
constitutes one of the basic reasons for employment. Based on these claims, we
expected:
Hypothesis 2. In accordance with the segmentation model, there will be no
difference between leisure-oriented and work-oriented people regarding economic
(work) orientation.
Interpersonal Relations
Tinsley, Hinson, Tinsley, and Holt (1993) examined the attributes characteristic of
common and memorable leisure experiences and work experiences. The most apparent
15
differences were found between work experiences and the two categories of leisure
experiences. Leisure experiences were found to involve attributes such as
companionship and enjoyment, while work experiences involved attributes such as
fulfillment, accomplishment, responsibility, and extrinsic rewards.
Blickle, Goenner, and Heider (1998) examined the relationship among vocational
orientations, values, and motives in a sample of young German workers. Leisure
orientation was correlated with affiliation motives. Work also fulfills social functions,
by providing opportunities for meeting new people and developing friendships
(Donald & Havighurst, 1959; Steers & Porter, 1975; Warr, 1981). Establishing and
maintaining interpersonal relations take on particular importance when the type of
work requires group efforts. However, we assumed that leisure-oriented people, as an
outcome of their personal inclination, had a stronger need to use friendship
opportunities at the workplace than work-oriented people. Hence, we expected:
Hypothesis 3. There will be a leisure-to-work spillover: leisure-oriented people will
attribute more importance to interpersonal relations at work than will work- oriented
people.
Intrinsic Orientation
From a psychological perspective, leisure has been associated with perceived
freedom, intrinsic motivation, and non-instrumentality (Neulinger, 1976). Leisure is
seen as intrinsically motivated and as an end in itself, rather than as a means to an end.
This definition dates from the ancient Greeks, who spoke of schol’e (leisure) as a
contemplative activity pursued for its own sake (de Grazia, 1962). Dumazedier (1974)
described leisure as disinterested (having no utilitarian purpose) and hedonistic.
Several studies substantiated the presence of intrinsic satisfaction in subjective leisure
16
across many activity contexts (Iso-Ahola, 1979; Kelly, 1978). Unger and Kernan
(1983) found that intrinsic satisfaction is one of the most important determinants of
subjective leisure present across a variety of situational contexts. Weissinger and
Bandalos (1995) defined Intrinsic Leisure Motivation Disposition as a tendency to
seek intrinsic rewards in leisure behavior. They assumed that the strength of this
tendency would differ across individuals, but would remain relatively stable within
individuals. Hence we expected:
Hypothesis 4. Leisure-oriented people tend to prefer leisure, rather than work, as a
valued domain for obtaining intrinsic rewards. Hence, a leisure-to-work spillover will
take place, and the intrinsic (work) orientation of leisure-oriented people will be
weaker than that of work-oriented people.
Entitlement Norm
Israeli workers have experienced greater job insecurity in the last two decades, since
the Histadrut (General Federation of Labor) has lost much of its power. According to
Zusman (1995), as the trend toward a market economy has grown stronger, the trade
union has come to be perceived as a negative force, harming the flexibility of the labor
market. Thus, the Histadrut’s influence on the determination of salaries has been
significantly reduced, and largely replaced by personal contracts as a means of setting
salaries and working conditions (Shirom, 1995). The employment conditions of about
50 percent of Israeli wage earners are now settled through personal contract (Zusman,
1995).
Greater job insecurity is not a unique Israeli phenomenon. For example,
American workers have also experienced it during the last decade (Aronowitz & Di
Fazio, 1994; Moore, 1996). We assumed that because of this feeling of occupational
insecurity, the entitlement norm (i.e. the notion that a job should be provided to every
17
individual who desires to work) was held by most Israeli workers, whether or not they
were leisure-oriented or work-oriented. Hence:
Hypothesis 5. In keeping with the segmentation model, there will be no difference
between leisure-oriented and work-oriented people regarding the entitlement norm.
Obligation Norm
The obligation norm is the normative belief that all individuals have a duty to
contribute to society through work (MOW-International Research Team, 1987).
Leisure is often described as ‘free’, that is, something one perceives as voluntary,
without coercion or obligation (Dumazedier, 1974; Ennis, 1968; Huizinga, 1950;
Stephenson, 1967). This property of leisure, like intrinsic satisfaction, derives from the
Aristotelian definition of leisure: freedom from the necessity to work (de Grazia, 1962).
The concept of freedom has been central to philosophical approaches to leisure since
Aristotle (Goodale & Goodbey, 1988; Kelly, 1992). Several authors have asserted that
perceived freedom is the single precondition of subjective leisure (Bregha, 1980;
Kaplan, 1975; Neulinger, 1976). Unger and Kernan (1983) found perceived freedom
to be one of three determinants of subjective leisure present across a variety of
situational contexts. Hence,
Hypothesis 6. The need for freedom is likely to spill over into the work domain for
leisure-oriented people, whose obligation norm will be weaker than that of work-
oriented people.
