The enabling potential of constraints.

The pure form of leisure is described as a freely chosen behavior accompanied by a sense of enjoyment and intrinsic motivation (Kleiber, 1999). This notion implies that constrained behavior is inhibited and thus in need of negotiation before meaningful and free involvement is possible. Conceptual factors based on early typologies shaped by researchers' beliefs about reality have given constraints research a direction. The blueprint for constraints research appears to be designed with the notions that constraints are inevitably negative, that barriers are blockages to engagement, and that fewer constraints translate into more leisure. As Jackson (2000) explains, earlier research investigated "factors that are assumed by researchers and/or perceived or experienced by individuals to limit the formation of leisure preferences and/or to inhibit or prohibit participation and enjoyment in leisure" (Jackson, 2000, p. 62).Although the term constraint is a recognized term in the leisure studies field, there have been inquiries regarding the meaning of the terminology and constraint's other possible relations to behavior or experience. For example, Shogan's (2002) conceptual work discussed possible effects of constraints. Shogan (2002) described constraints as factors that "...make possible activities and the experiences within them, ...enable skill acquisition and ...produce bodily comportment and expectations that may enable or restrict experiences of leisure" (p. 36). Elster (2000) indicated that in most cases, in the "standard case," more is better whether this refers to money, time, or leisure options; there are also "nonstandard cases" in which less is more. Katz (2000) echoed the same statement, and research in psychology and economics discussed how complex a relationship could be between availability of choice and agents' performance (see Markus & Schwartz, 2010; Schwartz, 2004). Markus and Schwartz (2010) proposed that the meaning of the concepts of intrinsic motivation and choice is contextual and shaped by customs. One inquiry based on this proposition is that although preferences are sometimes accompanied with sense of regret, leaving things undecided or having one's choice made by others can be preferred over making choices. In other words, having many options to choose from is related to the sense of freedom and wellbeing; it is anticipated that agents will benefit from being provided strictly limited choice sets in some situations-what might then be called "nonstandard cases" (Elster, 2000). Whenever choice may be about tangible or intangible gains (Gottlieb, 2011; Wallace, 2010) such as career paths, romantic relationships, or parenting, constraints can be viewed as "enabling" (Shogan, 2002) in those situations.The relationship of constraints to leisure behavior and experience in general is far more complex than researchers have typically believed (for discussion see Kleiber, McGuire, Aybar-Damali, & Norman, 2008; Kleiber, Wade, & LoucksAtkinson, 2005; McGuire & Norman, 2005). One of the most recent examples of those conceptual works was by Kleiber, McGuire, Aybar-Damali, and Norman. Considering examples from research and the general popular literature, Kleiber et al. (2004, 2008) proposed the existence of at least five mechanisms through which constraints are beneficial to people. These categories are (I) resilience and deepened commitment, (II) attention to other goals, (III) discovery of previously unattended capacities, (IV) changes in attitude toward life and leisure, and (V) goal achievement and well-being. Categories I and V are based on a different view of constraints than the other three categories (II, III, and IV) in that the goals constrained are maintained. Category I refers to a constraint negotiation process resulting in recommitment to and continuation of activities. Use of other means enables one to partake in an activity; the process of resource use reflects persistence and deepens one's commitment in his or her pursuit. …