J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487

DOI 10.1007/s10824-016-9275-8

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Leisure participation: modelling the decision to engage

in sports and culture

Kirstin Hallmann1 • Cristina Muñiz Artime2 •

Christoph Breuer1 • Sören Dallmeyer1 •

Magnus Metz1

Received: 7 January 2015 / Accepted: 13 April 2016 / Published online: 28 April 2016
Ó Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Abstract Participation in sport and participation in cultural activities are usually

studied separately. However, since both activities dominate the leisure time of most
individuals, it is reasonable to analyse simultaneously the determinants of partici-
pation in both activities. Informed by the economic household theory, this study
examined the core factors of time, income, human capital as well as several socio-
demographic factors. The results showed that there was as small but significant
correlation between sports and cultural participation. Thus, both can be described as
complementary and competing activities. Leisure time, gender, education, nation-
ality and subjective well-being were significant predictors of both sports and cul-
tural participation. Differences were found for the variables age and income. This
paper also describes the characteristics of those individuals who are not likely to
participate in either activity and emphasises the importance of social inclusion
programmes.

Keywords Individual participation  Household theory  Human capital 

Bivariate  Probit  Joint probabilities

JEL Classification D12  D13  L83

& Kirstin Hallmann

k.hallmann@dshs-koeln.de
1
Institute of Sport Economics and Sport Management, German Sport University Cologne,
Am Sportpark Muengersdorf 6, 50933 Cologne, Germany
2
Departamento de Economı́a, Facultad de Economı́a y Empresa, University of Oviedo,
Campus del Cristo, s/n, 33006 Oviedo, Spain

123
468 J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487

1 Introduction

Participation in both sport and cultural activities is of great interest as people spend
most of the leisure time in these activities (Cushman et al. 2005; Cabane et al.
2015). As most social interaction between individuals not working occurs during
these activities, they fulfil a central role in society. Moreover, sports and cultural
participation provide additional benefits for society and its individuals. The
potential positive impact of sports participation has been well documented in
contemporary research. It is widely accepted that participation in physical activities
contributes not only to physiological and psychological well-being but also to
general quality of life (Allender et al. 2006; Bloom et al. 2005). In contrast, the
benefits of cultural participation have yet received far less academic attention,
although some studies show that cultural participation is equally beneficial to
general quality of life (Galloway 2006; Toepoel 2011) and health (Daykin et al.
2008). The relationship between cultural participation and factors such as social
behaviour, social cohesion and educational attainment is particularly important (e.g.
Matarasso 1997).
The benefits of participation highlight the importance of sports and culture for
society. There are several reasons why an understanding of the different socio-
demographic determinants of participation in sports and culture is of considerable
interest for policymaking and for commercial and public service providers. First, it
allows the investigation of previous research claims of social inequality in sports
participation (Breuer et al. 2011; Wilson 2002) and cultural participation (van Hek
and Kraaykamp 2013; O’Hagan 1996). Further, as sports and culture compete for
individuals’ leisure time preferences, similarities and differences between partic-
ipants in the two areas are of interest. The purpose of this research was therefore to
simultaneously estimate the determinants of sport and culture participation as forms
of leisure behaviour.

2 Sport and culture participation defined

Recent studies have defined the term ‘sports participation’ in a variety of ways
(Humphreys and Ruseski 2009; Leslie et al. 2004). It should be first noted that
sports participation can be either passive or active. The passive aspect of sports
consumption involves mainly the attendance of sports events, whereas active
participation comprises numerous physical activities. This paper focuses only on the
latter. The UNESCO (2003, no page) provides a broad definition of sport: ‘all forms
of physical activity that contribute to physical fitness, mental well-being and social
interaction, such as play, recreation, organised or competitive sport, and indigenous
sports and games for the purposes of development’. Although this definition does
not include frequency, intensity or duration, we consider it appropriate because
earlier studies in the field have taken a broad perspective on sports participation
(e.g. Humphreys and Ruseski 2007).

123
J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487 469

As with sports participation, research studies have used different terms for
cultural participation. A fairly broad definition is provided by UNESCO (2012,
p.51) which defines cultural participation as ‘any activity that, for individuals,
represents a way of increasing their own cultural and informational capacity and
capital, which helps to define their identity, and/or allows for personal expression’.
This definition centres on the positive effects of cultural activities in general while
failing to differentiate specific activities. Gans (2008) has categorised cultural
activities in terms of either high culture or popular culture. These terms are
essentially synonymous with ‘highbrow culture’ and ‘mass’, or ‘lowbrow culture’.
High culture refers primarily to arts subsidised by cultural institutions like museums
or theatres. In contrast, popular culture refers mainly to activities engaged in by the
working class people (e.g. visiting pop concerts or cinemas). In this paper, the focus
is on high culture and more specifically on active art and musical activities, such as
playing an instrument, dancing, acting, painting and photography. This ensures a
basis for comparison between active sports participation and active cultural
participation.

3 Theoretical framework and literature review

To analyse the different determinants of sports and cultural participation, a

theoretical model based on the economic theory of behaviour was used (Becker
1996) which was extended to incorporate socio-demographic factors (Breuer
2006). The developed model refers to Becker (1996) and his assumption that
economic choices are not bound to market areas. Instead, they can be extended to
non-market activities, like households for instance. Participation in cultural and
sports activities is considered a non-market activity and therefore is influenced by
monetary and temporal restrictions. This approach has been used in previous
research to examine different determinants of sports (Breuer et al. 2011;
Humphreys and Ruseski 2007) and culture participation (Kraaykamp et al. 2008;
Ateca-Amestoy 2008).
Looking at economic determinants such as time, income and human capital,
research has outlined their relationships. Individual’s participating in sports and
culture shares common characteristics as these activities tend to be highly time
consuming: thus, the involvement in sports and culture usually requires the
consumption of goods or services and investment in them, and sometimes
individuals need prior investment in skills to take part in them (Løyland and
Ringstad 2009; Ringstad and Løyland 2011). A general economic assumption is that
time and money are substitutes for each other. The higher an individual’s income,
the scarcer his/her time and consequently, the higher the opportunity cost of non-
working time. In the context of recreational activities, this yields certain behaviour
patterns. The higher the income, the more expensive is the non-working time and, as
a corollary, the greater the preference for more time-saving recreational activities.
In contrast, people with lower incomes are more likely to substitute time for money
and thus invest more time in non-expensive activities. For example, they would