Weekly Work Hours
Work involvement may include behavioral elements, such as the amount of time
spent participating in work activities (Harpaz, 1990). Quintanilla-Ruiz and Wilpert
18
(1991) found a decrease in work centrality and an increase in leisure importance
among German samples over a six-year period. They claimed that this may coincide
with a real reduction in hours worked during this period. Persons high in the
commitment component of intrinsic leisure motivation tended to value leisure
behaviors and feel dedicated to ensuring leisure in their lives (Weissinger & Bandalos,
1995). Accordingly, we expected to find differences between leisure-oriented and
work-oriented people in regard to the amount of time spent participating in work
activities. Leisure was expected to spill over into work in the following manner:
Hypothesis 7. Leisure-oriented people will tend to work fewer hours per week than
work-oriented people.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction is a function of the discrepancy between what is desired in a job
and what is actually experienced, as a standard of comparison (Rice, McFarlin, &
Bennett, 1989). Work centrality has been found to be positively related to job
satisfaction (Kanungo, 1982). Alternative causal models have been developed,
relating work centrality and job satisfaction to antecedents and outcomes. While all
models proved acceptable, the strongest model posited job satisfaction as an
antecedent rather than an outcome of work centrality (Mannheim, Baruch, & Tal,
1997). Spreitzer and Snyder (1987) found that leisure involvement could serve as a
partial compensation for deficits in job satisfaction. Based on these findings, we
expected:
Hypothesis 8. There will be compensation for work by leisure. Therefore, as job
satisfaction increases in value, the likelihood of being leisure-oriented will decrease.
19
Method
Samples
Data were collected through the Meaning of Work project initially conducted by
this study’s second author, in 1981, and then again in 1993.
The 1981 Sample
In 1981, a questionnaire probing the Meaning of Work was completed by a
representative sample of the Israeli labor force, consisting of 973 respondents. The
sample was drawn from 10 socioeconomic strata as defined by the Central Bureau of
Statistics, using an ecological method. Eight strata represented the urban areas,
covering 95 percent of the Israel’s citizens; while the remaining two strata represented
the rural settlements, according to Israel’s population distribution. This resulted in
stepwise random selection according to random household identification, random
choice among those who fell within prescribed categories, and random quota
sampling according to the specifications of the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics.
Specifically, 35 percent of the sample was drawn from the four largest cities in
Israel (Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, and Beer Sheba), 35 percent from ‘old’ cities
(founded before the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948), 13 percent from
‘new’ cities (founded after 1948), 6 percent from old urban settlements (towns
administered by a local municipality), 7 percent from new urban settlements, 1.5
percent from old rural settlements, and 2.5 percent from new rural settlements. The
stratification of the sample ensured a high level of representation and decreased
sampling error.
Each city was divided into sub-districts, and within each district streets were
randomly selected according to their representation; and only in the range of the
sampling error, so its population was organized in a less heterogeneous stratum.
The
20
sampling unit was the family living in an apartment or a house. In each street
interviewers went to the first house, then from house to house, entering every
apartment until they completed the number of interviews allocated to that street.
(Thus, a systematic bias of the sample was prevented; i.e. it eliminated the tendency
of interviewers to enter only the lower floors, as most Israelis tend to live in apartment
houses). Individuals were interviewed in their homes by professional interviewers
from a national survey agency, according to the University of Michigan’s ‘Kish
Method’ (Kish, 1967).
Namely, the interviewer was asked to compile a list of all
people, aged 18 and above, who permanently live in the same household. After the
first interviewee was chosen, the interviewer proceeded to interview every third
person on the list. This system ensures that two principles are taken into
consideration: first, a proper representation of families with respect to their size,
which eliminates over-representation of small families or under-representation of
large families. The second principle - a lack of bias according to the availability of
family members to the interview. Women, housewives, mothers of young children,
and people over 65 tend to spend more time at home. Drawing up lists of family
members and interviewing ev
ery third person prevented systematic bias of this kind.
Finally, an average interview lasted about 25 minutes, and about 87 percent of all
individuals approached for interviewing agreed to participate. Comparisons with
regard to census data showed a high degree of representation (MOW – International
Research Team, 1987).
The sample population comprised 57.4 percent men and 42.6 percent women, with
a mean age of 39.4 years. Regarding educational level, 19.1 percent had primary
school education, 46.1 percent had a secondary school education, 18.5 percent had
21
some college or vocational/technical education, and 16.3 percent had a university
degree.
The 1993 Sample
Data on a new representative sample of the labor force were collected in 1993. The
same procedures as those of the 1981 study for sampling and interviewing were
followed in the 1993 study. Specifically, respondents were selected by various
random methods and were interviewed individually in their homes by professional
interviewers from a national survey agency. The questionnaire contained the same
items used in the 1981 sample, an average interview again lasted about 25 minutes,
and 84 percent of all individuals asked to be interviewed agreed to participate in the
study. Likewise, comparisons with census data of the Statistical Abstracts of Israel
(1995) showed a high degree of representation.
The 1993 sample population consisted of 942 respondents, including 57.9 percent
men and 42.1 percent women, mean age 38.2 years. In education, 6.9 percent had
primary education, 50.3 percent had secondary education, 21.9 percent had some
college or vocational/technical education, and 20.9 percent had a university degree.
Measures
The Meaning of Work Dimensions
Below is a description of the five meaning of work domains and their measurement
scales, followed by a description of the procedure for the extraction and development
of the six dimensions used in the present study. These five domains were employed in
the 1981 Israeli data collection, as a part of the MOW study (MOW - International
Research Team, 1987). For maintenance of uniformity for replication and
comparability, they were also used in the 1993 Israeli data collection.
22
The Meaning of Work is an original and pioneering cross-national project initiated
in the late 1970s by a group of researchers from eight countries. A model consisting
of five domains was jointly formulated and empirically tested in each country. These
domains include work centrality, societal norms regarding work, work goals, valued
work outcomes, and work-role identification (MOW-International Research Team,
1987). Each of these domains was designed uniquely to capture the
multidimensionality and richness embodied in attitudes to work and work values. A
short description of the domains follows.
