- Email: [email protected]
Freeriding—Only a need for thrill?
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 22 (2019) S44–S49
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsams
Freeriding—Only a need for thrill? Comparing different motives and behavioural aspects between slope skiers and freeride skiers Anika Frühauf ∗ , Pia Anewanter, Julia Hagenauer, Natalie Marterer, Martin Kopp University of Innsbruck, Department of Sport Science, Austria
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 February 2018 Received in revised form 17 October 2018 Accepted 6 November 2018 Available online 15 November 2018 Keywords: High risk sport Sensation seeking Emotion regulation Agency Accidents
a b s t r a c t Objectives: To compare professional freeride skiers (an experienced high-risk cohort) with recreational freeride skiers (a less experienced high risk cohort) and slope skiers (a low-risk sport cohort) in regard to their motives and their reported accident involvement. Design: Case-control study. Methods: In an online survey, skiers completed the German Sensation Seeking, Emotion Regulation and Agency Scale and the German Accident and Close Calls in Sport Inventory. Freeriders were further asked about their risk-management strategies and their use of safety equipment. For every professional freerider (total 31; 29% female) within the sample, two matched controls (age, gender) were allocated (slope skier and recreational freerider). Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and Chi-square differences were calculated. Results: Freeriders showed significantly higher sensation seeking scores than slope skiers. No differences were found in the experience of agency while participating; however freeriders experienced higher agency transfers after the activity than slope skiers. No further motivational disparities between recreational or professional freeriders were shown. Both freeride samples reported a significantly higher accident and close call involvement than slope skiers. Accident and close call involvement was not predicted by motives of participation. Conclusions: Freeriding might provide beneficial transfer effects as shown through a higher agency transfer, for participants into aspects of everyday life. Nevertheless it should not be ignored that the potential behavioural gain of freeriding is at the cost of a higher risk which is underlined by the higher involvement in accidents and experienced close calls of freeriders compared to slope skiers. © 2018 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Freeride skiing and snowboarding (hereafter referred to as freeriders and freeriding) is defined as skiing in undeveloped natural spaces/powder snowfields and jumping from sheer cliffs.1,2 Due to the nature of freeriding the risk of serious personal injury or even death through avalanches or other natural hazards is substantially greater.3 According to the definition by Breivik 4(p.10) high-risk sports are “all sports where you have to reckon with the possibility of serious injury or death as an inherent part of the activity”. Thus, freeriding is considered a high-risk sport. Over the years the participation in high-risk sports (i.e. skiing in extreme environ-
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Frühauf).
ments) has increased and has become a more socially acceptable form of risk-taking.5,6 Participating in high-risk sports is a voluntary decision with an awareness of the known sources of risk and the potential consequences. Albeit, the involved risk is high, personal knowledge and technical skills allow participants to manage their risk-exposure.7 However, the objective risk in high-risk sports is undeniable and is underlined by higher rates of both accidents and close calls (close calls are defined as “incidents that come very close to resulting in a negative outcome”8(p.480) ) compared to low-risk sports.9,10 Risk-taking research has largely been seen through the onedimensional view of sensation seeking,11 which is most commonly assessed through the Sensation Seeking Scale-V.12 Recently, several studies have shown the motivational diversity for participation in high-risk sports (e.g. challenge, nature, agency, friends) and have argued against the homogenization of high risk sports.13,14,17
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2018.11.002 1440-2440/© 2018 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Frühauf et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 22 (2019) S44–S49
Depending on the activity, high-risk sports require the participants to undergo a varying set of skills and tasks which can be as diverse as mountaineering (e.g. extended durations, difficult access through challenging terrain) and skydiving (e.g. short durations, easy access through a plane).9 Sensation seeking was seen as the main motive for participation in high-risk sports; however individuals from different high-risk sports seem to be motivated by different aspects behind the thrill of the sport. Thus the sensation seeking explanation can no longer be seen as sufficient.13 In particular, studies have shown that participants in prolonged high-risk sports report a difficulty with emotion regulation and a diminished sense of agency in aspects of their life, thus, might participate in those high-risk sports to experience agency and become aware of their emotions.15 Based on the developments that were previously identified, Barlow et al.13 established the Sensation Seeking, Emotion Regulation and Agency Scale (SEAS). They assessed motivational differences between prolonged high-risk sports (e.g. mountaineering) and short-term high-risk sports (e.g. skydiving) along with a cohort of various low-risk sports (e.g. basketball and hockey). This study showed how mountaineers are rather motivated by the emotional and agentic benefits and skydivers by the sensations of the activity.13 The SEAS is comprised of three constructs which are measured at three imaginative time points (between participating, while participating and after participating). This distinction within the SEAS will thoroughly evaluate a) need for the activity (between participating), b) the affective experience (while participating) and c) transfer effects of the activity (after participating) within the three constructs of sensation seeking, emotion regulation and agency. Previous qualitative research found comparable emotional and agentic benefits as seen in mountaineers in the study by Barlow et al.13 and were described by the motives Balance and Freedom, within experienced freeriders (n = 40).14 Freedom was defined by the participants as not being restricted by external rules or regulations (e.g. boundaries of a ski resort).14 Albeit, the terminology behind the motive of Freedom differs, it remains parallel to the construct of agency located within the SEAS.13 Agency is described as the subjective awareness of influencing intentionally one’s functioning and life circumstances.18 The terminology behind the motive of Balance describes the emotional benefits of freeriding which are transferred into everyday life and results in a more balanced lifestyle. Similarly, this motive is comparable to emotion regulation as used in the SEAS.13 Emotion regulation refers to the extrinsic and intrinsic processes which are involved in monitoring and evaluating (e.g. intensity, type and duration) emotional reactions.19 In regards to risk-taking behaviour reports, over 50% of participants sampled in the qualitative study, had described an overall change in risk-taking behaviour following involvement in an accident or close call.14 In previous studies, comparisons between low-risk sports and high-risk sports in regards to accident involvement or motivational differences were frequently performed using different activity types (e.g. low risk sports as racket sport, basketball etc. and high-risk sports as rock climbers, skydivers etc.).9,13 However, the practice of different sports is more likely based on different motives.20 Therefore, the present study investigated the motivational differences within the sport of skiing, which is known to include both high-risk and low-risk cohorts. Skiing can be performed in a controlled environment with secured slopes free from natural hazards (slope skiing) or in an uncontrolled environment outside the protected skiing resort (freeriding). Prior high-risk sport research showed that participants’ previous experience in the sport influences their emotional experience,21 the transfer effects of the activity,22 and possibly the behaviour of participants.23 Novice skydivers were shown to experience higher contrasting emotions from pre to post jump compared to experienced skydivers21 indicat-
S45
ing the necessity to differentiate participants based on experience when assessing emotion related constructs. Thus, the current study included professional freeriders to control for sport experience and compared them with recreational freeriders and slope skiers. To the best of the authors’ knowledge no prior study has evaluated motivational and behavioural aspects in a high- and low-risk cohort of the same activity. The aim of the present research was to quantitatively assess the motivational and behavioural differences between professional freeriders, recreational freeriders and slope skiers in a case control designed study. We hypothesized that both freerider cohorts experience higher sensation seeking, agency and emotion regulation than slope skiers, and that professional freeriders experience higher emotion regulation and lower sensation seeking than recreational freeriders. We further hypothesize that professional freeriders differ in behavioural aspects (e.g. accident involvement) from slope skiers and recreational freeriders. An additional aim of the study was to investigate freeride safety behaviour (e.g. safety equipment, risk-reduction strategies) between professional and recreational freeriders.