123
470 J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487

prefer more team sports like football instead of much more expensive individual
sports like tennis (Taks et al. 1994).
The results of previous research for time and income vary significantly between
different sports activities (Breuer et al. 2011; Humphreys and Ruseski 2011).
Regarding cultural participation, Withers (1980) as well as Ekelund and Ritenour
(1999) emphasised the time-intensiveness of live performing arts in the framework
of time allocation models; they revealed that any positive income effect on arts
demand will be partially offset by both the time-intensive nature of performing arts
and the opportunity cost of time. However, although household models must take
into account the optimal allocation of all resources, namely time and income, many
empirical studies on cultural participation have not included time-related variables
in their estimated models (Ateca-Amestoy 2010). Studies which focused primarily
on income identified a positive relationship (O’Hagan 1996; Katsuura 2008), in
particularly for the performing arts (Seaman 2005). Although most previous studies
incorporate total income as a covariate to explain individual’s participation in
leisure activities, some scholars have also considered alternative economic variables
in their researches: for instance, Muñiz et al. (2014) also included hourly wage to
measure the cost of time.
In addition to the factors of time and income, the household theory includes
human capital as a third significant factor. Human capital (education; sport and
cultural competencies) significantly influences the productivity of the used time and
goods. For instance, in the context of the household production model early
acquired sport competences broaden the opportunities for sports participation under
monetary and time restrictions (Kirk 2005). Becker (1996) discusses human capital
(education) to explain that this factor influences the productivity of time. As human
capital increases, individuals could achieve higher incomes and then become more
involved in leisure activities in monetary terms.
The consumption of cultural goods grows over time as well, not because of a
change in tastes but a change in the shadow price due to the accumulation of human
capital that the individual acquires over time (Throsby 1994). Hence, previous
research suggests that education correlates positively with participation in sports
and cultural activities (e.g. Huang and Humphreys 2012; Eberth and Smith 2010).
Downward and Rasciute (2015) have found that the effect on sports participation
varies for gender that higher education is associated only with the level of intensity
for men but with the decision to participate and the level of intensity for women.
Seaman (2005) discusses the effects of education on cultural participation in detail,
focusing on the economics of highbrow culture. This author notes that although
theoretical analysis assumes that education is a key variable in performing arts
demand, many empirical models do not confirm this result. It is worth noting that
this scholar argues that econometric evidence favouring specific forms of arts
training over individual’s formal education exists. In particular, Borgonovi (2004)
concludes that involvement in art education is the most important influence on an
individual’s performing arts participation and notes that art education is art-specific.
Summing up, most previous studies have demonstrated that time, income and
education are important determinants of different kinds of sports and cultural
participation (Humphreys and Ruseski 2011; Ruseski et al. 2011; Borowiecki and

123
J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487 471

Castiglione 2014; Lewis and Seaman 2004). However, it is important to note that
multicollinearity problems may arise in regression models when education and
income are included, and the issue of how to measure education is problematic
(McCaughey 1989). It is possible that the income variable partly captures the effects
of educational and professional characteristics of the population (Diniz and
Machado 2011; Laamanen 2013).
In addition to these core factors identified by the economic household theory,
several demographic factors represent further restrictions for individuals within a
household (Breuer 2006). In this study, these additional demographic factors are
age, gender, marital status, nationality and the presence of children.
In general, age restricts sports participation; often, it is assumed that older people
do not have the same physical capacity as younger people because of declining
health and physical abilities. Consequently, previous research indicates that older
people prefer different activities to younger people. Humphreys and Ruseski (2007)
have found a negative relationship between age and outdoor recreation, group sport
and individual sport and a positive relationship between age and household activity
and walking. Their results emphasised that the definition of sporting activity is
crucial for interpreting age-related findings. In addition, the relationship of age and
sports and cultural participation is not necessarily linear and negative (Breuer et al.
2010; Katsuura 2008). Seaman (2006) notes that age plays also a complex role
analysing individuals’ participation in cultural activities. Following Gray (2003)
‘culture, it is said, is an acquired taste, and acquisition of taste takes time’ (p. 359).
Therefore, Castiglione (2011) concludes that activities such as theatre attendance
are experience goods since age is positively related to going to the theatres. For
example, Scherger (2009) has analysed individuals’ involvement in cultural
activities drawing a distinction between active and passive participation. This
scholar concludes that most activities are less often carried out by the elderly,
particularly in the case of highbrow cultural forms of participation. But apart from
this common tendency, certain age patterns for different cultural practices are
identified: painting, drawing, sculpture, photography and playing a musical
instrument are examples of activities declining with age (cf. Clift and Camic
2015). Attendance in popular arts events, such as going to the cinema, is also more
prevalent among younger individuals (Katsuura 2008). By contrast, reading and
doing textile crafts increase with age (Canoy et al. 2006; Notten et al. 2015).
Finally, visiting museum and heritage sites, as well as going to classical music
concert and ballet, displays an inverted u-shape relationship with age (cf. Falk and
Katz-Gerro 2015).
Moreover, Breuer et al. (2010) state that age has no direct explanatory power on
sports participation and in the cultural context Cameron (2015) adds that age is
often used as a proxy for other covariates such as the cultivation of taste,
employment or health status. Therefore, age does not necessarily have a monotonic
relationship with engagement in both activities (Wen and Cheng 2013). An
explanation may be because of the combination of two counteracting effects: the life
cycle effect and the human capital effect. Borgonovi (2004) suggests that the
different stages comprising the individuals’ life cycle (entry into the labour market,
childbearing/care and ill health) result in an inverted u-shaped relationship

123
472 J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487

concerning to participation in cultural activities and Hirvensalo and Lintunen (2011)

identify cumulative effects of an individual’s cultural and socioeconomic
background depending on different phases of life on sports participation.
Conversely, there is a learning-by-consuming effect when an individual participates
in both activities and a growth on enjoyment of cultural and sport goods takes place
encouraging an increase in consumption (Ateca-Amestoy and Castiglione 2015;
Kirk 2005).
In addition, some authors have also found differences in the relationship of age
based on gender. Cameron (2006) estimated a demand function for aggregate live
entertainments attendance finding a different quadratic effect in age covariate by
gender: u-shaped for males and an inverted u-shape in the case of females and Taks
and Scheerder (2006) describe youth sports participation as a function of age and
gender with both being important determinants of active involvement in sports
activities.
In general, empirical research has shown the existence of a gender gap in leisure
consumption. According to Bittman (2002), there are three main reasons for ‘social
exclusion’ in leisure time: gender, family responsibilities and longer hours of work.
Moreover, Mattingly and Bianchi (2003) consider that gender differences exist not
only in the amount of leisure time but also in the quality of leisure time. Regarding
sports participation, men are usually considered more active than women (e.g.
Downward and Rasciute 2011). Humphreys and Ruseski (2006) have suggested that
women’s greater responsibility for childcare and housework explains the difference.
Additionally, men and women place different social values on sports (Koivula
1995). This effect is even stronger when combined with religious or ethnic factors.
Empirical analyses consistently report that gender is also an essential determinant of
cultural choice (Silva and Le Roux 2011). Moreover, given the importance of this
variable econometrically and although most research just includes the gender
variable as an explanatory variable in their equations, some scholars run different
estimates for males and females (e.g. Muñiz et al. 2014). Recent studies on cultural
tastes and cultural participation suggest that overall participation in the arts is higher
for females than for males (DiMaggio 1982, 2004; Bihagen and Katz-Gerro 2000;
Tepper 2000). This may be because of differences in socialisation to the arts and
because of employment-related variables (Christin 2012). Accordingly, women may
exhibit higher cultural consumption because they are exposed earlier to the arts or
are more likely to have a culturally related occupation. However, despite the
empirical evidence, some authors acknowledge that the greater participation of
women in cultural activities has not yet been adequately explained (Gray 2003;
Upright 2004). Finally, Bihagen and Katz-Gerro (2000) differentiate between men
and women’s engagement in high culture and their participation in popular cultural
activities. They found that while females participate more in highbrow cultural
activities, males are usually more involved in popular cultural activities.
As already outlined, both sports and culture activities are time-intensive; thus,
household variables such as marital status and family responsibilities are likely to
influence the rates of participation of the various leisure activities. However,
findings on the influence of marital status on sports participation are not consistent.
Some research has demonstrated that married people participate significantly less in

