Developmental Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association

2007, Vol. 43, No. 1, 197–207 0012-1649/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.197

Staying in or Moving Away From Structured Activities: Explanations

Involving Parents and Peers
Andreas Persson, Margaret Kerr, and Håkan Stattin
Örebro University

Adolescent participation in structured activities, meaning those with adult leaders, regular meetings, and
skill-building activities, is related to good adjustment. Participation in unstructured, unsupervised,
peer-oriented activities is related to poor adjustment. Structured activity participation is high in early
adolescence and then declines, raising the question of why youths leave structured activities. The authors
examined explanations involving parents and peers. They used longitudinal data from 861 youths (ages
13–17 years). Results showed that, compared with youths who stayed in structured activities, those who
switched to hanging out on the streets were less likely to have peers in structured activities and had less
positive feelings about the home context and more negative interactions with parents. In addition,
delinquency predicted switching to hanging out in the streets and never joining structured activities in the
first place. The results concerning parents support a theoretical explanation of how parents might
unintentionally affect youths’ leisure choices. Furthermore, the authors found some indications that
positive feelings at home might protect youths who switch from structured activities to hanging out on
the streets from increases in delinquency.

Keywords: structured activities, unstructured activities, delinquency, parent relations, peer relations

Youths spend many of their waking hours in leisure activities.
These activities can vary considerably in content and form. Among
other things, some are led by adults, whereas others are not.
Participation in structured activities, or activities with adult lead-
ers, regular meetings, and skill-building activities, is related to
academic achievement (Cooper, Valentine, Nye, & Lindsay, 1999;
Eccles & Barber, 1999; Marsh, 1992), reduced risk of school
dropout (Mahoney & Cairns, 1997; McNeal, 1995), increased life
satisfaction (Gilman, 2001), and lower rates of depression (Ma-
honey, Schweder, & Stattin, 2002) and delinquency (Landers &
Landers, 1978; Mahoney, 2000). Participation in unstructured,
unsupervised, peer-oriented activities, conversely, is related to
antisocial behavior (Mahoney, Stattin, & Lord, 2004; Osgood,
Wilson, O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 1996; Persson, Kerr, &
Stattin, 2004; Stattin, Kerr, Mahoney, Persson, & Magnusson,
2005). To some extent, this is probably a result of self-selection in
the sense that well-adjusted youths choose structured activities,
whereas poorly adjusted youths choose unstructured activities.
However, many researchers have found a link between leisure
activities and adjustment even when attempting to control for
selection effects by including background factors such as gender,
Andreas Persson, Margaret Kerr, and Håkan Stattin, Center for Devel-
opmental Research, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden.
This study was funded by the Swedish Research Council. Margaret Kerr
received partial support from Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. We thank Ther-
ése Johansson, Gowert Masche, Vilmante Pakalniskiene, and Stefan Per-
sson for insightful comments on a draft of this article and William Burk for
statistical advice.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andreas
Persson, Center for Developmental Research, Department of Behavioral,
Social and Legal Science, Örebro University, Örebro SE-701 82, Sweden.
E-mail: andreas.persson@bsr.oru.se
grade, personality characteristics, socioeconomic status, and fam-
ily factors (Cooper et al., 1999; Eccles & Barber, 1999; Marsh,
1992; McNeal, 1995; Stattin et al., 2005). Thus, even though the
link between leisure activities and adjustment is partly explained
by self-selection, youths’ choices of leisure activities seem to have
implications for their overall adjustment and well-being.
Given that participation in structured activities is related to
positive outcomes and participation in peer-oriented, unstructured
activities is related to problems, one would like to understand why
youths get involved in structured rather than unstructured activities
in the first place. Research suggests, however, that this may not be
the only critical issue. Studies of youths’ involvement in structured
activities show that participation is as high as 70%– 80% in early
adolescence (Eccles & Barber, 1999; U.S. Department of Educa-
tion, 1995) but that it declines over time (Mahoney, Larson,
Eccles, & Lord, 2005). Some of the youths who quit will undoubt-
edly start spending their time in unstructured activities, such as
hanging out on the streets, instead, which is associated with
problems. Another critical issue, then, is why some youths stay
involved in structured activities, whereas others quit or switch to
unstructured activities.