2. Methods Skiers were recruited through a mailing list compiled of contacts from the department of sport science by the University of Innsbruck and through social networks (e.g. Facebook). Participants could enter the online survey if they skied regularly throughout the winter season 2015/2016. The first question categorized the skiers into slope skiers (n = 128, 77% female) – skiers who ski inside the patrolled and secured area of a ski resort and freeride skiers (n = 237, 36% female) – skiers who ski outside the secured terrain in an unprotected area. Further questions about freeride contest participation and mountain guide education categorized the freeriders into professional freeride skiers (n = 31, 29% female) and recreational freeride skiers (n = 206, 38% female). In order to exclude gender and age influences two matched controls (age, gender) were selected for every professional freerider. In case of two or more matching samples the decision was taken randomly. This resulted in a final sample size for statistical analyses of 93 skiers (29% female; mean age: 25.6 ± 6.8 years). Approval by the institutional Board for Ethical Questions in Science in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki was obtained prior to the study. The scale order was constant throughout all participants. Every participant provided sociodemographic data (age, gender, origin, education) at the beginning and completed the G-SEAS24 and GACCSI24 questionnaires. Furthermore, only freeriders (because it did not apply to slope skiers) answered behaviour related questions about their safety equipment, usage of safety information and riskreduction strategies. Safety equipment was listed as beacon, shovel, probe, first aid kit, bivouac and mobile phone. Beacon, shovel and probe are seen as the necessary standard equipment in the backcountry.25 Safety information was listed as: having no information prior to the activity, reading the avalanche bulletin, reading actual avalancherelated information in the skiing resort and using an avalanche safety application (which provides avalanche related information and is similar to the avalanche bulletin). The usage of common risk-reduction strategies developed by German speaking alpine associations (e.g. Östereichischer Alpenverein (ÖAV) ‘stop or go card’), were measured. Participants completed a German version of the Sensation Seeking, Emotion Regulation and Agency Scale (G-SEAS).24 The scale consists of three inventories which evaluate the time points between participating, while participating and after participating in the activity. Each inventory contains 14 items with a seven-point Likert scale response mode ranging from one (completely disagree)
S46
A. Frühauf et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 22 (2019) S44–S49
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the SEAS and ACSSI including results from analyses of variance. Recreational freerider
Professional freerider
Analyses of variance
Scale
Slope skier M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
F(2,93)
p
SEAS between participations Need for sensation Difficulty with emotion regulation Diminished agency
3.64 5.83 6.06
1.88 1.40 1.06
5.15a 5.26 5.01a
1.13 1.21 1.14
4.93a 5.06 4.42a
1.46 1.26 1.71
8.89 2.97 12.12
<.001 .057 <.001
SEAS while participating Experience of sensation Experience of emotion regulation Experience of agency
4.35 3.94 5.31
1.51 1.33 .89
5.56a 5.20a 5.67
.94 1.12 .75
5.32a 5.27a 5.67
1.29 1.38 1.27
7.96 10.44 1.38
.001 <.001 .257
SEAS after participating Satisfaction of sensation need Transfer of emotion regulation Transfer of agency
3.81 3.57 3.26
1.46 1.55 1.51
5.08a 4.75a 4.75a
1.37 1.54 1.49
4.68a 4.75a 4.59a
1.44 1.18 1.42
6.48 6.97 9.50
.002 .002 <.001
ACSSI Accidents Close calls
2.28 1.54
1.03 .69
3.57a 2.34a
1.31 1.24
3.57a 2.56a
1.29 1.19
7.86 11.64
.001 <.001
Note. SEAS, Sensation Seeking, Emotion Regulation and Agency Scale; ACSSI, Accident and Close Calls in Sport Inventory; M, means; SD, standard deviations. a Significantly different than slope skiers.
to seven (completely agree). Each inventory score is created by dividing the sum of all item scores by the number of available items. No items are reverse coded, however a higher score in the between scale indicates a higher lack/dissatisfaction. Higher scores in the while and after inventory indicate a positive experience/transfer of the constructs. The G-SEAS differs from the original SEAS13 in terms of number of items (14 items instead of 18 items per inventory) and factor structure. Whereas the original SEAS evaluated a two-factor structure of agentic emotion regulation a better fit to the data, the G-SEAS favoured a three-factor model for the afterinventory. The composite reliability of each subscale resulted in r = .83–.95 across each inventory and the subscales within each inventory were all positively correlated. To measure negative outcomes, the German version of the Accidents and Close Calls in Sport Inventory (G-ACCSI)24 was used. The G-ACCSI is identical to the original ACCSI9 in terms of factor structure and number of items.24 It consists of six items measuring general accident involvement (three items) and experienced close calls (three items) in the activity. Participants responded to each item on a 7-point Likert scale from one (completely disagree) to seven (completely agree). Higher scores indicate higher accident/close call involvement. The G-ACCSI displayed good composite reliabilities for Accidents (CR = .84) and Close Calls (CR = .85). Univariate Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) were used to test for motivational differences between the groups with each G-SEAS subscale (e.g. Agency between) as the dependent variable. Contrast calculations (simple, repeated) revealed differences between the samples. Differences in safety equipment, safety information and risk-reduction strategies were calculated with Qui-Square analyses. Regression Analyses were calculated with accidents or close calls as the dependent variable and the G-SEAS subscales as predictor variable. All p-values were two-tailed and values of p < .05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. The analyses were done with the software program IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0.
after participating in the activity (transfer of agency, p < .001). While participating, freeriders did not differ from slope skiers in experience of agency (p = .257). Emotion regulation did not differ between slope skiers and freeriders between participation (difficulty of emotion regulation, p = .057), but freeriders reported higher scores in this dimension while (experience of emotional regulation, p < .001) and after participation (transfer of emotion regulation, p = .002). Analyses revealed no differences between professional and recreational freeriders in any of the SEAS motive scores. Univariate ANOVA analyses with G-ACCSI subscales (Close Calls or Accidents) as dependent variable revealed that freeriders differed significantly from slope skiers in close call and accident involvement (Table 1). Freeriders experienced higher scores in both accidents and close calls than slope skiers (p < .002). No further distinction between the recreational and professional freeride sample was found in the G-ACCSI. Regression analyses revealed that none of the G-SEAS motives (Sensation Seeking, Emotion Regulation and Agency) predicted accidents or close calls. Differences between the recreational and the professional freeride sample were found regarding the use of safety equipment (Table 2). All persons allocated to the professional freeride group reported to carry shovel, probe and beacon as standard equipment; contrary to recreational freeriders where this behaviour was not found consistently (p < .041). Four persons of the recreational freeride sample (12.9%) declared riding without the appropriate safety equipment of shovel, beacon and probe. Further differences between the groups were seen in the use of risk reduction strategies (p = .021) with a higher use of riskreduction strategies in professional freeriders (Table 2). All freeride participants reported to use safety information prior to the activity. Professional freeriders use an avalanche safety application for the smartphone more often (p = .008). No significant group difference was found regarding the usage of the avalanche bulletin prior to the activity.