123
J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487 473

sports activities than single people (Farrell and Shields 2002; Humphreys and
Ruseski 2006). Conversely, Gratton and Taylor (2000) found no significant
relationship between sports participation and marital status. Lee and Bhargava
(2004) have investigated the different leisure activities of single and married
individuals. According to their research, married people are more likely to
participate in active sports, whereas single people prefer cultural activities like
playing an instrument. Moreover, Montgomery and Robinson (2010) noted that
single males prefer sports and single females prefer the arts. Therefore, no
consistent pattern can be established regarding marital status and participation,
suggesting that other socio-demographic variables must be involved. In addition to
marital status, household composition presumably affects individuals’ involvement
in free-time activities. Therefore, family responsibilities are likely to decrease
individuals’ time available for leisure. Previous research indicates that the presence
of children is a negative influence on both sports and cultural participation (Ruseski
et al. 2011; Scherger 2009) suggesting that having a child reduces the time available
for most leisure activities. This result could be linked to the effects of the life cycle:
family responsibilities that arise during middle age might reduce individuals’
participation activity (Borgonovi 2004). On the other hand, although having
children at home implies ‘childcare expenses and implicit costs in the form of
parental concern’ (p. 358), mothers might like to share cultural activities with their
children (Gray 2003). Thus, Lewis and Seaman (2004) achieve different outcomes
according to the cultural activity: while married people with children are less
involved than childless singles in dance and classical music attendance, children and
marital status covariates are not significant for visits to art museums.
Nationality or ethnicity may restrict sports and cultural participation. People of
different nationalities have different cultural backgrounds, which potentially
influence participation in both types of activities. Some of the aforementioned
factors, such as human capital, income and time, differ between nationalities.
However, the impact of social valuation of the activities must be taken into account.
It is crucial that research on individuals from one particular country (like in this
study) distinguishes between native and migrant people. Some research has
identified a negative effect of migration background on sports participation. Breuer
and Wicker (2008) found that migration background is negatively associated with
sports participation, and that education and income are more important for migrants
than for the native population. Traditionally, nationality and ethnicity have been
only addressed exceptionally by few arts demand studies (Lewis and Seaman 2004;
Gray 2003). Furthermore, these studies display mixed results for racial/ethnic
covariates (Seaman 2006). However, the analysis of the profile of participants
attending cultural activities by ethnic group is increasingly important (Kolb 2002).
In addition, the relationships of health and subjective well-being (SWB) with
sports and cultural participation should be considered. Most of the existing research
has identified a relationship of sports participation with health and SWB (Huang and
Humphreys 2012; Rasciute and Downward 2010) and of cultural participation with
health and SWB (Grossi et al. 2011; Daykin et al. 2008; Scherger 2009). While
Rasciute and Downward (2010) highlight that physically active people report higher
individual health and happiness levels, Scherger (2009) notes that people who feel

123
474 J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487

healthy are more likely to participate in sports and cultural activities. Hence, there is
clearly a relationship of health and subjective well-being with sports and cultural
participation, but reliable causal evidence for any direction seems to be missing.
Summing up, the existing literature clearly indicates the relationship of Becker’s
core factors of time, income and human capital with sports and cultural participation.
Previous findings suggest that time, income, education, nationality, health and SWB
have a positive relationship with sports and cultural activities. The relationships of the
other variables such as gender or age are ambiguous in previous research.

4 Methods

4.1 Measurement and variables

Sports participation was measured using the question ‘Please indicate how often you
participate in active sports’. Cultural participation was measured using the question
‘Please indicate how often you participate in art or musical activities’. Responses were
on an ordinal scale ranging from 1 = ‘every week’, 2 = ‘every month’, 3 = ‘less
frequently’ and 4 = ‘never’, but were transformed into dummy variables with
1 = ‘weekly sport participation’ and 1 = ‘weekly cultural participation’ (see Table 1).
Regarding the independent variables, income was measured as monthly net
income metric scaled in euros. Leisure time was measured with the question ‘How
much time do you spend on leisure activities?’ This was metric scaled in hours per
week. Education was measured using the International Standard Classification of
Education (ISCED) and transformed into a binary variable with 1 = ‘higher
education’ (at least A-levels/university entrance diploma) and 0 = ‘else’. Age was
represented by age in years. This variable was transformed into five age group
dummies. The integration of age group dummies enabled us to test nonlinear
relationships of age and participation. Gender was scored dichotomously with
0 = ‘male’ and 1 = ‘female’. Nationality was classified with 1 = ‘German’ and
0 = ‘else’. Marital status was also binary with 1 = ‘married’ and 0 = ‘else’. The
presence of children was defined as 1 = ‘having children’ and 0 = ‘not having
children’. Health was originally measured with the question ‘How would you
describe your current health status?’ and was ordinal scaled with 1 = ‘bad’,
2 = ‘not well’, 3 = ‘satisfactory’, 4 = ‘good’ and 5 = ‘very good’. To improve
interpretation of this variable, it was transformed into a dummy variable with ‘good’
and ‘very good’ scored as 1. SWB was assessed on a scale of 0 = ‘totally
unsatisfied’ to 10 = ‘totally satisfied’.

4.2 Sampling and data collection

Data were derived from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), an ongoing
longitudinal panel study that surveys private households and is conducted by the
professional high-quality fieldwork organisation TNS Infratest Social Research.
Overall, approximately around 20,000 individuals and 11,000 private households in
Germany are part of every survey wave. Detailed information about data collection,

123
J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487 475

Table 1 Overview of variables and summary statistics

Description n Mean SD

Gender Female gender (1 = yes, 0 = male) 22,361 0.521 0.499

Age groups Up to 25 years 22,361 0.096 0.294
25–34 years 22,361 0.121 0.327
35–44 years 22,361 0.152 0.359
45–54 years 22,361 0.201 0.401
55–64 years 22,361 0.178 0.383
65 years and older 22,316 0.251 0.433
Marital status Married (1 = yes, 0 = else) 22,316 0.561 0.496
Nationality German (1 = yes, 0 = else) 22,316 0.948 0.221
Education Higher education (having obtained at least A-levels; 22,361 0.203 0.402
1 = yes, 0 = else)
Children Children (1 = yes, 0 = else) 22,361 0.665 0.471
Leisure time Number of weekly hours of leisure time 20,039 17.258 14.556
Health Would you rate your current health status as at least 22,361 0.449 0.497
good? (1 = yes, 0 = else)
SWB How satisfied are you with your current life? (1 = not 18,331 7.018 1.733
satisfied at all, 10 = very satisfied)
Income How high was your net income last month after 11,776 1692.874 1500.553
deduction of taxes and contributions to pension fund,
unemployment insurance and health insurance (in
EUR)?
Cultural Weekly cultural participation (1 = yes, 0 = else) 22,361 0.111 0.314
participation
Sports Weekly sport participation (1 = yes, 0 = else) 22,361 0.348 0.476
participation

variables, design, assessment procedures and participants has been documented by

Wagner, Frick and Schupp (2007). Although the general structure of the SOEP
permits longitudinal data analysis, the absence of important variables in certain
waves limits the information available. For example, in the most recent survey
(2014) cultural participation was not included (the questionnaire only included the
leisure time variable used in our analysis) and sports participation was only
indicated by hours on an average weekday. The latest survey wave, which included
all relevant variables, comprised data derived from the 2011 wave. Hence, cross-
sectional data were used for this research. The interviews were conducted face to
face, and the data were representative for the German population.