Centrality of work. Two measures of work centrality were used. The first was a
Likert-type scale measure of absolute work centrality, indicating the importance of
work from 1(=low) to 7(=high). The second was a measure of relative work centrality,
which had respondents assign up to a total of 100 points to the following areas of their
lives: leisure, community, work, religion, and family.
Valued work outcomes. Respondents were asked to assign up to a total of 100 points to
the following six outcomes provided by work: status and prestige, income, time
absorption, interesting contacts, service to society, and interest and satisfaction.
Work-role identification. To examine how people define and identify work in terms
of various roles, respondents were asked to rank six work roles according to their
importance: task, company, product/service, co-workers, occupation, and money.
Importance of work goals. Respondents were asked to rank eleven goals or aspects of
their work life in order of their importance: opportunity to learn, interpersonal relations,
promotion, work hours, variety, interesting work, job security, match between job and
abilities, pay, working conditions, and autonomy.
Societal norms regarding work. Respondents were asked to evaluate a set of
statements about work, in terms of what one should expect from work, or entitlements
23
(i.e., ‘If a worker's skills become outdated, his/her employer should be responsible for
retraining’), and what one should contribute through working, or obligations (i.e., ‘It is
the duty of every able-bodied citizen to contribute to society by working’).
Respondents rated each of ten normative statements from 1 (=disagree) to 4 (=agree).
The scores of the 39 questions measuring the five MOW domains described above
were subjected to a principal component factor analysis. Factors with Eigen values
exceeding 1.0 were rotated to simple structure by the varimax procedure. Factor
loadings with an absolute value greater than or equal to .40 were used to define and
interpret the factors (MOW-International Research Team, 1987). The analysis resulted
in six major work-related indices, which were found operationally to define and
represent the MOW domains. To examine the stability of the structure of these scales
(or indices) between 1981 and 1993, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted by
the LISREL method (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1981). Our structural model hypothesized
that each of the indices would maintain its stability concerning the items that
composed it. The analysis showed that the measurement model was solid, all the
indicators loaded at least moderate to high on the latent constructs or dimensions that
they represented, consistently over the two time periods (
2
= 790.98, df = 578;
Goodness of Fit Index = .75; Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index = .71, Root Mean
Square Residual = .10). Hence, the variables were good indicators of the meaning of
work indices across time. The same six indices (constructs) in the structural model
emerged at both time periods and, with the exception of the intrinsic orientation
toward work dimension, all constructs remained stable. The latter dimension was
composed of five indicators in the original 1981 factor analysis, while in 1993 only
three indicators loaded on this construct. The indicators of job-abilities match and
autonomy were not significant and therefore were dropped from the model. Other
24
than this minor change in the structure of the meaning of work over time, the model
indicated that the meaning of work constructs were well linked.
These dimensions and the items composing them were as follows:
Work centrality. (a) absolute centrality of work; (b) relative centrality of work.
Economic orientation. (a) importance of pay; (b) role of money; (c) good pay.
Interpersonal relations. (a) interesting contacts; (b) type of people; (c) good
interpersonal relations.
Intrinsic orientation. (a) satisfying work; (b) variety; (c) interesting work; (d) job-
abilities match; (e) autonomy.
Entitlement norm. (a) retraining responsibility; (b) ask for suggestions; (c)
meaningful work; (d) entitled to a job.
Obligation norm. (a) contribution to society; (b) save for future; (c) value any work.
The major dependent variables analyzed in this study were absolute work centrality,
economic orientation, interpersonal relations, intrinsic orientation, entitlement norm,
and obligation norm. The relative work centrality measure was used to construct the
leisure orientation variable, as described below.
Leisure Orientation
Employed individuals were classified either as leisure-oriented or work-oriented
according to their scores on the relative work centrality measure, which required
respondents to assign up to a total of 100 points to the following areas of their lives:
leisure, community, work, religion, and family. Using relative importance score to
establish leisure orientaion is based on the assumption that values are essentially a
hierarchical preference structure (Locke, 1976; Rokeach, 1973).
25
The classification was carried out in the following manner: first, the relative leisure
importance score and the relative work importance score were transformed into z scores
(within the sample – 1981 or 1993 – to which the individual belonged). Next,
individuals with a higher relative leisure-importance score than their relative work-
importance score, and a relative leisure-importance z score equal to or higher than 1,
were classified as leisure-oriented. Individuals with a higher relative work-importance
score than their relative leisure-importance score, and a relative work-importance z
score equal to or higher than 1, were classified as work-oriented. In the 1981 sample,
the average relative leisure-importance score was 17.93 (s.d. = 15.67), and the average
relative work-importance score was 27.77 (s.d. = 18.73). In the 1993 sample, the
average relative leisure-importance score was 20.02 (s.d. = 16.64), and the average
relative work-importance score was 31.16 (s.d. = 18.52).
From both the 1981 sample and the 1993 sample, 217 individuals were classified as
leisure-oriented and 381 individuals were classified as work-oriented. Table 1
presents the distributions of sex, educational level, age, marital status, and type of
work among leisure-oriented versus work-oriented people.
----------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
----------------------------------
Weekly Work Hours
Weekly work hours were measured by the question: ‘On the average, how many
hours a week do you work (including overtime)?’