3. Results
4. Discussion
The motive scores of Sensation Seeking were significantly higher in freeriders than in slope skiers between (need for sensation, p < .001), while (experience of sensation, p = .001) and after participation (satisfaction of sensation needs, p = .002) (Table 1). Compared to slope skiers, freeriders showed a lower diminished agency between participating (p < .001) and higher scores of Agency
The aim of this study was to compare motivational and behavioural factors between professional freeriders, recreational freeriders, and slope skiers. The primary findings of this study results revealed the same motivational patterns and accident/close call involvement for both freerider cohorts but with differences compared to slope skiers.
A. Frühauf et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 22 (2019) S44–S49
S47
Table 2 Frequencies on the usage of safety equipment and safety information including results from chi-square analyses. Professional freerider
Recreational freerider
Chi-square analyses
N
%
N
%
x2 (1)
p
Safety equipment Beacon Shovel Probe Bivouac First aid kit Mobile phone
31 31 31 17 26 30
100 100 100 55 84 97
27 25 25 7 19 29
87 81 81 23 61 94
4.21 6.54 6.54 6.69 3.91 .345
.040 .011 .011 .010 .048 .557
Safety information Usage Avalanche forecast Avalanche app Information in skiing resort
31 31 16 16
100 100 52 52
31 29 6 16
100 94 19 52
– 2.03 6.93 .000
– .154 .008 1.00
Risk reduction strategies Usage
27
87
19
61
5.30
.021
Note. N, number of participants.
As hypothesized, significant differences in the motives for participation were detected between freeriders and slope skiers in all sensation seeking motives, though, with no further difference between recreational and professional freeriders. The variety in experience based on the differentiation between recreational and professional freeriders might not have been sufficient to detect differences as shown in skydivers in the study by Price and Bundesen.21 However, in skydiving novice persons are able to perform the sport, in contrast to, freeriders have to be skilled skiers to be able to ski the terrain provided by the backcountry. Freeriders showed a higher need for sensation between the activities, a higher experience of sensation while skiing and a higher satisfaction of sensation needs after skiing. When compared to slope skiers, freeriders seem to be largely motivated by the thrills of the experience. This is in line with previous research relating sensation seeking motives to high-risk sport participation.26,11 However, the sensation seeking score of freeriders presented in the current score is parallel to the sensation seeking score of mountaineers that has been previously shown by Barlow et al.13 When comparing sensation seeking scores of slope skiers from the current study with the low-risk control group by Barlow et al.,13 slope skiers had lower mean sensation seeking scores. The fact that slope skiers do not seem to be motivated by the sensations of the activity is underlined by a recent research article where slope skiers showed significantly lower SSS-V scores compared to both snowboarders and skitourers.27 Furthermore, differences in the motives of skiing were found between slope skiers and freeriders in the dimensions of agency and emotion regulation with no further distinction between recreational and professional freeriders. Regarding the time points, the experience of agency is similar in freeriders and slope skiers, however freeriders feel a lower diminished agency between participation and a greater transfer of agency after participation in the current study. Relating those results to the descriptions by freeriders from a qualitative study, feelings of agency were reported as crucial for the experience. They were described as having the power to dictate route planning throughout the activity, resulting in a greater satisfaction after the actvity.14 During the activity slope skiers also have route planning choices, therefore this might explain the missing difference reported in agency (while participating) between freeriders and slope skiers in the current study. However, wrong decision making by freeriders during the activity results in significantly greater consequences due to the high-risk environment. Therefore, agency might outlast the activity in freeriders but not in slope skiers resulting in a beneficial transfer of agency into
everyday life as shown in the current study. A transfer of agency describes a higher ability and influence in dealing with aspects of everyday life.13 Those beneficial transfer effects were also qualitatively reported in freeriders and further reported to help them in their everyday life.14 In regard to the construct of Emotion Regulation, all groups showed similar scores in difficulties with emotion regulation between the activities. However, freeriders (both recreational and professional) showed a higher experience and a higher transfer of emotion regulation than slope skiers. The transfer of emotion regulation describes the ability to better deal with stressful and emotional situations in everyday life (as indicated by the SEAS items13 ). Barlow et al.13(p.14) suggests that “[...] individuals can learn from the high-risk environment and transfer their coping skills back into their everyday life”. In the study by Barlow et al. mountaineers experienced these beneficial agency and emotion regulation transfers which were comparable to freeriders in the current study. Similar to mountaineering, freeriding includes being part of a complex and dynamic risk environment where the hazard is highly variable (e.g. avalanches, rocks, crevasses, etc.).3 Therefore, both activities require high abilities and preparation time to minimize the chance of wrong decisions which could lead to fatal consequences. Thus feelings of agency and emotion regulation might outlast the activity of freeriding and can be transferred into everyday life as indicated by the results of the current study. The higher risk of freeriding compared to slope skiing could be underlined by the significant differences in accident and close call involvement by freeriders compared to slope skiers in the present study. This is in line with prior research comparing highrisk vs. low-risk sports showing higher accident and close call involvement in high-risk sports.9 Professional and recreational freeriders reported a similar accident and close call involvement; however the use of risk-reduction strategies was different in both groups. The missing difference in accidents and close calls might be explained by risk homeostasis28 where experience and risktaking behaviour follow a closed loop resulting in a similar negative outcome. A significantly higher use of risk-reduction strategies was found in professional freeriders. Yet this does not apply to the use of safety information prior to the activity. Apart from two recreational freeriders every freerider reported to read the avalanche bulletin whereas in a cross-sectional study on skitourers only 72.8% (vs. 93% of recreational freeriders of the current study) chose to read it.25 In terms of safety equipment, not all recreational freeriders carried the appropriate safety equipment while skiing, 12.9% ski without the necessary safety equipment of
S48
A. Frühauf et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 22 (2019) S44–S49
beacon, shovel and probe. This is comparable to the findings of Procter et. al where 19% of over 4000 skitourers did not carry the necessary safety equipment.25 Compared to snowshoers from the same investigation, these numbers are low since only 13% of snowshoers who walk in unprotected areas, carried the standard safety equipment with them. Should the results from the study dictate safety equipment regulation? In a comparison of ski helmet use in skiers/snowboarders between Austrian provinces with a legislative ski helmet use and those without, a lower number of helmet use was reported for the provinces with legislative ski helmet use in people aged ≥16 (63.1% vs 68.1%).29 Increasing public awareness might have the same effect on helmet use than mandatory regulations and is additionally intrinsically motivated.30 Since legislative regulations seem not possible and participation in high-risk sports is rising, it is necessary to discuss and increase public awareness about risks and safety-management. This study was limited by its cross-sectional questionnaire based approach. Participants completed the questionnaire online and were partly recruited through social networks. A selection bias and possible influences while filling in the questionnaire could not be controlled for in this study. Although the SEAS is a validated evaluation tool, a limitation may be the fact that participants have to imagine being in three different time points (between participating, while participating, after participating). A strength of the study was its case controlled design which excludes gender and age influences. Furthermore, it is the first study which distinguishes within the one activity of skiing, between a low- and two high-risk cohorts. Further studies should think about applying observational studies to gain further insight into motives and outcomes of high-risk sport activities. 5. Conclusion Recent literature has provided insight into the diversity of motivational factors of different high risk activities.13,8,15 Our findings extend the position that Sensation Seeking is not the one and only motive for participating in high risk sports and provides new insight into the transferable benefits of freeriding. This is explained by the higher transfer of emotion regulation and agency of freeriders compared to slope skiers into aspects of everyday life. This might be seen in better coping skills (emotion regulation transfer) and a higher ability and influence in dealing with aspects of everyday life (agency transfer).13 To our knowledge, this is the first study which evaluates motivational factors and accident/close call behaviour within the same type of activity (skiing) comparing a high risk and a low risk cohort through different terrain exposures. Overall, freeriders experienced more accidents and close calls than slope skiers. The vast majority of freeriders use appropriate safety equipment and risk reduction strategies, although differences were found between recreational and professional freeriders. Freeriding is the fastest growing segment in the ski industry32 and attracts more and more participants each year. Compared to slope skiing, freeriding evokes beneficial transfer effects regarding agency and emotion regulation into everyday lives. However, it includes a higher accident and close call involvement. Given these results and the differences between recreational and professional freeriders regarding the usage of safety equipment, our results stress the necessity of an open discussion of risk acceptance and risk reduction in freeriding and of gaining further insights in underlying motivational and behavioural aspects of freeriding. Practical implications • Motives for participation differ between slope skiers and freeride skiers.