4.3 Participant characteristics

The sample was split almost equally into men and women (51 % female). The mean
age was rather high (approximately 44 years), and most participants were of
German nationality (95 %). Regarding educational level, 16.7 % had attained at

123
476 J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487

least A-level standard; this is below the average educational attainment of the
German population, which is about 33.9 % A-level standard (Bildungsberichter-
stattung 2012). Fifty-five per cent of the respondents had at least one child and
earned on average 1693 EUR net per month. The participants spent on average
17.2 h a week on leisure activities. Thirty-seven per cent classified their current
health status as good or very good. The average SWB score was seven on a scale
from 0 to 10. On average, 9.1 % of respondents participated in cultural activities
and 28.6 % were engaged in sports. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the
variables used to predict cultural and sports participation.

4.4 Data analysis

First, descriptive analyses were carried out. Prior to estimating the model, several
tests were run. Multicollinearity was tested using the variance inflation factors;
these were all smaller than four. The variance inflation factors should be smaller
than 10 (Hair et al. 2010); therefore, multicollinearity was not a problem for all
variables. Heteroscedasticity was tested using the information matrix test. As
p B 0.05, the models were estimated using robust standard errors to account for
heteroscedasticity (MacKinnon and White 1985; White 1980). The link test was
used to test for specification errors. It is based on the idea that if a regression is
properly specified, there should be no additional independent variables that are
significant, except by chance (Cameron and Trivedi 2010). The test indicated that
the models were adequate. Correlations between the independent variables and the
residuals were computed. As there were no significant correlations, endogeneity was
not an issue (Wooldridge 2002).
Sports and cultural participation were the dependent variables and were
simultaneously estimated using a bivariate probit model. These variables were re-
coded into binary outcomes. The advantage of a bivariate probit model is that it can
estimate two dependent variables simultaneously (Greene 2012). Essentially, one
binary probit model with the dependent variable Y1 and another with the dependent
variable Y2 are estimated together allowing a correlation of the disturbances. The
model can be specified as follows:
Y1 ¼ x1 b þ e1 Y1 ¼ 1 if Y1 [ 0 otherwise Y1 ¼ 0
Y2 ¼ x2 b þ e2 Y2 ¼ 1 if Y2 [ 0 otherwise Y2 ¼ 0
ð1Þ
ei  N ð0; 1Þ
Eðe1 e2 Þ ¼ q

If the respondent indicated weekly participation in sports, a value of one was

observed for Y1 ; otherwise, it was given a value of zero. If the respondent
announced weekly cultural participation, the variable Y2 was given a value of one;
otherwise, the value was zero. ei indicated any unsystematic influence that was not
captured in xi. By definition, the error terms of a bivariate probit model are normally
distributed; as the outcomes are estimated jointly, the coefficients for all explanatory
variables can be calculated and the coefficient of the correlation (q) between the
error terms can be estimated (Cameron and Trivedi 2010). In addition, the joint

123
J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487 477

probabilities of all possible outcome options were predicted using conditional

marginal effects. For example, the observation (Y1 ¼ 1; Y2 ¼ 1) was described as
follows:
Zb2 x2 Zb1 x1
PðY1 ¼ 1; Y2 ¼ 1Þ ¼ u2 ðz1 ; z2 ; qÞdz1 dz2
1 1

The u2 parameter indicates the density of the bivariate normal distribution, and
maximum-likelihood estimators can be applied to determine the bivariate proba-
bilities (Greene 2012).

5 Results

The overall fit of the model using bivariate probit regression was significant as
indicated by v2. The parameter rho (q), which represents the correlation of the errors
of both equations, was significant (q = .171), indicating a small correlation. This
suggests that both leisure activities are complimentary which confirms previous
research (Muñiz et al. 2011). Regarding the different predictors of cultural and
sports participation, leisure time, gender, education, nationality and SWB were
significant in both equations. The leisure time coefficients indicated a positive
relationship between this variable and sport and cultural activities. The analysis
showed that females were significantly more likely than males to participate in both
activities. Education, nationality (being German) and SWB showed also positive
relationships with both sports and cultural participation. Regarding the variable age,
a significant relationship was only observed for cultural participation. The different
age groups showed—compared to the reference group ‘up to 25 years’ which was
the youngest—a negative relationship with cultural activities. Conversely, the
variables having children, income and health only had significant relationships with
sports participation. Having a child had a negative relationship with and income and
health had positive relationships with sports participation. Table 2 provides an
overview of these results.
To further explore the impact of the independent variables on sports and cultural
participation, Table 3 shows the joint probabilities of the four possible alternative
outcomes of the two sets of binary variables. The marginal effects are also included,
indicating how the joint probability in each of the four sets changed with a unit
change in the independent variables. This allows an examination of which variables
drive which of the four potential behaviours. The first set represents individuals who
participate in both sports and cultural activities, the second and third set show
cultural and sports activities individually, and the fourth set represents no
participation in any activity. A comparison of the four different scenarios indicates
the contrary results for cases one and four. The variables gender, nationality,
education, leisure time, health and SWB were significant and positive predictors for
those undertaking both cultural and sports activities. The coefficients for the age
groups were also significant for the first set (‘participation in both cultural and sports

123
478 J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487

Table 2 Results of the bivariate probit regression (coefficients and robust standard errors in parentheses)
Cultural participation Sports participation

Constant -1.745*** (0.137) -0.1.535*** (0.104)

Gender 0.146*** (0.037) 0.182*** (0.030)
Up to 25 years REF REF
25–34 years -0.344*** (0.069) -0.038 (0.058)
35–44 years -0.378*** (0.075) -0.067 (0.062)
45–54 years -0.358*** (0.075) 0.044 (0.062)
55–64 years -0.347*** (0.079) -0.051 (0.066)
65 years and older -0.339** (0.128) 0.010 (0.102)
Marital status -0.040 (0.041) -0.002 (0.032)
Nationality 0.279*** (0.093) 0.300*** (0.066)
Education 0.363*** (0.041) 0.434*** (0.033)
Children -0.0002 (0.045) -0.144*** (0.036)
Leisure time 0.007*** (0.001) 0.011*** (0.001)
Health 0.002 (0.038) 0.257*** (0.029)
SWB 0.048*** (0.012) 0.076*** (0.009)
Income -68.52e-06 (0.00002) 0.00005** (0.00002)
Log pseudolikelihood -9782.208
v2 930.18***
Q 0.171*** (0.021)
N 9964