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction was computed from the following two questions:
26
Q1: ‘If you were to start all over again, would you again choose your occupation or
would you choose a different one?’ (1) A different occupation. (2) The same
occupation.
Q2: ‘Would you recommend your occupation to your children for their work?’
(1)
No. (2) Yes.
The scale was calculated in the following way: Job satisfaction=Q1+Q2-1.
Statistical Analysis
To examine the relation between job satisfaction and leisure orientation, logistic
regression analysis was used. Hypotheses regarding absolute work centrality, economic
orientation, interpersonal relations, intrinsic orientation, entitlement norm, obligation
norm, and weekly work hours were examined via multivariate analyses of variance.
Each MANOVA included two independent variables: leisure orientation and the year
of labor force sampling.
Age is not only a biological and psychological variable but also a socio-cultural and
historical one, and it is likely to carry significance for the meaning of leisure
(Freysinger, 1995). It was used as a control variable in the logistic regression analysis
and as a covariate in the multivariate analyses of variance.
Generally, investigations of sex issues in leisure behavior and experiences have
established differences between the leisure of man and women (Dattilo, Dattilo,
Samdahl, & Kleiber, 1994; Primeau, 1996). In the present study, however, neither sex
nor educational level were included in the inferential statistical analyses since their
inclusion had no impact on the pattern of similarities and/or differences between
leisure-oriented and work-oriented people.
27
In order to find out whether the similarities and/or differences between leisure-
oriented and work-oriented people are relatively stable across time, labor-force
sampling year was used as a control variable in the logistic regression analysis
regarding job satisfaction. Similarly, the multivariate analyses of variance included
interaction of leisure orientation by labor force sampling year.
Results
Data pertaining to sample characteristics, such as means, standard deviations, number
of items, and range of scores among research variables, are presented in Table 2.
---------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here
---------------------------------
Since the labor force demographic composition did not change significantly from 1981
to 1993 (Harpaz, 1999), neither chance nor sample composition changes can be
effectively argued as major challenges to the ‘realness’ of the observed similarities or
differences between the 1981 and the 1993 samples.
Hypothesis 1 concerning absolute work centrality (leisure-to-work spillover),
Hypothesis 2 concerning economic orientation (segmentation), and Hypothesis 3
concerning interpersonal relations (leisure-to-work spillover) were examined via
MANOVA. No significant multivariate effect for the interaction of leisure orientation by
labor force sampling year was found. The analysis revealed a significant multivariate
effect for leisure orientation (Wilks’ lambda = 0.921, F(3,552)=15.66, p<0.001). The
results of the univariate F tests for the main effect of leisure orientation are presented in
Table 3 (see analysis 1).
-------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here
-------------------------------
28
H
ypotheses 1, 2 and 3 were supported, as shown respectively in the following findings.
H1: the absolute work centrality of leisure-oriented individuals was found to be lower
than that of work-oriented individuals. H2: there was no significant difference revealed
between leisure-oriented and work-oriented individuals regarding economic orientation.
H3: the leisure-oriented attributed more importance to interpersonal relations at work
than did work-oriented individuals.
Hypothesis 4 concerning intrinsic orientation (leisure-to-work spillover), Hypothesis 5
concerning entitlement norm (segmentation), and Hypothesis 6 concerning obligation
norm (leisure-to-work spillover) were examined via MANOVA. No significant
multivariate effect for the interaction of leisure orientation by labor force sampling year
was found. The analysis revealed a significant multivariate effect for leisure orientation
(Wilks’ lambda = 0.969, F(3,582)=6.13, p<0.001). The results of the univariate F tests
for the main effect of leisure orientation are presented
in Table 3
(see analysis 2).
Hypotheses 4, 5 and 6 were supported, as shown respectively in the following findings.
H4: the intrinsic orientation of leisure-oriented individuals was found to be weaker than
that of work-oriented individuals. H5: no significant difference was revealed between the
two groups regarding the entitlement norm. H6: the obligation norm of leisure-oriented
individuals was found to be weaker than that of work-oriented individuals.
Hypothesis 7 concerning weekly work hours (leisure-to-work spillover) was
examined via MANOVA. No significant effect for the interaction of leisure
orientation by labor force sampling year was found. The analysis revealed a
significant effect for leisure orientation. The results of the F test for the main effect of
leisure orientation are presented in Table 3 (see analysis 3). Hypothesis 7 was
supported, as shown in the following finding. H7: leisure-oriented individuals were
found to work fewer hours per week than work-oriented individuals.
29
Hypothesis 8 concerning the relation between job satisfaction and leisure orientation
(compensation for work by leisure) was examined via logistic regression analysis. The
predictor variables were age, labor force sampling year, and job satisfaction. The results
of the logistic regression analysis predicting leisure orientation are presented in Table 4.
-------------------------------
Insert Table 4 about here
-------------------------------
The additional contribution of job satisfaction to the prediction of leisure orientation
(beyond the contributions of age and labor force sampling year) is significant. As job
satisfaction increased in value, the likelihood of being leisure-oriented decreased.
In all of the analyses described above, the similarities or differences between leisure-
oriented and work-oriented people remained stable across time.
Discussion
The present study is one of the few on the subject of work-leisure relations based on
representative samples of the Israeli labor force. It is also one of the few studies dealing
specifically with the topic of leisure orientation. In the USA, free time has increased
considerably (Robinson, 1990). Similarly, Quintanilla-Ruiz and Wilpert (1991) found a
decrease in weekly work hours among German samples over a six-year period. Mulgan
and Wilkinson (1995) cite survey research in Britain which indicated that over 70
percent of people working more than 40 hours per week wanted to work less. Although
work is still highly important, the role of leisure seems to assume significantly greater
importance (England, 1991; Harpaz, 1999; MOW-International Research Team, 1987).
