Work and Leisure

Leisure and health 18553%, more than twice the second most important cause, environment (21.8%)(Powell 1988). Most remarkably, if all types of cancer were eliminated,human life expectancy would increase by only two years, but if good healthbehaviours (i.e. good nutrition, exercise, non-smoking and moderate alcoholuse) were practised the average life expectancy would go up a whopping sevenyears (Ornstein & Erlich 1989). In short, health is determined much more byenvironment than genetics, with lifestyle playing a critical role. Lifestyle, ofcourse, is directly and individually controllable and modifiable, but as we willsee, herein lies the main psychological problem.Much of what is controllable about lifestyle is leisure-related. Mostpeople’s work lifestyle is determined for them, whereas leisure choices, ingeneral, are under their own control. This, then, raises an important questionabout the relationship between leisure and health. In this chapter, we explorethe relationship from a psychological perspective, first analysing the psychologicalobstacles for adoption of active and healthy leisure lifestyles, thenexamining leisure’s health benefits, and finally reviewing the latest research onstress, leisure and health.Psychological obstaclesIn theory, a person can be either proactive or reactive in relation to health.Being proactive means that he/she believes health is controllable and consequentlyengages actively in heath-promoting behaviours. Being reactive, onthe other hand, refers to the absence of such behaviours, suggesting that oneis involved in health-promoting behaviours mostly after encountering healthproblems. Proactive individuals have active lifestyles, are enthusiastic aboutvarious activities, and derive a lot of enjoyment from them. Reactive individuals,in contrast, tend to lead passive and sedentary lifestyles, viewingleisure as time to be killed rather than seeing it as an opportunity to engage inexciting and meaningful activities.There seems to be little doubt that most people are reactive in theirapproach to health. For example, it has been shown that once people havehad major illnesses, such as a heart attack, they are then more likely to adhereto their exercise programmes than when they have not had such health problems(Oldridge 1982; Dishman 1990). It takes a heart attack to get peopleexercising! Other evidence of people’s reactive rather than proactiveapproach to health is seen in the amount of time devoted to watching TV: onaverage almost four hours per day in the United States. Yet in survey aftersurvey, people cite lack of time as the biggest barrier to their failure to exercise.Given that it takes only 30 minutes of brisk walking three times a weekto maintain one’s physical health (Surgeon General’s Report 1996), the lackof time appears to be nothing but an excuse. There can hardly be anything soimportant on TV that one cannot take 30 minutes out of four hours of TVwatching time and go for a brisk walk. Thus, it appears that health is taken