There could be many reasons why youths stay in or drop out of
structured activities. For instance, previous research in the sports
domain has found that youths who feel competent or find the
activity enjoyable and challenging are more motivated than those
who do not and more likely to stay involved over time (Carpenter
& Scanlan, 1998; Gould, Feltz, & Weiss, 1985; Klint & Weiss,
1986, 1987; Weiss, Kimmel, & Smith, 2001). Factors such as too
much pressure, restrictions on time use, lack of competence and
motivation, and the attraction of conflicting activities are related to
youths’ dropping out (Gould, Feltz, Horn, & Weiss, 1982; Guillet,
Sarrazin, Carpenter, Trouilloud, & Cury, 2002; Klint & Weiss,
1986; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002; for a

197
198 PERSSON, KERR, AND STATTIN
review, see Brustad, Babkes, & Smith, 2001). Thus, concerning
sports, abilities, experiences, and scheduling issues seem to play a
part in whether youths stay involved or drop out.
Another potential reason why youths stay in or drop out of
structured activities is what their peers are doing. Research on
social relationships in the sports domain has found that youths who
have positive peer relationships show greater enjoyment of and
commitment to the activity (Duncan, 1993; Smith, 1999; Weiss &
Smith, 2002). Similarly, qualitative research on highly talented
youths’ extracurricular involvement has found that peer relation-
ships contribute to the decision to stay in or quit structured activ-
ities (Fredricks et al., 2002; Patrick et al., 1999). In addition,
quantitative research has linked friends’ endorsement of structured
activities and peer pressure to structured activity participation
(Huebner & Mancini, 2003). Hence, previous research suggests
that peers might play a part in whether youths stay in or quit
structured activities. However, these studies have not discrimi-
nated between quitting and switching to unstructured activities.
Thus, when investigating the role of peers in youths’ leisure
choices, previous research has not considered that youths might
switch from structured to peer-oriented, unstructured activities to
spend more time with their important peers.
Several studies have also examined the role of parents in youths’
leisure choices. Cross-sectionally, parental support (Anderson,
Funk, Elliot, & Hull Smith, 2003) and endorsement (Huebner &
Mancini, 2003) of structured activities have been linked to struc-
tured activity involvement, and lack of support has been linked to
unstructured activity involvement (Mahoney & Stattin, 2000).
Although these cross-sectional studies cannot explain youths’ lei-
sure choices over time, one longitudinal study has linked parental
reinforcement to adolescent participation in structured activities,
both concurrently and longitudinally (Fletcher, Elder, & Mekos,
2000). Taken together, these cross-sectional and longitudinal stud-
ies suggest that parents’ support for structured activities might be
important for engagement in structured or unstructured activities.
These studies, however, have focused on involvement in either
structured or unstructured activities but have not looked at chang-
ing from one to another. Therefore, they cannot answer why
youths quit structured activities or switch from structured to un-
structured activities. Furthermore, although these studies suggest
that parents’ support and encouragement influence youths’ leisure
participation, it is unlikely that parents’ influence only occurs
through this mechanism. If parents affect youths’ leisure choices,
their influence is likely to work through several mechanisms, and
some might be much less direct. The question, then, is whether
parents might influence youths’ leisure choices or movements
from structured to unstructured activities, such as loitering, in
ways other than through reinforcement of structured activities.
One theoretical idea that has been offered about this is that
parents can influence youths’ leisure choices unintentionally by
influencing the way youths feel about adult-controlled, structured
settings in general (for a detailed account of proposed mechanisms,
see Kerr, Stattin, Biesecker, & Ferrer-Wreder, 2003). In brief, the
idea is that, from family interactions, children derive a clear sense
of how much they are valued and respected and how much they
can control or predict what happens to them. In the psychological
literature, broadly speaking, these are critical for health and well-
being and linked to positive emotions (e.g., Rodin & Langer, 1977;
Seligman, 1975). Parental behaviors such as angry outbursts, de-
risive comments, or inconsistent discipline could make children
feel unvalued, disrespected, and not in control of their circum-
stances, and the negative emotions connected with these kinds of
experiences could become conditioned to fundamental aspects of
the home context, such as having adults present and more or less
in control. (Regardless of how controlling parents are, they define
the family’s living situation in ways that children do not and, as
such, are in control.) These same negative emotions might gener-
alize to adult-controlled contexts outside the home. If so, then
when children grow old enough to choose their own leisure con-
texts, they should gravitate away from adult-led, structured set-
tings and toward unstructured settings. In other words, they might
begin hanging out on the streets or in public parks or going to
parties where parents are not present. If the emotions generated at
home are positive, however, then youths should gravitate toward
leisure settings that can elicit the same good feelings—adult-led,
structured activities. Thus, according to this context-choice expla-
nation (Kerr et al., 2003), emotions generated in the home setting
help to steer youths’ choices of leisure contexts. In this way,
parents might have an unintended influence on youths’ choices of
leisure activities.