In view of the increasing importance of leisure, the findings of this study are timely.
According to Haywood et al. (1989), early research of work-leisure relations
examined the ways in which work may spill over into leisure, or the capacity of
30
leisure to compensate for the shortcomings of work. In either case, leisure was seen as
subordinate to work and reflected the conception of the work ethic. In the current
study, we have presented and examined a less work-biased set of hypotheses.
The prediction that there is no general regularity in the relations between work and
leisure, as one of the major aspects of non-work, was supported. Work-non-work
relations can vary among different subgroups of people (Champoux, 1978; Kabanoff,
1980; Shaffer, 1987) and as a function of the different aspects of the two domains
(Elizur, 1991). Moreover, the direction of influence on these relations can vary as well
(Kohn, 1990). Leisure-to-work spillover was shown to characterize the relations
between leisure orientation and the following variables: absolute work centrality,
interpersonal relations, intrinsic orientation, obligation norm, and weekly work hours.
These findings support Kirchmeyer’s (1992) conclusion that for a true understanding of
an individual at work, not only should that person’s work life be considered but also
his/her life away from work. However, this support is somewhat limited, since only the
differences between leisure-oriented and work-oriented people concerning absolute
work centrality and weekly work hours can be regarded as substantive, and not just
statistically significant.
Spreitzer and Snyder’s (1987) claim that leisure involvement can serve as a partial
compensation for deficits in job satisfaction, is supported by the finding that
compensation for work by leisure characterized the relation between job satisfaction
and leisure orientation.
The segmentation between leisure and work hypotheses regarding economic
orientation and the entitlement norm were supported. Economic reasons for working,
as well as the need for occupational security, have remained important during the last
31
two decades, regardless of one’s leisure or work orientation. Indeed, work in the sense
of paid employment is still found to be central (Haywood et al., 1989).
The similarities or differences between leisure-oriented and work-oriented people
regarding the meaning of work have remained stable across labor force sampling time
(1981 and 1993). That the labor force demographic composition did not change
significantly from 1981 to 1993 (Harpaz, 1999) lends further support to the study’s
findings.
Knowledge about stability or changes over time concerning societal value patterns
may provide vital information on what is important to individuals, and thus may
portray a picture of what they aspire for at a given moment. In the work place this
may be related to what are their work goals, what motivates them, and to the
importance of a certain reward system, as well as, leisure activities away from work.
If organizations are realizing that the value system is relatively stable, it has clear
implications regarding various policies concerning continuing to provide outcomes
which match the prevailing value system. In contrast, if organizations are realizing
that the structure of the work force’s value system has shifted, it may thus help them
match their plans and policies accordingly.
The use of cross-sectional, correlational data, drawn from two representative
samples of the Israeli labor force, does not allow us to make causal inferences
concerning the various hypothesized relationships. However, the design of this study
using dependent/predicted variables is appropriate because work and non-work are
expected to be reciprocally related (Watkins & Subich, 1995). Causal inferences
regarding work-leisure relations will be made possible through longitudinal design
studies.
32
From an organizational point of view, the differentiation between leisure- oriented
and work-oriented people is, in itself, simplistic. The level of similarities or
differences between the two groups depends on the various aspects of work and its
meaning. They are not shown to differ in respect of economic orientation and
entitlement norm. However, leisure-oriented people show lower levels of absolute
work centrality, intrinsic work orientation, obligation norm, and work commitment (in
terms of working hours) than work-oriented people; they also attribute greater
importance than their work-oriented counterparts to interpersonal relations at work.
There are implications of the study’s findings for human resource
management concerning employees placement, non-standard forms of employment,
and flexible benefits programs. It seems that leisure-oriented people are more suited to
positions that provide opportunities for interacting with other people at work and are
not very demanding from the aspect of time investment.
Boje (1996) claimed that the growth in non-standard employment and changes in
work time patterns are related to the growing demand for higher flexibility in the
firms’ planning of the production process as well as in the workers’ handling of their
everyday life. Thus, non-standard forms of employment such as flexible working
hours, part-time, reduced weekly working hours, and a four-day workweek might be
beneficial both for leisure-oriented workers and their employers.
Flexible benefits programs allow employees to pick and choose from among a
multitude of benefits options. Therefore, these programs tend to meet the needs of
today’s more diverse workforce. By enabling leisure-oriented employees to choose
organizational rewards that match their needs, such as extended vacation time and
subsidized recreation, their work motivation and organizational commitment might be
increased.
33
Generally, leisure aspects should receive increased attention in future research in order
to clarify the differential effects of leisure and work domains on employees’ attitudes
and behaviors.
References
Aronowitz, S., & Di Fazio, W. (1994). The jobless future: Sci-tec and the dogma of
work. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
Barker, R. (1968). Ecological psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Battle, J. (1990). Self esteem: The new revolution. Edmonton, Canada: James Battle.
Beatty, S.E., Jeon, J.O., & Albaum, G. (1994). A cross-national study of leisure
activities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 25, 409-422.
Blickle, G., Goenner, S., & Heider, J. (1998). Berufsorientierungen von
Auszubildenden in gewerblich-technischen Berufen. Zeitschrift Arbeits und
Organisationspsychologie, 42(2), 95-99.
