Leisure Sciences, 30: 198–216, 2008 Copyright C  Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0149-0400 print / 1521-0588 online DOI: 10.1080/01490400802017308 Testing Alternative Leisure Constraint Negotiation Models: An Extension of Hubbard and Mannell’s Study JULIE S. SON Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign USA ANDREW J. MOWEN DEBORAH L. KERSTETTER Department of Recreation and Parks The Pennsylvania State University USA The purpose of this study was to test a model of the leisure constraint negotiation process proposed by Hubbard and Mannell. A multidimensional measure of physically active leisure was used to extend their findings to a sample of middle-aged and older adults in a metropolitan park setting. Volunteers and visitors (aged 50–87 years) of a Midwestern metropolitan park agency completed a self-administered questionnaire. Results of a two-step structural equation modeling procedure suggested a constraint-negotiation dual channel model. In this model, the negative influence of constraints on participation was almost entirely offset by the positive effect of negotiation strategies. The effect of motivation on participation was fully mediated by negotiation. The implications of these findings for studying constraint negotiation and active leisure in mid- to late-life are discussed. Keywords constraints, negotiation, motivation, middle-aged and older adults, physi- cally active leisure Leisure researchers have used various constraints models to guide the study of physically ac- tive leisure participation and nonparticipation (e.g., Alexandris, Barkoukis, Tsorbatzoudis, & Groulos, 2003; Hubbard & Mannell, 2001). Leisure motivation and constraint negotiation have been offered as explanations regarding why constraints do not necessarily reduce or preclude leisure participation (Hubbard & Mannell; Jackson, Crawford, & Godbey, 1993). However, few investigators have empirically tested the relationships between negotiation, motivation, constraints, and leisure participation. One exception is Hubbard and Mannell’s examination of four competing process models of constraint negotiation, which explored employees’ frequency of participation in employer-provided indoor fitness center activities. Hubbard and Mannell emphasized the importance of examining these models across other populations and activities. Thus, the aim of this study was to test Hubbard and Mannell’s Received 24 October 2006; accepted 22 March 2007. Address correspondence to Julie S. Son, Ph.D., Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 104 Huff Hall, 1206 South Fourth Street, Champaign, IL. E-mail: julieson@uiuc.edu 198