* p B 0.05; ** p B 0.01;*** p B 0.001

activities’), showing a negative relationship with reference to the youngest age

group (up to 25 years). In contrast, gender, nationality, education, leisure time,
health and SWB—positive predictors for taking part in both activities—had
significant negative relationships with ‘no participation in either activity’. In
addition, income also had a significant negative relationship with this outcome
variable. Moreover, having children had a positive and significant relationship with
‘no participation in either activity’. This also applies to the age group of 55–64-
year-old persons with reference to the youngest age group—all other age groups did
not have any significant relationship with ‘no participation in either activity’.
Gender, nationality, leisure time, income, education, health and SWB had
significant positive relationships with ‘only sports participation’, whereas the
presence of children had a negative relationship with this outcome variable.
Moreover, the age group 45–54 years was significantly and positively correlated
with ‘only sports participation (with reference to the youngest age group). For the
third set (‘only cultural participation’), again education has a significant and positive
relationship with this outcome. In addition (and in contrast to those taking part only
in sports), all age groups (with reference to the youngest group) showed a significant
negative relationship with cultural participation. Health is also significantly

123
 Table 3 Overview of joint probabilities
Culture and sports Culture and no sports No culture and sports No culture and no sports

ME z ME z ME z ME z

Gender 0.021*** 5.92 0.006 1.50 0.049** 4.42 -0.077*** -7.20

J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487

Up to 25 years REF – REF – REF – REF –

25–34 years -0.033*** -4.75 -0.031*** -4.44 0.019 0.090 0.045* 2.14
35–44 years -0.038*** -5.01 -0.033*** -4.35 0.012 0.52 0.059* 2.59
45–54 years -0.031*** -4.10 -0.036*** -4.74 0.48* 2.17 0.018 0.81
55–64 years -0.034*** -4.25 -0.031*** -3.82 0.014 0.61 0.050* 2.07
65 years and older -0.031* -2.36 -0.032** -2.60 0.035 0.96 0.029 0.74
Marital status -0.004 -0.90 -0.004 -0.92 0.003 0.27 0.004 0.36
Nationality 0.039*** 4.11 0.013 1.49 0.078*** 3.36 -0.130*** -5.08
Education 0.052*** 12.81 0.015*** 3.57 0.117*** 9.36 -0.184*** -15.27
Children -0.006 -1.38 0.006 1.41 -0.049*** -3.93 0.050*** 3.73
Leisure time 0.001*** 7.37 0.0001 0.92 0.003*** 7.80 -0.0050*** -10.01
Health 0.011*** 3.00 -0.011** -2.98 0.089*** 8.62 -0.090*** -8.19
SWB 0.008*** 6.47 0.001 1.04 0.022*** 6.57 -0.031*** -8.99
Income 1.27e-06 0.93 2.85e-06 -1.20 0.00002* 2.31 -0.00002** -3.04

z values refer to robust standard errors; ME = marginal effects; * p B 0.05; ** p B 0.01;*** p B 0.001
479

123
480 J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487

negatively correlated with ‘only cultural participation’. Marital status was

insignificant in all four scenarios.

6 Discussion and Conclusion

There is a huge body of research investigating the socio-demographic determinants

for either sports or cultural participation, the two most important leisure activities
(e.g. Humphreys and Ruseski 2006; Ateca-Amestoy 2008). However, these have
usually been studied separately. The present study combined both activities and
aimed to identify possible relationships characterising individual participation in
them. The household production model of Becker (1996) was used to describe the
decisions individuals face under time and monetary restrictions.
The results of the bivariate probit model clearly indicated that both types of
activities are interrelated. Moreover, the results supported Becker’s (1996) model
and the extension of this model to include different constraints (Breuer 2006). The
analysis outlined the importance of the amount of time individuals have to spend on
their leisure activities. The approach of modelling disposable time directly and not
by a proxy (e.g. working time) produced adequate results that emphasised the
important role of disposable time for participation in leisure activities. However,
leisure time was not significant for individuals who only engaged in ‘cultural
participation’ activities. This may be because most of the cultural activities
examined in this study were not very time-intensive and could be integrated easily
into daily life. Regarding monetary restrictions, the variable income was only
significant for ‘only sports participation’ and ‘no participation in either activity’.
Looking at ‘only sports participation’, despite the small coefficient, the positive
relationship indicates that participation in most sport activities requires a significant
amount of money, and hence, income is a prerequisite resource; this finding
supports earlier research (Scheerder and Vos 2011; Downward and Rasciute 2010).
In contrast, there was no significant relationship of income with ‘only cultural
participation’. Although prerequisites for acquisition of certain competences (e.g.
practice lessons, purchase of an instrument) are expensive, the actual participation
(playing the instrument, taking a picture) is not expensive. This is further supported
by the significant negative relationship of income for individuals who participated in
neither sports nor cultural activities. It is likely that a lower level of income
represents a barrier for people who want to participate in any kind of sports or
cultural activity.
A positive relationship was found between human capital and sports and cultural
participation. This is congruent with previous findings that education positively
affects disposable time in terms of using time effectively (e.g. Kirk 2005; Nagel
et al. 2010; Huang and Humphreys 2012). With regard to cultural participation, a
higher level of education often enables individuals to participate in cultural
activities (O’Hagan 1996). The observed negative relationship of education for
individuals who did not participate in any cultural or sports activity is in accord with
previous research, which has identified education as an important factor for cultural
and sports participation (e.g. Huang and Humphreys 2012, Seaman 2005).

123
J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487 481

The findings for the demographic variables shed additional light on the
interrelationships of both types of participation. All age group variables showed a
negative relationship with ‘participation in both cultural and sports activities’ and
‘only cultural participation’ (in reference to the youngest age group with marginal
effect sizes). The findings are congruent with the other literature to a certain extent,
which suggests a negative relationship between age and high cultural participation
(e.g. Scherger 2009 who investigated different age groups based on logistic
regression analyses). Thus, it is not congruent with the notion that acquisition of
tastes needs time (Gray 2003). However, there was a significant positive
relationship of being 45–54 years old and ‘only sports participation’. One
explanation for this finding could be that individuals in this age group become
more aware and maybe even start worrying about their health. This could be a
reason why they in particular take part in sports which is congruent with other
research (Stamatakis and Chaudhury 2008). We controlled with a proxy for health,
but maybe that variable did not capture the entire health effect in a holistic way.
However, further analysis would be needed to support these assumptions. The
insignificant results for the other age groups on sports participation can be attributed
to the broad definition of sports participation in this study. Presumably, there are
differences in the relationships of the age groups with, for example, participation in
team sports and walking as indicated by Humphreys and Ruseski (2007), but these
differences could not be explored in this study.
A positive relationship was found between nationality and sports and cultural
participation, indicating that German people were more likely to engage in these
leisure activities compared with immigrant people. This is probably because of the
failure to integrate immigrant people into German sport clubs. The joint
probabilities provide further support for this, as nationality had the second highest
negative relationship of all variables for individuals who did not participate in either
sport or cultural activities. This could be related to the general problems of
integration, socialisation and participation in society that newly immigrant people
struggle with. For example, the results of the German Sport Development Report
(Breuer and Feiler 2013) demonstrate that the participation rate of immigrants in
sport clubs has been declining over recent years and is rather small in comparison
with participation of native people. However, it should be noted that these data were
highly skewed as 95 % of the respondents were German. Hence, potential bias in
these results must be considered (Yen and Lee 2009). Moreover, the results reveal
that people of nationalities other than German are less likely to participate in any
cultural or sports activity. Previous research has identified language barriers (Rublee
and Shaw 1991) and discrimination based on race (Philipp 1998) or religion
(Stodolska and Livengood 2006) as possible constraints on immigrant leisure
participation.
The present findings regarding gender were interesting. Females were more
active overall and more likely to participate in both activities. These results confirm
previous research on cultural participation (DiMaggio 2004; Bihagen and Katz-
Gerro 2000), but conflict with most research on sports participation (Downward and
Rasciute 2011). This may be because of the broad definition of the variable sports
participation. Breuer et al. (2011) found significant gender differences in