A couple of recent studies have offered preliminary support for
this idea. In one study, girls who were engaged in unstructured
leisure activities had poorer relationships with their parents and
more negative emotions connected with the home setting than
those who were not involved in unstructured activities (Persson et
al., 2004). In another study, youths whose parents knew little about
their children’s daily activities and who disclosed little to their
parents were more likely to enter into unstructured activities over
time (Mahoney et al., 2004). Although feelings about parents were
not measured directly in this study, to the extent that low parental
knowledge reflects youths’ negative feelings about the family
context, this might be taken as support for the idea. Both these
studies, however, concentrated on unstructured activities. As such,
the context-choice idea has not been tested against an alternative—
that youths who have negative feelings about their parents go into
structured activities to form relationships with other adults. Thus,
the questions remain regarding whether and how feelings about the
family context are linked to both (a) structured and unstructured
activities and (b) decisions to switch from structured to unstruc-
tured activities.
Another possible role that good relationships with parents might
play is to moderate the potential negative consequences of switch-
ing from structured to peer-oriented, unstructured activities, such
as hanging out on the streets. Having negative feelings at home is
one possible reason why youths might not stay in organized
activities, but there are others, such as lack of talent or interest or
the desire to spend time with peers who are not involved in those
activities. Given that a youth has dropped out of structured activ-
ities and started engaging in unstructured activities, such as loiter-
ing on the streets, relationships with parents might determine
whether this becomes problematic. When youths are loitering,
opportunities arise to engage in criminal acts, such as shoplifting
and vandalism. Strong parent–youth relationships might prevent
youths from acting in these situations, perhaps through a mecha-
nism such as that proposed by Hirschi (1969), whereby youths
with strong bonds to their parents avoid performing delinquent acts
because they might jeopardize their relationships with their par-
ents. Hirschi (1969) suggested that strong bonds make parents
 STAYING IN STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES
psychologically present with the youth in tempting situations, so
that the youth actually thinks about his or her parents when
deciding whether to join in a delinquent activity. Indeed, there is a
fair amount of evidence linking close parent–youth relationships
with lower levels of delinquency (Dishion, French, & Patterson,
1995; Fincham, Grych, & Osborne, 1994; Maccoby & Martin,
1983). Thus, even though youths who switch from structured
activities to unstructured activities, such as hanging out on the
streets, should be expected to increase in problem behavior be-
cause of increased opportunities, strong relationships with parents
might make this less likely, thus moderating the expected link
between hanging out on the streets and increases in delinquency
over time.
In sum, then, studies that have examined youths’ leisure choices
and the consequences of those choices leave a number of questions
unanswered. First, they have mainly focused on engagement in
structured activities, without considering that some of those youths
who are not engaged in structured activities might have quit.
Hence, there is a lack of research on why youths quit structured
activities. Second, prior studies have focused on either structured
or unstructured activities but not both together. Therefore, they do
not reveal why some youths switch from structured to unstructured
activities. Third, few studies have considered peers as a factor
influencing youths’ choices of staying, quitting, or switching.
Fourth, prior studies have not considered how parents might in-
fluence youths’ leisure choices other than through reinforcement.
Moreover, they provide little information about the factors that
determine how negative the consequences of switching from struc-
tured to peer-oriented, unstructured activities might be. A fifth
unanswered question is, therefore, whether feelings about parents
might play an important role in moderating the consequences of
switching from structured to unstructured activities as well as in
the choice itself.
In this study, we address each of these unanswered questions.
We (a) focus on why youths quit structured activities; (b) consider
switching from adult-led, structured activities to the unstructured
activity of hanging out on the streets, which clearly fits the criteria
of being peer oriented and having no adult supervision, rules, or
structure and which has been considered an unstructured activity in
previous research (Mahoney et al., 2005; Mahoney & Stattin,
2000); (c) look at an explanation involving peers; (d) consider
youths’ feelings associated with the home setting rather than
parents’ direct influence; and (e) consider the consequences of
dropping out of structured activities and whether feelings about
parents and the home setting might play a protective or moderating
role.