• Freeride skiers experience beneficial transfers of agency and emotion regulation into their everyday lives. • The higher risk exposure of freeriding is underlined by a significant difference in accidents and close calls in the current study. • Professional freeriders showed a higher usage of safety equipment and risk reduction strategies than recreational freeriders. Acknowledgements No funding has been received for this work. References 1. Brymer E, Schweitzer R. The search for freedom in extreme sports: a phenomenological exploration. Psychol Sport Exerc 2013; 14(6):865–873. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.07.004. 2. Reynier V, Vermeir K, Soule B. Social representations of risks among winter sports participants: a focus on the influence of sports practice and style in the French Alps. Sport Soc 2014; 17(6):736–756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 17430437.2014.882904. 3. Haegeli P, Gunn M, Haider W. Identifying a high-risk cohort in a complex and dynamic risk environment: out-of-bounds skiing—an example from avalanche safety. Prev Sci 2012; 13(6):562–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-0120282-5. 4. Breivik G. Empirical studies of risk sport. Oslo, Norway, Norges Idrettshøgskole, Institutt for samfunnsfag, 1999. 5. Pain MTG, Pain MA. Essay: risk taking in sport. Lancet 2005; 366:S33–S34. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67838-5. 6. Llewellyn DJ, Sanchez X. Individual differences and risk taking in rock climbing. Psychol Sport Exerc 2008; 9(4):413–426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport. 2007.07.003. 7. Haegeli P, Pröbstl-Haider U. Research on personal risk in outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism. J Outdoor Recreation Tour 2016; 13:1–9. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jort.2016.02.001. 8. Woodman T, Barlow M, Bandura C et al. Not all risks are equal: the risk taking inventory for high-risk sports. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2013; 35(5):479–492. 9. Barlow M, Woodman T, Chapman C et al. Who takes risks in high-risk sport?: The role of alexithymia. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2015; 37(1):83–96. http://dx.doi. org/10.1123/jsep.2014-0130. 10. Gosteli G, Yersin B, Mabire C et al. Retrospective analysis of 616 airrescue trauma cases related to the practice of extreme sports. Injury 2016; 47(7):1414–1420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2016.03.025. 11. Zuckerman M. Sensation seeking and risky behavior, 2nd ed. Washington, DC, American Psychological Assoc, 2008. 12. Zuckerman M. Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking, New York, NY, US, Cambridge University Press, 1994. 13. Barlow M, Woodman T, Hardy L. Great expectations: different high-risk activities satisfy different motives. J Pers Soc Psychol 2013; 105(3):458–475. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/a0033542. 14. Frühauf A, Hardy WAS, Pfoestl D et al. A qualitative approach on motives and aspects of risks in freeriding. Front Psychol 2017; 8:141. http://dx.doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2017.01998. 17. Willig C. A phenomenological investigation of the experience of taking part in ‘extreme sports’. J Health Psychol 2008; 13(5):690–702. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/1359105307082459. 18. Bandura A. Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspect Psychol Sci 2006; 1(2):164–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x. 19. Thompson RA. Emotion regulation: a theme in search of definition. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 1994; 59(2/3):25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1166137. 20. Molanorouzi K, Khoo S, Morris T. Motives for adult participation in physical activity: type of activity, age, and gender. BMC Public Health 2015; 15(66). http:// dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1429-7. 21. Price IR, Bundesen C. Emotional changes in skydivers in relation to experience. Pers Individ Differ 2005; 38(5):1203–1211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2004.08.003. 22. Heirene RM, Shearer D, Roderique-Davies G et al. Addiction in extreme sports: an exploration of withdrawal states in rock climbers. J Behav Addict 2016; 5(2):332–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/2006.5.2016.039. 23. Cazenave N, Le Scanff C, Woodman T. Psychological profiles and emotional regulation characteristics of women engaged in risk-taking sports. Anxiety Stress Coping 2007; 20(4):421–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615800701330176. 24. Frühauf A, Hardy WAS, Roberts R et al. Structural validation of three German versions of behavioral and motivational scales in high-risk sports. Ger J Exerc Sport Res 2018; 103(3):411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12662-018-0535-y. 25. Procter E, Strapazzon G, Dal Cappello T et al. Adherence of backcountry winter recreationists to avalanche prevention and safety practices in northern Italy. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2014; 24(5):823–829. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sms. 12094. 26. Jack SJ, Ronan KR. Sensation seeking among high- and low-risk sportsparticipants. Personal Individ Differ 1998; 25(1063–1083). 27. Kopp M, Wolf M, Ruedl G et al. Differences in sensation seeking between alpine skiers, snowboarders and ski tourers. J Sports Sci Med 2016; 15(1):11–16.
A. Frühauf et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 22 (2019) S44–S49 28. Wilde GJS. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic accidents: propositions, deductions and discussion of dissension in recent reactions. Ergonomics 1988; 31(4):441–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140138808966691. 29. Ruedl G, Brunner F, Kopp M et al. Impact of a ski helmet mandatory on helmet use on Austrian ski slopes. J Trauma 2011; 71(4):1085–1087. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/TA.0b013e31821e7e91.