123
482 J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487

participation in various forms of physical activity. More striking is that men are
clearly less likely to participate in either sports or cultural activities. In this context,
Kraaykamp et al. (2008) found that men are more likely than women to reduce their
participation in leisure activities as their working hours increase.
In accordance with previous work (e.g. Ruseski et al. 2011), the presence of
children was only a negative factor for sports participation in this study which may
indicate that cultural activities are more flexible and easier to accommodate than
sports activities (e.g. it is quicker to take photographs of a sunset than to go running
for at least 30 min). This is further substantiated by the positive relationship of the
presence of children for those individuals who did not participate in either activity.
Childcare often dominates parents’ leisure time, especially if there is more than one
child (Craig and Bittman 2008).
The results suggest that health was positively related to sports and cultural
participation, which supports previous findings (Scherger 2009). A negative
relationship was found for ‘cultural participation only’ and ‘for no participation’.
This suggests that if an individual does not feel healthy, he/she is either prevented
from participating in any activity or more likely to see cultural participation as a
substitute for physical activity. SWB was also positively related to cultural and
sports participation. Previous research in this area produced mixed findings. The
present findings of this study are congruent with those of Downward et al. (2015)
insofar as they show a significant and positive relationship of SWB with
participation (Downward and colleagues only looked at sports participation and
concluded that there is an effect in both directions). The direction of the relationship
is not clear. Other studies have found a positive relationship of sports participation
with SWB (Huang and Humphreys 2012; Rasciute and Downward 2010), or of
cultural participation with SWB (Grossi et al. 2011; Daykin et al. 2008; Scherger
2009). When considering the positive relationships of SWB with participation,
social factors must be taken into account. An individual who is more satisfied with
his/her life is more willing to participate in activities with others and express and
challenge herself/himself (Matarasso 1997). These findings highlight a serious
problem; those who probably most need the well-documented positive effects of
sports and cultural participation may be prevented from participating because of
unsatisfactory health and SWB status. Thus, policy makers should always target
inactive individuals to encourage them to participate.
This study provides some managerial implications. Overall, the results indicate
that sports and cultural activities are complementary (Muñiz et al. 2011). This
suggests that cultural or sports organisations should tailor their programmes to the
characteristics of their target consumers. For instance, sport organisations could
focus on all age groups (there were positive but non-significant effects) and in
particular of the age group being 45–54 years old (which was significantly
correlated with only sports participation). In contrast, cultural organisations could
target especially the young (as all age groups had a significant negative relationship
compared to the youngest age group with only cultural participation). Another
implication of the present findings is the importance of the resource of time. People
who have more time to spend on leisure activities more actively engage in sports
and cultural activities. Thus, those with less leisure time at their disposal are

123
J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487 483

restricted. Therefore, from a practical point of view, highly flexible programmes,

which allow people the opportunity to integrate activities into their working day,
should be offered. This study highlights the important issue that some people may
be unable to participate in either cultural or sports activity because of certain
barriers (nationality, education, income or health). From a normative perspective,
these results can be interpreted as a call for further funding inclusion programmes
for social subgroups like immigrants, people with lower education and those with
lower income.
From a scientific perspective, this study advanced knowledge through simulta-
neously estimating both outcome variables in one model and confirming once more
the use of a behavioural economic approach to study sports and cultural
participation.
There are limitations to this study. One important limitation is the broad
definition of both dependent variables. For sports participation, a higher differen-
tiation between activities is likely to produce a more accurate picture, especially for
the variables gender and age. In addition, it would have been interesting to include
preferences (motives) in the model; however, as these were not included in the
secondary data set, this was not possible. Regarding cultural participation, the focus
on only a few high-culture activities limited the investigation of how people spend
their leisure time. Future research should focus on expanding the cultural
perspective by including popular cultural activities.
An expanded collection of primary data would help to improve the validity of the
results of future studies. Further research should also apply this type of analysis to
social groups like immigrants or senior citizens. This would help to provide a more
in-depth understanding of the determinants of sports and culture participation
among different social groups.

Acknowledgments Data used in this manuscript were made available by the German Institute for
Economic Research, and these data are based on the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).

References
Allender, S., Cowburn, G., & Foster, C. (2006). Understanding participation in sport and physical activity
among children and adults: A review of qualitative studies. Health Education Research, 21(6),
826–835.
Ateca-Amestoy, V. (2008). Determining heterogeneous behavior for theater attendance. Journal of
Cultural Economics, 32(2), 127–151.
Ateca-Amestoy, V. (2010). Cultural participation patterns. Evidence from the Spanish time use survey,
ESA Research Network Sociology of Culture Midterm Conference. Culture and the making of
worlds. Milan: Univ. Bocconi, 7–9 October.
Ateca-Amestoy, V., and Castiglione, C. (2015). Digital cultural audiences. Should cultural managers
worry about the digital divide?. Seventh European Workshop on Applied Cultural Economics.
Vienna: Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO), 3–5 September.
Becker, G. S. (1996). The economic way of looking at behavior: The Nobel Lecture Hoover. Stanford:
Hoover Press.
Bihagen, E., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2000). Culture consumption in Sweden: The stability of gender
differences. Poetics, 27(5), 327–349.
Bildungsberichterstattung, A. (2012). Bildung in Deutschland 2012. Ein indikatorengestützter bericht mit
einer analyse zur kulturellen bildung im lebenslauf. Bielefeld: Bertelsmann.