Using longitudinal data over 1 year, we begin at an age when
structured activity participation is high. We identify youths who
stayed in structured activities (stayers), dropped out (quitters), or
switched from structured activities to hanging out on the streets
(switchers). As comparison groups, we also include those who
were never, as far as we know, in structured activities (nonjoiners)
and those who were involved in both structured activities and
hanging out on the streets (both). Thus, we focus on both struc-
tured activities and the unstructured activity of hanging out as well
as movements between them. We try to explain youths’ decisions
to stay in structured activities, quit, or switch to hanging out on the
streets. We test one explanation that has to do with peers—that
youths stay in or drop out of structured activities to do what their
199
peers are doing. We test another explanation that has to do with
parents and how they might unintentionally influence whether
youths stay in structured activities. The mechanism involves
youths’ feelings in the family context and how these feelings, by
being generalized to other contexts, might guide youths’ choices in
the leisure context. First, we test these peer and parent explana-
tions separately; then we examine whether they are two indepen-
dent explanations by including them in the same model. Finally,
assuming that leaving structured activities to hang out on the
streets will be followed by increased problem behavior, we look at
whether positive feelings about the family context might moderate
this effect. Thus, we test a dual protective role for parents, in the
sense that feelings about parents might prevent youths from
switching from structured activities to hanging out on the streets
but also protect youths from the negative consequences of switch-
ing, if they make that choice.
Method
Participants and Procedure
The data are from the first two waves of a longitudinal study that is
taking place in a community in central Sweden. The primary purpose of
this investigation is to study the development of problem behavior. The
community has 36,000 inhabitants. The unemployment rate is similar to
that in Sweden as a whole (6%). The mean income is somewhat lower than
in the rest of the country (214,000 Swedish Crowns per year, compared
with 223,000 for the rest of the country). Twelve percent of the inhabitants
have a foreign background. The community offers a wide range of adult-
led, organized leisure activities for youths. Some of the most popular are
sports associations, such as soccer, basketball, handball, badminton, and
floor hockey. The community also organizes theater groups and art asso-
ciations for youths as well as several different hobby associations, involv-
ing, for example, stamp collecting, photography, and model car or airplane
building. Other activities include scouts and church youth associations. All
these are group oriented, have adult leaders, and have regularly scheduled
meetings.
The data were collected in the fall, during which most of the commu-
nity’s leisure activities were going on. All students in Grades 4 through 12
are invited to participate in the study each year. We are targeting all youths
in the community so that when youths name peers who are important to
them, if they live in the community, those peers are likely to have
participated in the study as well and self-reported on their own behavior. In
this way, data on peers’ behaviors are independent of the youths who
named those peers and, as such, are not affected by the youths’ own
perceptions and biases, which inflate similarity (e.g., Iannotti, Bush, &
Weinfurt, 1996).
Youths were recruited in their classrooms during school hours. They
were told what kinds of questions would be included in the questionnaires
and how long it would take to fill them out. They were informed that
participation was voluntary and that, if they chose not to participate, they
were free to do something else instead of filling out the questionnaire. They
were assured that if they did participate, their answers would not be
revealed to parents, teachers, the police, or anyone else. Parents were
informed about the study ahead of time in meetings held in the community
and by mail. They received a postage-paid card to return if they did not
want their children to participate (1% did so). They were told that they
could withdraw their child from the study at any time they chose. Thus,
youths participated if they voluntarily chose to do so and if their parents did
not object to their participation. They filled out the questionnaires during
regular school hours in sessions administered by trained research assistants.
Teachers were not present. Youths were not paid for their participation, but
for each of the classes in Grades 4 through 6 we made a contribution to the
200 PERSSON, KERR, AND STATTIN
class fund, and in each of the classes in Grades 7 through 12 we held a drawing
for movie tickets. All those who stayed in the room, whether they filled out
questionnaires or not, were eligible for the drawing. For the present study, we
used Grades 7 through 11, which is roughly ages 13 to 17 (ntarget sample ⫽
1,751; 51% boys and 49% girls), because it is during these ages that adoles-
cents tend to drop out of structured activities. Of the 1,751 students in the target
sample, 1,652 (94%) participated in the study at Time 1.