S49
30. Ruedl G, Kopp M, Burtscher M. Is ski helmet legislation more effective than education? Br J Sports Med 2012; 46(16):1091–1092. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ bjsports-2012-091374. 32. Vargyas G. Backcountry skiers, avalanche trauma mortality, and helmet use. Wilderness & Environ Med 2016; 27(1):181–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. wem.2015.09.020.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsams
Freeriding—Only a need for thrill? Comparing different motives and behavioural aspects between slope skiers and freeride skiers Anika Frühauf ∗ , Pia Anewanter, Julia Hagenauer, Natalie Marterer, Martin Kopp University of Innsbruck, Department of Sport Science, Austria
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 1 February 2018 Received in revised form 17 October 2018 Accepted 6 November 2018 Available online 15 November 2018 Keywords: High risk sport Sensation seeking Emotion regulation Agency Accidents
a b s t r a c t Objectives: To compare professional freeride skiers (an experienced high-risk cohort) with recreational freeride skiers (a less experienced high risk cohort) and slope skiers (a low-risk sport cohort) in regard to their motives and their reported accident involvement. Design: Case-control study. Methods: In an online survey, skiers completed the German Sensation Seeking, Emotion Regulation and Agency Scale and the German Accident and Close Calls in Sport Inventory. Freeriders were further asked about their risk-management strategies and their use of safety equipment. For every professional freerider (total 31; 29% female) within the sample, two matched controls (age, gender) were allocated (slope skier and recreational freerider). Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and Chi-square differences were calculated. Results: Freeriders showed significantly higher sensation seeking scores than slope skiers. No differences were found in the experience of agency while participating; however freeriders experienced higher agency transfers after the activity than slope skiers. No further motivational disparities between recreational or professional freeriders were shown. Both freeride samples reported a significantly higher accident and close call involvement than slope skiers. Accident and close call involvement was not predicted by motives of participation. Conclusions: Freeriding might provide beneficial transfer effects as shown through a higher agency transfer, for participants into aspects of everyday life. Nevertheless it should not be ignored that the potential behavioural gain of freeriding is at the cost of a higher risk which is underlined by the higher involvement in accidents and experienced close calls of freeriders compared to slope skiers. © 2018 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction Freeride skiing and snowboarding (hereafter referred to as freeriders and freeriding) is defined as skiing in undeveloped natural spaces/powder snowfields and jumping from sheer cliffs.1,2 Due to the nature of freeriding the risk of serious personal injury or even death through avalanches or other natural hazards is substantially greater.3 According to the definition by Breivik 4(p.10) high-risk sports are “all sports where you have to reckon with the possibility of serious injury or death as an inherent part of the activity”. Thus, freeriding is considered a high-risk sport. Over the years the participation in high-risk sports (i.e. skiing in extreme environ-
∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Frühauf).
ments) has increased and has become a more socially acceptable form of risk-taking.5,6 Participating in high-risk sports is a voluntary decision with an awareness of the known sources of risk and the potential consequences. Albeit, the involved risk is high, personal knowledge and technical skills allow participants to manage their risk-exposure.7 However, the objective risk in high-risk sports is undeniable and is underlined by higher rates of both accidents and close calls (close calls are defined as “incidents that come very close to resulting in a negative outcome”8(p.480) ) compared to low-risk sports.9,10 Risk-taking research has largely been seen through the onedimensional view of sensation seeking,11 which is most commonly assessed through the Sensation Seeking Scale-V.12 Recently, several studies have shown the motivational diversity for participation in high-risk sports (e.g. challenge, nature, agency, friends) and have argued against the homogenization of high risk sports.13,14,17
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2018.11.002 1440-2440/© 2018 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Frühauf et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 22 (2019) S44–S49
Depending on the activity, high-risk sports require the participants to undergo a varying set of skills and tasks which can be as diverse as mountaineering (e.g. extended durations, difficult access through challenging terrain) and skydiving (e.g. short durations, easy access through a plane).9 Sensation seeking was seen as the main motive for participation in high-risk sports; however individuals from different high-risk sports seem to be motivated by different aspects behind the thrill of the sport. Thus the sensation seeking explanation can no longer be seen as sufficient.13 In particular, studies have shown that participants in prolonged high-risk sports report a difficulty with emotion regulation and a diminished sense of agency in aspects of their life, thus, might participate in those high-risk sports to experience agency and become aware of their emotions.15 Based on the developments that were previously identified, Barlow et al.13 established the Sensation Seeking, Emotion Regulation and Agency Scale (SEAS). They assessed motivational differences between prolonged high-risk sports (e.g. mountaineering) and short-term high-risk sports (e.g. skydiving) along with a cohort of various low-risk sports (e.g. basketball and hockey). This study showed how mountaineers are rather motivated by the emotional and agentic benefits and skydivers by the sensations of the activity.13 The SEAS is comprised of three constructs which are measured at three imaginative time points (between participating, while participating and after participating). This distinction within the SEAS will thoroughly evaluate a) need for the activity (between participating), b) the affective experience (while participating) and c) transfer effects of the activity (after participating) within the three constructs of sensation seeking, emotion regulation and agency. Previous qualitative research found comparable emotional and agentic benefits as seen in mountaineers in the study by Barlow et al.13 and were described by the motives Balance and Freedom, within experienced freeriders (n = 40).14 Freedom was defined by the participants as not being restricted by external rules or regulations (e.g. boundaries of a ski resort).14 Albeit, the terminology behind the motive of Freedom differs, it remains parallel to the construct of agency located within the SEAS.13 Agency is described as the subjective awareness of influencing intentionally one’s functioning and life circumstances.18 The terminology behind the motive of Balance describes the emotional benefits of freeriding which are transferred into everyday life and results in a more balanced lifestyle. Similarly, this motive is comparable to emotion regulation as used in the SEAS.13 Emotion regulation refers to the extrinsic and intrinsic processes which are involved in monitoring and evaluating (e.g. intensity, type and duration) emotional reactions.19 In regards to risk-taking behaviour reports, over 50% of participants sampled in the qualitative study, had described an overall change in risk-taking behaviour following involvement in an accident or close call.14 In previous studies, comparisons between low-risk sports and high-risk sports in regards to accident involvement or motivational differences were frequently performed using different activity types (e.g. low risk sports as racket sport, basketball etc. and high-risk sports as rock climbers, skydivers etc.).9,13 However, the practice of different sports is more likely based on different motives.20 Therefore, the present study investigated the motivational differences within the sport of skiing, which is known to include both high-risk and low-risk cohorts. Skiing can be performed in a controlled environment with secured slopes free from natural hazards (slope skiing) or in an uncontrolled environment outside the protected skiing resort (freeriding). Prior high-risk sport research showed that participants’ previous experience in the sport influences their emotional experience,21 the transfer effects of the activity,22 and possibly the behaviour of participants.23 Novice skydivers were shown to experience higher contrasting emotions from pre to post jump compared to experienced skydivers21 indicat-
S45
ing the necessity to differentiate participants based on experience when assessing emotion related constructs. Thus, the current study included professional freeriders to control for sport experience and compared them with recreational freeriders and slope skiers. To the best of the authors’ knowledge no prior study has evaluated motivational and behavioural aspects in a high- and low-risk cohort of the same activity. The aim of the present research was to quantitatively assess the motivational and behavioural differences between professional freeriders, recreational freeriders and slope skiers in a case control designed study. We hypothesized that both freerider cohorts experience higher sensation seeking, agency and emotion regulation than slope skiers, and that professional freeriders experience higher emotion regulation and lower sensation seeking than recreational freeriders. We further hypothesize that professional freeriders differ in behavioural aspects (e.g. accident involvement) from slope skiers and recreational freeriders. An additional aim of the study was to investigate freeride safety behaviour (e.g. safety equipment, risk-reduction strategies) between professional and recreational freeriders.