123
484 J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487

Bittman, M. (2002). Social participation and family welfare. The money and time costs of leisure in
Australia. Social Policy and Administration, 36(4), 408–425.
Bloom, M. R., Grant, M. W., and Watt, D. (2005). Strengthening Canada: The socio-economic benefits of
sport participation in Canada. Ottawa: Conference Board of Canada.
Borgonovi, F. (2004). Performing arts attendance: An economic approach. Applied Economics, 36(17),
1871–1885.
Borowiecki, K. J., & Castiglione, C. (2014). Cultural participation and tourism flows: An empirical
investigation of Italian provinces. Tourism Economics, 20(2), 241–262.
Breuer, C. (2006). Sportpartizipation in Deutschland–ein demo-ökonomisches modell [Sports participa-
tion in Germany–a demo-economic model]. Sportwissenschaft—The German Journal of Sport
Science, 36(3), 292–305.
Breuer, C., & Feiler, S. (2013). Sportentwicklungsbericht 2012/2013. Bundesinstitut für Sportwis-
senschaft: Analyse zur situation der sportvereine in Deutschland. Köln.
Breuer, C., Hallmann, K., & Wicker, P. (2011). Determinants of sport participation in different sports.
Managing Leisure, 16(4), 269–286.
Breuer, C., Hallmann, K., Wicker, P., & Feiler, S. (2010). Socio-economic patterns of sport demand and
ageing. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 7(2), 61–70.
Breuer, C., & Wicker, P. (2008). Demographic and economic factors concerning the conclusion in the
german sport system—A micro-analysis of the year 1985–2005. European Journal for Sport and
Society, 5(1), 33–42.
Cabane, C., Hille, A., and Lechner, M. (2015). Mozart or Pelé? The effects of teenagers’ participation in
music and sports. SOEP Papers on multidisciplinary panel data research. Berlin: DIW Berlin.
Cameron, S. (2006). Determinants of the demand for live entertainments: Some survey-based evidence.
Economic Issues, 11(2), 28–42.
Cameron, S. (2015). Music in the marketplace: A social economics approach. Oxon: Routledge.
Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. (2010). Microeconometrics using stata. College Station: Stata Press.
Canoy, M., van Ours, J. C., & van der Ploeg, F. (2006). The economics of books. In V. A. Ginsburg & D.
Throsby (Eds.), Handbook on the economics of art and culture. Amsterdam and Oxford: Elsevier.
Castiglione, C. (2011). The demand for theatre: A microeconomic approach to the Italian case. Trinity
Economics Papers tep0911. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin, Department of Economics.
Christin, A. (2012). Gender and highbrow cultural participation in the United States. Poetics, 40(5),
423–443.
Clift, S., & Camic, P. M. (2015). Oxford textbook of creative arts, health, and wellbeing: International
perspectives on practice, policy and research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Craig, L., & Bittman, M. (2008). The incremental time costs of children: An analysis of children’s impact
on adult time use in Australia. Feminist Economics, 14(2), 59–88.
Cushman, G., Veal, A. J., & Zuzanek, J. (2005). Free time and leisure participation: International
perspectives. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.
Daykin, N., Orme, J., Evans, D., Salmon, D., McEachran, M., & Brain, S. (2008). The impact of
participation in performing arts on adolescent health and behaviour a systematic review of the
literature. Journal of health psychology, 13(2), 251–264.
DiMaggio, P. (1982). Cultural capital and school success: The impact of status culture participation on
the grades of US high school students. American Sociological Review, 189–201.
DiMaggio, P. (2004). Gender, networks, and cultural capital. Poetics, 32(2), 99–103.
Diniz, S. C., & Machado, A. F. (2011). Analysis of the consumption of artistic-cultural goods and services
in Brazil. Journal of Cultural Economics, 35(1), 1–18.
Downward, P., & Rasciute, S. (2010). The relative demands for sports and leisure in England. European
sport management quarterly, 10(2), 189–214.
Downward, P., & Rasciute, S. (2011). Does sport make you happy? An analysis of the well-being derived
from sports participation. International Review of Applied Economics, 25(3), 331–348. doi:10.1080/
02692171.2010.511168.
Downward, P., & Rasciute, S. (2015). Exploring the covariates of sport participation for health: An
analysis of males and females in England. Journal of Sport Sciences, 33(1), 67–76.
Downward, P., Hallmann, K., & Rasciute, S. (2015). Physical activity, well-being, health and trust:
exploring their connectedness. Paper presented at the 7th ESEA conference on sport economics,
Zurich, Switzerland, August 27–28.
Eberth, B., & Smith, M. D. (2010). Modelling the participation decision and duration of sporting activity
in Scotland. Economic Modelling, 27(4), 822–834.

123
J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487 485

Ekelund, R., & Ritenour, S. (1999). An exploration of the beckerian theory of time costs: Symphony
concert demand. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 58, 887–899.
Falk, M., & Katz-Gerro, T. (2015). Cultural participation in Europe: Can we identify common
determinants? Journal of Cultural Economics,. doi:10.1007/s10824-015-9242-9.
Farrell, L., & Shields, M. A. (2002). Investigating the economic and demographic determinants of
sporting participation in England. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in
Society), 165(2), 335–348.
Galloway, S. (2006). Cultural participation and individual quality of life: A review of research findings.
Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1(3–4), 323–342.
Gans, H. (2008). Popular Culture and High Culture: An Analysis and Evaluation Of Taste (Revised And
Updated): Basic Books.
Gratton, C., & Taylor, P. (2000). Economics of sport and recreation. London: E and FN Spon.
Gray, C. M. (2003). Participation. In R. Towse (Ed.), A handbook of cultural economics (pp. 356–365).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis. Harlow: Pearson.
Grossi, E., Sacco, P. L., Blessi, G. T., & Cerutti, R. (2011). The impact of culture on the individual
subjective well-being of the Italian population: An exploratory study. Applied Research in Quality of
Life, 6(4), 387–410.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. A global
perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Hirvensalo, M., & Lintunen, T. (2011). Life-course perspective for physical activity and sports
participation. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 8(1), 13–22. doi:10.1007/s11556-
010-0076-3.
Huang, H., & Humphreys, B. R. (2012). Sports participation and happiness: Evidence from US microdata.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 33(4), 776–793.
Humphreys, B. R., and Ruseski, J. E. (2006). Economic determinants of participation in physical activity
and sport. International Association of Sports Economists Working paper(0613).
Humphreys, B. R., & Ruseski, J. E. (2007). Participation in physical activity and government spending on
parks and recreation. Contemporary Economic Policy, 25(4), 538–552.
Humphreys, B. R., and Ruseski, J. E. (2009). The economics of participation and time spent in physical
activity (Working Paper 2009-09). Edmonton: University of Alberta, Department of Economics,
Institute for Public Economics.
Humphreys, B. R., and Ruseski, J. E. (2011). An economic analysis of participation and time spent in
physical activity. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 11(1), (Contributions), Article
47.
Katsuura, M. (2008). Examining arts participation in Japan using the survey on time use and leisure
activities. Asia Pacific Journal of Arts and Cultural Management, 5(1), 343–361.
Kirk, D. (2005). Physical education, youth sport and lifelong participation: The importance of early
learning experiences. European Physical Education Review, 11(3), 239–255.
Koivula, N. (1995). Ratings of gender appropriateness of sports participation: Effects of gender-based
schematic processing. Sex Roles, 33(7–8), 543–557.
Kolb, B. M. (2002). Ethnic preference for the arts: The role of the social experience as attendance
motivation. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(2), 172–181.
Kraaykamp, G., van Gils, W., & Ultee, W. (2008). Cultural participation and time restrictions. Explaining
the frequency of individual and joint cultural visits. Poetics, 36(4), 316–332.
Laamanen, J. P. (2013). Estimating demand for opera using sales system data: The case of Finnish
National Opera. Journal of Cultural Economics, 37(4), 417–432.
Lee, Y. G., & Bhargava, V. (2004). Leisure time: Do married and single individuals spend it differently?
Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 32(3), 254–274.
Leslie, E., Cerin, E., Gore, C. J., St. George, A., Bauman, A., Owen, N., & Cerin, E. (2004). Gender, age
and educational-attainment differences in Australian adults’ participation in vigorous sporting and
fitness activities. Journal of physical activity and health, 1(4), 377–388.
Lewis, G., & Seaman, B. (2004). Sexual orientation and demand for the arts. Social Science Quarterly,
85(3), 523–538.
Løyland, K., & Ringstad, V. (2009). On the price and income sensitivity of the demand for sports. Has
linder’s disease become more serious? Journal of Sports Economics, 10(6), 601–618.
MacKinnon, J. G., & White, H. (1985). Some heteroskedasticity consistent covariance matrix estimators
with improved finite sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 29(3), 305–325.