Boje, T.P. (1996). Gender, work time and flexible employment: The case of Denmark.
Time and Society, 5(3), 341-361.
Bregha, F.J. (1980). Leisure and freedom re-examined. In T.L. Goodale & P.A. Witt
(Eds.), Recreation and leisure: Issues in an era of change (pp. 30-37). State
College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Brief, A., & Nord, W. (1990). Work and meaning: Definitions and interpretations. In
A. Brief & W. Nord (Eds.), The meaning of occupational work. Lexington, MA:
Lexington.
Burdge, R. (1961). The development of a leisure orientation scale. Unpublished
master’s thesis, Ohio State University.
Central Bureau of Statistics. (1995). Time use patterns in Israel. Additional findings of
the time budgeting survey 1991/2. Publication 1029. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of
Statistics (Hebrew).
Champoux, J.E. (1978). Perceptions of work and non-work: A reexamination of the
compensatory and spillover models. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 5,
402-422.
Champoux, J.E. (1981). A sociological perspective on work involvement.
International Review of Applied Psychology, 30, 65-86.
Cohen, A. (1997a). Non-work influences on withdrawal cognitions: An empirical
examination of an overlooked issue. Human relations, 50(12), 1511-1536.
34
Cohen, A. (1997b). Personal and organizational responses to work-non-work interface
as related to organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
27(12), 1085-1114.
Coleman, D. (1993). Leisure based social support, leisure dispositions and health.
Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 350-361.
Coleman, D., & Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1993). Leisure and health: The role of social support
and self-determination. Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 111-128.
Dattilo, J., Dattilo, A.M., Samdahl, D.M., & Kleiber, D.A. (1994). Leisure
orientations and self-esteem in women with low incomes who are overweight.
Journal of Leisure Research, 26(1), 23-38.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in
human behavior. New York: Plenum.
de Grazia, S. (1962). Of time, work and leisure. New York: The Twentieth Century
Fund.
Donald, M., & Havighurst, R. (1959). The meaning of leisure. Social Forces, 37,
357-360.
Dubin, R. (1956). Industrial worker’s worlds: A study of the “central life interest” of
industrial workers. Social Problems, 3, 131-142.
Dubin, R. (1958). The world of work: Industrial society and human relations.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Dubin, R. (1973). Work and non-work: Institutional perspectives. In M.D. Dunnette
(Ed.), Work and non-work in the year 2001. Monterey, Calif: Brooks/Cole.
Dubin, R., Champoux, J.E., & Porter, L.W. (1975). Central life interests and
organizational commitment of blue collar and clerical workers. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 20, 411-421.
Dubin, R., Hedley, R.A., & Taveggia, T.C. (1976). Attachment to work. In R.
Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of work, organization and society (pp. 281-341). Chicago,
IL: Rand McNally.
Dumazedier, J. (1974). Sociology of leisure. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Elizur, D. (1991). Work and non-work relations: The conical structure of work and
home life relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 313-322.
England, G.W. (1991). The meaning of working in the USA: Recent changes.
European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 1, 111-124.
35
England, G. W., & Harpaz, I. (1990). How working is defined: National contexts and
demographic and organizational role influences. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 11, 253-266.
England, G.W., & Misumi, J. (1986). Work centrality in Japan and the United States.
Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 17, 399-416.
Ennis, P.H. (1968). The definition and measurement of leisure. In E.B. Sheldon &
W.E. Moore (Eds.), Indicators of social change: Concepts and measurements
(pp.525-572). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Freysinger, V.J. (1995). The dialectics of leisure and development for women and
men in mid-life: An interpretive study. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(1), 61-84.
Goodale, T., & Goodbey, G. (1988). The evolution of leisure. State College, PA:
Venture Publishing.
Harding, S.H., & Hikspoors, F.J. (1995). New work values: In theory and in
practice. International Social Science Journal, 47, 441-55.
Harpaz, I. (1990). The meaning of work in Israel: Its nature and consequences. New
York: Praeger.
Harpaz, I. (1999). The transformation of work values in Israel. Monthly Labor
Review, 122, 46-50.
Harpaz, I., & Fu, X. (1997). Work centrality in Germany, Israel, Japan, and the
United States. Cross Cultural Research, 31, 171-200.
Haywood, L., Kew, F., Bramham, P., Spink, J., Capenerhurst, J., & Henry, I. (1989).
Understanding leisure. London: Hutchinson.
Hirschfeld, R.R., & Feild, H.S. (2000). Work centrality and work alienation: Distinct
aspects of a general commitment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21,
789-800.
Huizinga, J. (1950). Homo ludens. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hunnicutt, B.K. (1988). Work, leisure and labor supply: An analysis of the 1980 U.S.
census data. International Review of Modern Sociology, 18, 31-55.
Interdisciplinary Center for Technological Analysis and Forecasting. (1998). Leisure
in Israel: Trends for the next millenium. Tel Aviv: Interdisciplinary Center for
Technological Analysis and Forecasting at Tel Aviv University (Hebrew).
Iso-Ahola, S. (1979). Basic dimensions of definitions of leisure. Journal of Leisure
Research, 11(1), 28-39.
Joreskog, K.G., & Sorbom, D. (1985). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural
Relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares.
36
Uppsala: University of Uppsala.
Kabanoff, B. (1980). Work and non-work: A review of models, methods and findings.
Psychological Bulletin, 88, 60-77.