2. Methods Skiers were recruited through a mailing list compiled of contacts from the department of sport science by the University of Innsbruck and through social networks (e.g. Facebook). Participants could enter the online survey if they skied regularly throughout the winter season 2015/2016. The first question categorized the skiers into slope skiers (n = 128, 77% female) – skiers who ski inside the patrolled and secured area of a ski resort and freeride skiers (n = 237, 36% female) – skiers who ski outside the secured terrain in an unprotected area. Further questions about freeride contest participation and mountain guide education categorized the freeriders into professional freeride skiers (n = 31, 29% female) and recreational freeride skiers (n = 206, 38% female). In order to exclude gender and age influences two matched controls (age, gender) were selected for every professional freerider. In case of two or more matching samples the decision was taken randomly. This resulted in a final sample size for statistical analyses of 93 skiers (29% female; mean age: 25.6 ± 6.8 years). Approval by the institutional Board for Ethical Questions in Science in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki was obtained prior to the study. The scale order was constant throughout all participants. Every participant provided sociodemographic data (age, gender, origin, education) at the beginning and completed the G-SEAS24 and GACCSI24 questionnaires. Furthermore, only freeriders (because it did not apply to slope skiers) answered behaviour related questions about their safety equipment, usage of safety information and riskreduction strategies. Safety equipment was listed as beacon, shovel, probe, first aid kit, bivouac and mobile phone. Beacon, shovel and probe are seen as the necessary standard equipment in the backcountry.25 Safety information was listed as: having no information prior to the activity, reading the avalanche bulletin, reading actual avalancherelated information in the skiing resort and using an avalanche safety application (which provides avalanche related information and is similar to the avalanche bulletin). The usage of common risk-reduction strategies developed by German speaking alpine associations (e.g. Östereichischer Alpenverein (ÖAV) ‘stop or go card’), were measured. Participants completed a German version of the Sensation Seeking, Emotion Regulation and Agency Scale (G-SEAS).24 The scale consists of three inventories which evaluate the time points between participating, while participating and after participating in the activity. Each inventory contains 14 items with a seven-point Likert scale response mode ranging from one (completely disagree)
S46
A. Frühauf et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 22 (2019) S44–S49
Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the SEAS and ACSSI including results from analyses of variance. Recreational freerider
Professional freerider
Analyses of variance
Scale
Slope skier M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
F(2,93)
p
SEAS between participations Need for sensation Difficulty with emotion regulation Diminished agency
3.64 5.83 6.06
1.88 1.40 1.06
5.15a 5.26 5.01a
1.13 1.21 1.14
4.93a 5.06 4.42a
1.46 1.26 1.71
8.89 2.97 12.12
<.001 .057 <.001
SEAS while participating Experience of sensation Experience of emotion regulation Experience of agency
4.35 3.94 5.31
1.51 1.33 .89
5.56a 5.20a 5.67
.94 1.12 .75
5.32a 5.27a 5.67
1.29 1.38 1.27
7.96 10.44 1.38
.001 <.001 .257
SEAS after participating Satisfaction of sensation need Transfer of emotion regulation Transfer of agency
3.81 3.57 3.26
1.46 1.55 1.51
5.08a 4.75a 4.75a
1.37 1.54 1.49
4.68a 4.75a 4.59a
1.44 1.18 1.42
6.48 6.97 9.50
.002 .002 <.001
ACSSI Accidents Close calls
2.28 1.54
1.03 .69
3.57a 2.34a
1.31 1.24
3.57a 2.56a
1.29 1.19
7.86 11.64
.001 <.001
Note. SEAS, Sensation Seeking, Emotion Regulation and Agency Scale; ACSSI, Accident and Close Calls in Sport Inventory; M, means; SD, standard deviations. a Significantly different than slope skiers.
to seven (completely agree). Each inventory score is created by dividing the sum of all item scores by the number of available items. No items are reverse coded, however a higher score in the between scale indicates a higher lack/dissatisfaction. Higher scores in the while and after inventory indicate a positive experience/transfer of the constructs. The G-SEAS differs from the original SEAS13 in terms of number of items (14 items instead of 18 items per inventory) and factor structure. Whereas the original SEAS evaluated a two-factor structure of agentic emotion regulation a better fit to the data, the G-SEAS favoured a three-factor model for the afterinventory. The composite reliability of each subscale resulted in r = .83–.95 across each inventory and the subscales within each inventory were all positively correlated. To measure negative outcomes, the German version of the Accidents and Close Calls in Sport Inventory (G-ACCSI)24 was used. The G-ACCSI is identical to the original ACCSI9 in terms of factor structure and number of items.24 It consists of six items measuring general accident involvement (three items) and experienced close calls (three items) in the activity. Participants responded to each item on a 7-point Likert scale from one (completely disagree) to seven (completely agree). Higher scores indicate higher accident/close call involvement. The G-ACCSI displayed good composite reliabilities for Accidents (CR = .84) and Close Calls (CR = .85). Univariate Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) were used to test for motivational differences between the groups with each G-SEAS subscale (e.g. Agency between) as the dependent variable. Contrast calculations (simple, repeated) revealed differences between the samples. Differences in safety equipment, safety information and risk-reduction strategies were calculated with Qui-Square analyses. Regression Analyses were calculated with accidents or close calls as the dependent variable and the G-SEAS subscales as predictor variable. All p-values were two-tailed and values of p < .05 were considered to indicate statistical significance. The analyses were done with the software program IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0.
after participating in the activity (transfer of agency, p < .001). While participating, freeriders did not differ from slope skiers in experience of agency (p = .257). Emotion regulation did not differ between slope skiers and freeriders between participation (difficulty of emotion regulation, p = .057), but freeriders reported higher scores in this dimension while (experience of emotional regulation, p < .001) and after participation (transfer of emotion regulation, p = .002). Analyses revealed no differences between professional and recreational freeriders in any of the SEAS motive scores. Univariate ANOVA analyses with G-ACCSI subscales (Close Calls or Accidents) as dependent variable revealed that freeriders differed significantly from slope skiers in close call and accident involvement (Table 1). Freeriders experienced higher scores in both accidents and close calls than slope skiers (p < .002). No further distinction between the recreational and professional freeride sample was found in the G-ACCSI. Regression analyses revealed that none of the G-SEAS motives (Sensation Seeking, Emotion Regulation and Agency) predicted accidents or close calls. Differences between the recreational and the professional freeride sample were found regarding the use of safety equipment (Table 2). All persons allocated to the professional freeride group reported to carry shovel, probe and beacon as standard equipment; contrary to recreational freeriders where this behaviour was not found consistently (p < .041). Four persons of the recreational freeride sample (12.9%) declared riding without the appropriate safety equipment of shovel, beacon and probe. Further differences between the groups were seen in the use of risk reduction strategies (p = .021) with a higher use of riskreduction strategies in professional freeriders (Table 2). All freeride participants reported to use safety information prior to the activity. Professional freeriders use an avalanche safety application for the smartphone more often (p = .008). No significant group difference was found regarding the usage of the avalanche bulletin prior to the activity.