123
486 J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487

Matarasso, F. (1997). Use or ornament. The social impact of participation in the arts. Stroud: Comedia.
Mattingly, M., & Bianchi, S. (2003). Gender differences in the quantity and quality of free time. The US
experience. Social Forces, 81(3), 999–1030.
McCaughey, C. (1989). Arts education and demand for the arts in Canada. In H. Chartrand, C.
McCaughey, & W. Hendon (Eds.), Cultural economics ‘88: A Canadian perspective (pp. 43–51).
Akron: Association for Cultural Economics.
Montgomery, S. S., & Robinson, M. D. (2010). Empirical evidence of the effects of marriage on male and
female attendance at sports and arts. Social Science Quarterly, 91(1), 99–116.
Muñiz, C., Rodrı́guez, P., & Suárez, M. J. (2011). The allocation of time to sports and cultural activities:
An analysis of individual decisions. International Journal of Sport Finance, 6(3), 245–264.
Muñiz, C., Rodrı́guez, P., & Suárez, M. J. (2014). Sports and cultural habits by gender: An application
using count data models. Economic Modelling, 36, 288–297. doi:10.1016/j.econmod.2013.09.053.
Nagel, I., Damen, M., & Folkert, H. (2010). The arts course CKV1 and cultural participation in the
Netherlands. Poetics, 38, 365–385.
Notten, N., Lancee, B., van de Werfhorst, H. G., & Ganzeboom, H. B. (2015). Educational stratification in
cultural participation: Cognitive competence or status motivation? Journal of Cultural Economics,
39(2), 177–203.
O’Hagan, J. W. (1996). Access to and participation in the arts: The case of those with low incomes/
educational attainment. Journal of Cultural Economics, 20(4), 269–282.
Philipp, S. F. (1998). Race and gender differences in adolescent peer group approval of leisure activities.
Journal of Leisure Research, 30(2), 214–232.
Rasciute, S., & Downward, P. (2010). Health or happiness? What is the impact of physical activity on the
individual? Kyklos, 63(2), 256–270.
Ringstad, V., & Løyland, K. (2011). Performing arts and cinema demand. Some evidence of Linder’s
disease. Applied Economics Quarterly, 57(4), 255–284.
Rublee, C. B., & Shaw, S. M. (1991). Constraints on the leisure and community participation of
immigrant women: Implications for social integration. Loisir et société/Society and Leisure, 14(1),
133–150.
Ruseski, J. E., Humphreys, B. R., Hallmann, K., & Breuer, C. (2011). Family structure, time constraints,
and sport participation. European Review of Aging and Physical Activity, 8(2), 57–66.
Scherger, S. (2009). Cultural practices, age and the life course. Cultural Trends, 18(1), 23–45.
Scherger, J., & Vos, S. (2011). Social stratification in adults’ sports participation from a time-trend
perspective. Results from a 40-year household study. European Journal for Sport and Society, 8(1/
2), 31–44.
Seaman, B. (2005). Attendance and Public Participation in the Performing Arts: A Review of the
Empirical Literature. Working Paper 05-03, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies: Geogia State
University.
Seaman, B. (2006). Empirical studies of demand for the performing arts. In V. Ginsburgh & D. Throsby
(Eds.), Handbook of the economics of art and culture (1) (pp. 415–472). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Silva, E. B., & Le Roux, B. (2011). Cultural capital of couples: Tensions of elective affinities. Poetics,
39(6), 547–565.
Stamatakis, E., & Chaudhury, M. (2008). Temporal trends in adults’ sports participation patterns in
England between 1997 and 2006: The health survey for England. British Journal of Sports
Medicine, 42(11), 901–908. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2008.048082.
Stodolska, M., & Livengood, J. S. (2006). The influence of religion on the leisure behavior of immigrant
Muslims in the United States. Journal of Leisure Research, 38(3), 293–320.
Taks, M., Renson, R., & Vanreusel, B. (1994). Of sport, time and money: An economic approach to sport
participation. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 29(4), 381–395.
Taks, M., & Scheerder, J. (2006). Youth sports participation styles and market segmentation profiles:
Evidence and applications. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6(2), 85–121. doi:10.1080/
16184740600954080.
Tepper, S. J. (2000). Fiction reading in America: Explaining the gender gap. Poetics, 27(4), 255–275.
Throsby, D. (1994). The production and consumption of the arts. A view of cultural economics. Journal
of Economic Literature, 32(1), 1–29.
Toepoel, V. (2011). Cultural participation of older adults: Investigating the contribution of lowbrow and
highbrow activities to social integration and satisfaction with life. International Journal on
Disability and Human Development, 10(2), 123–129.
UNESCO (2003). Why Sport? http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/sport/home/sport. 17.06.2014.

123
J Cult Econ (2017) 41:467–487 487

UNESCO. (2012). Measuring cultural participation. Montreal: UNESCO Institute for Statistics.
Upright, C. B. (2004). Social capital and cultural participation: Spousal influences on attendance at arts
events. Poetics, 32(2), 129–143.
van Hek, M., & Kraaykamp, G. (2013). Cultural consumption across countries: A multi-level analysis of
social inequality in highbrow culture in Europe. Poetics, 41(4), 323–341.
Wagner, G. G., Frick, J. R., & Schupp, J. (2007). The german socio-economic panel-study (SOEP)—
Scope. Evolution and Enhancements. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 127(1), 139–169.
Wen, W., & Cheng, T. (2013). Performing arts attendance in Taiwan: Who and how often? Journal of
Cultural Economics, 37(2), 309–325.
White, H. (1980). A heteroscedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for
heteroscedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838.
Wilson, T. C. (2002). The paradox of social class and sports involvement: The roles of cultural and
economic capital. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 37(1), 5–16.
Withers, G. (1980). Unbalanced growth and the demand for the performing arts: An econometric analysis.
Southern Economic Journal, 46(3), 735–742.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Yen, S.-J., & Lee, Y.-S. (2009). Cluster-based under-sampling approaches for imbalanced data
distributions. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(3), 5718–5727.

123