Kanungo, R.N. (1982). Work alienation. New York: Praeger.
Kanungo, R.N., & Mendonca, M. (1992). Compensation: Effective reward
management. Toronto: Butterworts.
Kaplan, H. R., & Tausky, C. (1974). The meaning of work among the hard-core
unemployed. Pacific Sociological Review, 17, 185-198.
Kaplan, M. (1975). Leisure: Theory and policy. New York: Wiley.
Kelly, J.R. (1978). A revised paradigm of leisure choices. Leisure Sciences, 1(4),
345-363.
Kelly, J.R. (1992). Leisure. In E. Borgatta (Ed.), The encyclopedia of sociology. New
York: Macmillan.
Kelly, J.R., & Kelly, J.R. (1994). Multiple dimensions of meaning in the domains of
work, family, and leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(3), 251-274.
Kirchmeyer, C. (1992). Nonwork participation and work attitudes: A test of scarcity
vs. expansion models of personal resources. Human Relations, 45, 775-795.
Kish, L. (1967). Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Kohn, M. (1990). Unresolved issues in work / personality. In K. Erikson & S. Vallas
(Eds.), The nature of work. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kulik, J.A., Mahler, H.I.M., & Moore, P.J. (1996). Social comparison and affiliation
under threat: Effects on recovery form major surgery. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 71, 967-979.
Lawler, E.E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lawler, E.E. (1994). Motivation in work organizations. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette
(Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Lodahl, T.M., & Keiner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job
involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 23-33.
Manfredo, M.J., Driver, B.L., & Tarrant, M.A. (1996). Measuring leisure motivation:
A meta-analysis of the Recreation Experience Preference Scales. Journal of Leisure
37
Research, 28(3), 188-213.
Mannheim, B. (1993). Gender and the effects of demographics status and work values
on work centrality. Work and Occupations, 20, 3-22.
Mannheim, B., Baruch, Y., & Tal, J. (1997). Alternative models for antecedents and
outcomes of work centrality and job satisfaction of hi-tech personnel. Human
Relations, 50(12), 1537-1562.
McAdams, D.P. (1988). Personal needs and personal relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.),
Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 7-22). Chichester, England: Wiley.
McBride, A.B. (1990). Mental health effects of women’s multiple roles. American
Psychologist, 45, 381-384.
McClelland, D.C. (1985). Human motivation. New York: Scott Freeman.
Melamed, S., Meir, E.I., & Samson, A. (1995). The benefits of personality-leisure
congruence: Evidence and implications. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(1), 25-40.
Moore T. S. (1996). The disposable workforce: Worker displacement and employment
instability in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
MOW-International Research Team. (1987). The Meaning of work: An international
view. London: Academic Press.
Mulgan, G., & Wilkinson, H. (1995). Well-being and time. Demos, 5, 2-11.
Neulinger, J. (1976). The psychology of leisure. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Offe, C. (1984). “Arbeitsgesellschaft.” Strukturprobleme und zukunftsperspektiven.
Frankfurt/M: Campus.
Opaschowski, H.W. (1985). Die neue freizeitarbeitsethik. In R. Altvater & M. Baethke
(Eds.), Arbeit 2000. Hamburg: Verlag zum Studium der Arbeiterbewegung.
Pinder, C.C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Primeau, L.A. (1996). Work and leisure: Transcending the dichotomy. The American
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50(7), 569-577.
Quintanilla-Ruiz, S.A., & Wilpert, B. (1991). Are work meanings changing?
European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 1, 91-109.
Rain, J.S., Lane, I.M., & Steiner, D.D. (1991). A current look at the job
satisfaction/life satisfaction relationship: Review and future considerations. Human
Relations, 44, 287-307.
38
Randall, M.D., & Cote, J.A. (1991). Interrelationships of work commitment
constructs. Work and Occupation, 18, 194-212.
Rice, R.W., McFarlin, D.B., & Bennett, D.E. (1989). Standards of comparison and job
satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 591-598.
Robinson, J.P. (1990). The leisure pie (use of leisure time). American Demographics,
12, 39.
Robinson, J.P., & Blair, J. (1995). The national macroenvironmental activity pattern
survey (preliminary report). Washington, D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
Shaffer, G.S. (1987). Patterns of work and non-work satisfaction. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 72, 115-124.
Shirom, A. (1995). Changing the Histadrut 1994: Possible implications for the labor
relations system in the public sector. Riv’on Le Kalkala, 42(1), 36-64 (Hebrew).
Spreitzer, E., & Snyder, E.E. (1987). Educational-occupational fit and leisure
orientation as related to life satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research, 19(2),
149-158.
Statistical Abstracts of Israel. (1995). Jerusalem: Government Publications.
Steers, R., & Porter, L. (1975). Motivation and work behavior. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Stephenson, W. (1967). The play theory of mass communication. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Tait, M., Padgett, M.Y., & Baldwin, T.T. (1989). Job and life satisfaction: A
reevaluation of the strength of the relationship and gender as a function of the date
of the study. Journal of Psychology, 74, 502-507.
Tinsley, H.E.A., Hinson, J.A., Tinsley, D.J., & Holt, M.S. (1993). Attributes of leisure
and work experiences. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40(4), 447-455.
Triandis, H. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture. New York: Wiley.
Unger, L.S., & Kernan, J.B. (1983). On the meaning of leisure: An investigation of
some determinants of the subjective experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 9,
381-392.
van Delden, M.H. (1971). Orientation about work and leisure. Mens-en-Onderneming,
25
(6), 360-371. (this is written with a small v in the text)
Vroom, V.H. (1962). Industrial social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E.