3. Results
4. Discussion
The motive scores of Sensation Seeking were significantly higher in freeriders than in slope skiers between (need for sensation, p < .001), while (experience of sensation, p = .001) and after participation (satisfaction of sensation needs, p = .002) (Table 1). Compared to slope skiers, freeriders showed a lower diminished agency between participating (p < .001) and higher scores of Agency
The aim of this study was to compare motivational and behavioural factors between professional freeriders, recreational freeriders, and slope skiers. The primary findings of this study results revealed the same motivational patterns and accident/close call involvement for both freerider cohorts but with differences compared to slope skiers.
A. Frühauf et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 22 (2019) S44–S49
S47
Table 2 Frequencies on the usage of safety equipment and safety information including results from chi-square analyses. Professional freerider
Recreational freerider
Chi-square analyses
N
%
N
%
x2 (1)
p
Safety equipment Beacon Shovel Probe Bivouac First aid kit Mobile phone
31 31 31 17 26 30
100 100 100 55 84 97
27 25 25 7 19 29
87 81 81 23 61 94
4.21 6.54 6.54 6.69 3.91 .345
.040 .011 .011 .010 .048 .557
Safety information Usage Avalanche forecast Avalanche app Information in skiing resort
31 31 16 16
100 100 52 52
31 29 6 16
100 94 19 52
– 2.03 6.93 .000
– .154 .008 1.00
Risk reduction strategies Usage
27
87
19
61
5.30
.021
Note. N, number of participants.
As hypothesized, significant differences in the motives for participation were detected between freeriders and slope skiers in all sensation seeking motives, though, with no further difference between recreational and professional freeriders. The variety in experience based on the differentiation between recreational and professional freeriders might not have been sufficient to detect differences as shown in skydivers in the study by Price and Bundesen.21 However, in skydiving novice persons are able to perform the sport, in contrast to, freeriders have to be skilled skiers to be able to ski the terrain provided by the backcountry. Freeriders showed a higher need for sensation between the activities, a higher experience of sensation while skiing and a higher satisfaction of sensation needs after skiing. When compared to slope skiers, freeriders seem to be largely motivated by the thrills of the experience. This is in line with previous research relating sensation seeking motives to high-risk sport participation.26,11 However, the sensation seeking score of freeriders presented in the current score is parallel to the sensation seeking score of mountaineers that has been previously shown by Barlow et al.13 When comparing sensation seeking scores of slope skiers from the current study with the low-risk control group by Barlow et al.,13 slope skiers had lower mean sensation seeking scores. The fact that slope skiers do not seem to be motivated by the sensations of the activity is underlined by a recent research article where slope skiers showed significantly lower SSS-V scores compared to both snowboarders and skitourers.27 Furthermore, differences in the motives of skiing were found between slope skiers and freeriders in the dimensions of agency and emotion regulation with no further distinction between recreational and professional freeriders. Regarding the time points, the experience of agency is similar in freeriders and slope skiers, however freeriders feel a lower diminished agency between participation and a greater transfer of agency after participation in the current study. Relating those results to the descriptions by freeriders from a qualitative study, feelings of agency were reported as crucial for the experience. They were described as having the power to dictate route planning throughout the activity, resulting in a greater satisfaction after the actvity.14 During the activity slope skiers also have route planning choices, therefore this might explain the missing difference reported in agency (while participating) between freeriders and slope skiers in the current study. However, wrong decision making by freeriders during the activity results in significantly greater consequences due to the high-risk environment. Therefore, agency might outlast the activity in freeriders but not in slope skiers resulting in a beneficial transfer of agency into
everyday life as shown in the current study. A transfer of agency describes a higher ability and influence in dealing with aspects of everyday life.13 Those beneficial transfer effects were also qualitatively reported in freeriders and further reported to help them in their everyday life.14 In regard to the construct of Emotion Regulation, all groups showed similar scores in difficulties with emotion regulation between the activities. However, freeriders (both recreational and professional) showed a higher experience and a higher transfer of emotion regulation than slope skiers. The transfer of emotion regulation describes the ability to better deal with stressful and emotional situations in everyday life (as indicated by the SEAS items13 ). Barlow et al.13(p.14) suggests that “[...] individuals can learn from the high-risk environment and transfer their coping skills back into their everyday life”. In the study by Barlow et al. mountaineers experienced these beneficial agency and emotion regulation transfers which were comparable to freeriders in the current study. Similar to mountaineering, freeriding includes being part of a complex and dynamic risk environment where the hazard is highly variable (e.g. avalanches, rocks, crevasses, etc.).3 Therefore, both activities require high abilities and preparation time to minimize the chance of wrong decisions which could lead to fatal consequences. Thus feelings of agency and emotion regulation might outlast the activity of freeriding and can be transferred into everyday life as indicated by the results of the current study. The higher risk of freeriding compared to slope skiing could be underlined by the significant differences in accident and close call involvement by freeriders compared to slope skiers in the present study. This is in line with prior research comparing highrisk vs. low-risk sports showing higher accident and close call involvement in high-risk sports.9 Professional and recreational freeriders reported a similar accident and close call involvement; however the use of risk-reduction strategies was different in both groups. The missing difference in accidents and close calls might be explained by risk homeostasis28 where experience and risktaking behaviour follow a closed loop resulting in a similar negative outcome. A significantly higher use of risk-reduction strategies was found in professional freeriders. Yet this does not apply to the use of safety information prior to the activity. Apart from two recreational freeriders every freerider reported to read the avalanche bulletin whereas in a cross-sectional study on skitourers only 72.8% (vs. 93% of recreational freeriders of the current study) chose to read it.25 In terms of safety equipment, not all recreational freeriders carried the appropriate safety equipment while skiing, 12.9% ski without the necessary safety equipment of
S48
A. Frühauf et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 22 (2019) S44–S49
beacon, shovel and probe. This is comparable to the findings of Procter et. al where 19% of over 4000 skitourers did not carry the necessary safety equipment.25 Compared to snowshoers from the same investigation, these numbers are low since only 13% of snowshoers who walk in unprotected areas, carried the standard safety equipment with them. Should the results from the study dictate safety equipment regulation? In a comparison of ski helmet use in skiers/snowboarders between Austrian provinces with a legislative ski helmet use and those without, a lower number of helmet use was reported for the provinces with legislative ski helmet use in people aged ≥16 (63.1% vs 68.1%).29 Increasing public awareness might have the same effect on helmet use than mandatory regulations and is additionally intrinsically motivated.30 Since legislative regulations seem not possible and participation in high-risk sports is rising, it is necessary to discuss and increase public awareness about risks and safety-management. This study was limited by its cross-sectional questionnaire based approach. Participants completed the questionnaire online and were partly recruited through social networks. A selection bias and possible influences while filling in the questionnaire could not be controlled for in this study. Although the SEAS is a validated evaluation tool, a limitation may be the fact that participants have to imagine being in three different time points (between participating, while participating, after participating). A strength of the study was its case controlled design which excludes gender and age influences. Furthermore, it is the first study which distinguishes within the one activity of skiing, between a low- and two high-risk cohorts. Further studies should think about applying observational studies to gain further insight into motives and outcomes of high-risk sport activities. 5. Conclusion Recent literature has provided insight into the diversity of motivational factors of different high risk activities.13,8,15 Our findings extend the position that Sensation Seeking is not the one and only motive for participating in high risk sports and provides new insight into the transferable benefits of freeriding. This is explained by the higher transfer of emotion regulation and agency of freeriders compared to slope skiers into aspects of everyday life. This might be seen in better coping skills (emotion regulation transfer) and a higher ability and influence in dealing with aspects of everyday life (agency transfer).13 To our knowledge, this is the first study which evaluates motivational factors and accident/close call behaviour within the same type of activity (skiing) comparing a high risk and a low risk cohort through different terrain exposures. Overall, freeriders experienced more accidents and close calls than slope skiers. The vast majority of freeriders use appropriate safety equipment and risk reduction strategies, although differences were found between recreational and professional freeriders. Freeriding is the fastest growing segment in the ski industry32 and attracts more and more participants each year. Compared to slope skiing, freeriding evokes beneficial transfer effects regarding agency and emotion regulation into everyday lives. However, it includes a higher accident and close call involvement. Given these results and the differences between recreational and professional freeriders regarding the usage of safety equipment, our results stress the necessity of an open discussion of risk acceptance and risk reduction in freeriding and of gaining further insights in underlying motivational and behavioural aspects of freeriding. Practical implications • Motives for participation differ between slope skiers and freeride skiers.