39
Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (2
nd
ed.), 5, 196-268.
Warr, P.B. (1981). Psychological aspects of employment and unemployment.
Psychological Medicine, 12, 7-11.
Watkins, C.E., & Subich, L.M. (1995). Annual review, 1992-1994: Career
development, reciprocal work/non-work interaction, and women’s workforce
participation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 109-163.
Weiner, A.I., & Hunt, S.L. (1983). Work and leisure orientations among university
students: Implications for college and university counselors. The Personnel and
Guidance Journal, 61(9), 537-542.
Weissinger, E., & Bandalos, D.L. (1995). Development, reliability and validity of a
scale to measure intrinsic motivation in leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(4),
379-400.
Wilensky, H.L. (1960). Work, careers and social integration. International Social
Science Journal, 12, 543-560.
Wright, P.H. (1984). Self-referent motivation and the intrinsic quality of friendship.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 115-130.
Zusman, T. (1995). From collective agreements to personal contracts: Pay, labor
relations and the His. Riv’on Le-Kalkala, 42(1), 1-35 (Hebrew).
40
TABLE 1
Distribution of Demographic Variables
Among Leisure-Oriented People Versus
Work-Oriented People
Variables
Leisure-Oriented People
Work-Oriented People
1981
Sample
(n=104)
1993
Sample
(n=113)
Both
Samples
(n=217)
1981
Sample
(n=169)
1993
Sample
(n=212)
Both
Samples
(n=381)
Sex (%)
Male
Female
53.9
46.1
71.4
28.6
63.1
36.9
70.4
29.6
68.7
31.3
69.5
30.5
Education (%)
Elementary school
High school
Some college and
College degree
6.9
63.7
29.4
4.5
64.3
31.2
5.6
64.0
30.4
16.8
55.7
37.5
8.0
43.4
48.6
11.9
48.8
39.3
Age (years)
Mean
s.d.
34.0
12.5
33.1
11.8
33.6
12.1
40.5
13.0
38.7
12.3
39.5
12.6
Marital status (%)
Married and/or
living with a partner
in a joint household
55.4
50.4
52.8
82.1
71.8
76.4
Type of Work (%)
Professional &
Management
Clerical and services
Production &
Agriculture
25.6
53.3
21.1
40.8
41.7
17.5
33.7
47.2
19.2
23.9
50.0
26.1
45.7
40.9
13.4
33.6
44.7
18.8
41
TABLE 2
Research Variables and Relevant Statistics
for the Two Representative Samples of the Israeli Labor Force, 1981 and 1993
a
1981 Sample
1993 Sample
Variables
Mean
s.d.
Mean
s.d.
Number of
Items
Range of
Scores
.
Absolute
work
importance
.
Economic
orientation
.
Interpersonal
relations
.
Intrinsic
orientation
.
Entitlement
norm
.
Obligation
norm
Job
satisfaction
Weekly work
hours
5.53
3.81
3.32
3.68
5.68
5.23
4.83
40.68
1.32
1.41
0.95
0.87
0.90
1.07
1.57
13.29
5.43
4.62
3.10
3.68
5.50
5.00
3.64
43.75
1.21
1.41
0.98
0.86
0.91
1.08
2.52
13.19
1
3
3
5
4
3
2
1
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
1-7
a
Variables 2-6 were constructed from questions based on different scale values, and
their items were transformed into a 1-7 scale. Variable 7 was also transformed into a
1-7 scale.
42
TABLE 3
Results of F Tests for the Main Effect of Leisure Orientation
in Three Separate Multivariate Analyses of Variance, with Age as a Covariate
Dependent
Variables
F df
Leisure-Oriented
People
Work-Oriented
People
Mean
a
s.d.
Mean
b
Mean
a
s.d.
Mean
b
Analysis 1
Absolute work
centrality
41.83
***
1,554
5.05 1.46 5.06
5.82 1.15 5.81
Economic
orientation
1.37 1,554 4.44 1.43 4.40
4.26 1.42 4.26
Interpersonal
relations
4.44
*
1,554 3.29 1.03 3.28
(n=199)
3.06 1.03 3.08
(n=360)
Analysis 2
Intrinsic
orientation
11.72
**
1,584
3.50 0.92 3.51
3.78 0.86 3.77
Entitlement
norm
1.59 1,584 5.49 0.92 5.49
5.57 0.97 5.59
Obligation
norm
5.27
*
1,584
4.91 1.12 4.94
(n=214)
5.20 1.09 5.17
(n=375)
Analysis 3
Weekly work
hours
12.32
***
1,562
43.54 13.48 43.07
(n=205)
47.23 13.80 47.40
(n=362)
a
Observed mean;
b
Adjusted mean.
*
p <.05;
**
p <.01;
***
p <.001.
43
TABLE 4
Results of Logistic Regression Analysis Predicting Leisure Orientation
Predictor
Variables
Block X
2
df
Model X
2
df
b
s.e.
Wald df
(n=556)
Block 1
Age
Labor force
sampling
year
29.39
***
2
29.39
***
2
-0.04
-0.11
0.01
0.18
26.20
***
1
0.35 1
Block 2
Job
satisfaction
8.07
**
1
37.45
***
3
-0.12
0.04
7.88
**
1
*
p <.05;
**
p <.01;
***
p <.001.