• Freeride skiers experience beneficial transfers of agency and emotion regulation into their everyday lives. • The higher risk exposure of freeriding is underlined by a significant difference in accidents and close calls in the current study. • Professional freeriders showed a higher usage of safety equipment and risk reduction strategies than recreational freeriders. Acknowledgements No funding has been received for this work. References 1. Brymer E, Schweitzer R. The search for freedom in extreme sports: a phenomenological exploration. Psychol Sport Exerc 2013; 14(6):865–873. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.07.004. 2. Reynier V, Vermeir K, Soule B. Social representations of risks among winter sports participants: a focus on the influence of sports practice and style in the French Alps. Sport Soc 2014; 17(6):736–756. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 17430437.2014.882904. 3. Haegeli P, Gunn M, Haider W. Identifying a high-risk cohort in a complex and dynamic risk environment: out-of-bounds skiing—an example from avalanche safety. Prev Sci 2012; 13(6):562–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11121-0120282-5. 4. Breivik G. Empirical studies of risk sport. Oslo, Norway, Norges Idrettshøgskole, Institutt for samfunnsfag, 1999. 5. Pain MTG, Pain MA. Essay: risk taking in sport. Lancet 2005; 366:S33–S34. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67838-5. 6. Llewellyn DJ, Sanchez X. Individual differences and risk taking in rock climbing. Psychol Sport Exerc 2008; 9(4):413–426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport. 2007.07.003. 7. Haegeli P, Pröbstl-Haider U. Research on personal risk in outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism. J Outdoor Recreation Tour 2016; 13:1–9. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jort.2016.02.001. 8. Woodman T, Barlow M, Bandura C et al. Not all risks are equal: the risk taking inventory for high-risk sports. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2013; 35(5):479–492. 9. Barlow M, Woodman T, Chapman C et al. Who takes risks in high-risk sport?: The role of alexithymia. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2015; 37(1):83–96. http://dx.doi. org/10.1123/jsep.2014-0130. 10. Gosteli G, Yersin B, Mabire C et al. Retrospective analysis of 616 airrescue trauma cases related to the practice of extreme sports. Injury 2016; 47(7):1414–1420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2016.03.025. 11. Zuckerman M. Sensation seeking and risky behavior, 2nd ed. Washington, DC, American Psychological Assoc, 2008. 12. Zuckerman M. Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking, New York, NY, US, Cambridge University Press, 1994. 13. Barlow M, Woodman T, Hardy L. Great expectations: different high-risk activities satisfy different motives. J Pers Soc Psychol 2013; 105(3):458–475. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/a0033542. 14. Frühauf A, Hardy WAS, Pfoestl D et al. A qualitative approach on motives and aspects of risks in freeriding. Front Psychol 2017; 8:141. http://dx.doi.org/10. 3389/fpsyg.2017.01998. 17. Willig C. A phenomenological investigation of the experience of taking part in ‘extreme sports’. J Health Psychol 2008; 13(5):690–702. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/1359105307082459. 18. Bandura A. Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspect Psychol Sci 2006; 1(2):164–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x. 19. Thompson RA. Emotion regulation: a theme in search of definition. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev 1994; 59(2/3):25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1166137. 20. Molanorouzi K, Khoo S, Morris T. Motives for adult participation in physical activity: type of activity, age, and gender. BMC Public Health 2015; 15(66). http:// dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1429-7. 21. Price IR, Bundesen C. Emotional changes in skydivers in relation to experience. Pers Individ Differ 2005; 38(5):1203–1211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2004.08.003. 22. Heirene RM, Shearer D, Roderique-Davies G et al. Addiction in extreme sports: an exploration of withdrawal states in rock climbers. J Behav Addict 2016; 5(2):332–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/2006.5.2016.039. 23. Cazenave N, Le Scanff C, Woodman T. Psychological profiles and emotional regulation characteristics of women engaged in risk-taking sports. Anxiety Stress Coping 2007; 20(4):421–435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615800701330176. 24. Frühauf A, Hardy WAS, Roberts R et al. Structural validation of three German versions of behavioral and motivational scales in high-risk sports. Ger J Exerc Sport Res 2018; 103(3):411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12662-018-0535-y. 25. Procter E, Strapazzon G, Dal Cappello T et al. Adherence of backcountry winter recreationists to avalanche prevention and safety practices in northern Italy. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2014; 24(5):823–829. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/sms. 12094. 26. Jack SJ, Ronan KR. Sensation seeking among high- and low-risk sportsparticipants. Personal Individ Differ 1998; 25(1063–1083). 27. Kopp M, Wolf M, Ruedl G et al. Differences in sensation seeking between alpine skiers, snowboarders and ski tourers. J Sports Sci Med 2016; 15(1):11–16.
A. Frühauf et al. / Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 22 (2019) S44–S49 28. Wilde GJS. Risk homeostasis theory and traffic accidents: propositions, deductions and discussion of dissension in recent reactions. Ergonomics 1988; 31(4):441–468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00140138808966691. 29. Ruedl G, Brunner F, Kopp M et al. Impact of a ski helmet mandatory on helmet use on Austrian ski slopes. J Trauma 2011; 71(4):1085–1087. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1097/TA.0b013e31821e7e91.
S49
30. Ruedl G, Kopp M, Burtscher M. Is ski helmet legislation more effective than education? Br J Sports Med 2012; 46(16):1091–1092. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ bjsports-2012-091374. 32. Vargyas G. Backcountry skiers, avalanche trauma mortality, and helmet use. Wilderness & Environ Med 2016; 27(1):181–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. wem.2015.09.020.