The second wave took place 1 year later, with the same procedure. In the
second wave, 1,341 (81%) of the participants from the first wave partici-
pated. We used logistic regression to examine whether any of the measures
included in this study predicted dropout among youths who participated at
Time 1 (remaining in the study ⫽ 1). Age (odds ratio [OR] ⫽ 0.73, p ⬍
.001), feelings in the family context (OR ⫽ 1.51, p ⫽ .011), and family
structure (1 ⫽ divorced; OR ⫽ 0.56, p ⫽ .012) were significant predictors,
but the other measures were not. Thus, those participants with data at both
time points were somewhat younger, had somewhat more positive feelings
in the family context, and were more likely to be from intact families than
those who dropped out.
Approximately 15% of the individuals in the longitudinal sample of
1,341 had missing data for at least one of the following measures (see the
Measures section): structured activities, hanging out on the streets, feelings
in the family context, or negative experiences of parent– child interactions.
Missing value analyses indicated that these data were missing at random,
so we used the expectation-maximization algorithm to impute the missing
values. This strategy has been shown to be superior to listwise deletion
(Schafer & Graham, 2002). Analyses without imputed values resulted in a
similar pattern of significant findings.
Because we were interested in youths with particular patterns of activity
involvement over time, we restricted the longitudinal sample of 1,341 to
the 1,186 youths who could be classified as stayers, quitters, switchers,
both, or nonjoiners. This leisure-groups sample did not differ significantly
from the longitudinal sample on any of the predictors in this study. Eight
hundred sixty-one (73%) youths in this leisure-groups sample had com-
plete self-reported data on all measures and had peer-reported data on
peers’ involvement in structured activities. They composed the analytic
sample in this study (n ⫽ 861). Compared with the leisure-groups sample,
the analytic sample was somewhat younger, t(1088) ⫽ 4.39, p ⬍ .001;
more likely to be female, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 1,186) ⫽ 11.75, p ⬍ .001; and more
likely to be involved in structured activities at Time 2, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 1,186) ⫽
5.01, p ⫽ .025; however, the analytic sample did not differ on any other
measure in this study.
Measures
Peer Measures
Important peers. At Time 1, adolescents nominated up to three impor-
tant peers, defined as “someone you talk to, hang out with, and do things
with.” They were told that an important peer could be a friend, a sibling,
or a boyfriend or girlfriend but could not be a parent or another adult. They
also reported where they spent time with these peers (at school, in free
time, or both in school and in free time). In this study, we only included
important peers the respondents spent time with in free time or both in
school and in free time.
Peer group. This instrument was adapted from Cairns and Cairns’s
(1994) assessment of youth groups. Youths were asked to identify their
leisure-time peer groups. The definition was “at least three people who
hang out together outside of school (several people who are often to-
gether).” They wrote down the names of all their leisure-time peer group
members.
Peers in structured activities. First, we defined peers as the combina-
tion of both (a) the three most important peers and (b) the individuals
named as part of the leisure peer group. We made sure that each peer was
only included once. That is, if the most important peers were also men-
tioned in the leisure peer group, we made sure that they were not counted
twice. Then, to determine whether the respondents’ peers were involved in
structured activities, we used peers’ own reports of their leisure activities
and the same definition of structured activity participation as for the
respondents (see above). We created a dichotomous measure based on the
peers’ information (1 ⫽ peers in structured activities, 2 ⫽ peers not in
structured activities). Youths were defined as having peers in structured
activities if a majority of their peers were involved in structured activities
(71% had all their peers involved in structured activities); they were
defined as having peers not involved in structured activities if a majority of
their peers were not involved in structured activities (53% had all their
peers outside of structured activities). According to this definition, 700
youths had peers in structured activities, and 161 had peers who were not
in structured activities.
Leisure Activities
Structured activities. At Time 1, youths were asked about their en-
gagement in structured leisure activities. The question specified that the
activity had to have an adult leader and meetings at least once a week at a
scheduled time. The activities (and percentages of youths involved) were as
follows: sports (71%), theater and art (4%), hobby associations (24%),
church youth associations (9%), and scouts (4%). The response options
were “yes” and “no,” and youths were considered involved in structured
activities if they chose “yes” for any of the activities. Twenty-one percent
of the youths were involved in more than one activity. At Time 2, the
question and the list of activities were identical to those at Time 1, but there
was just one yes-or-no option to indicate participation in one or more of the
activities. Seven hundred fifteen participants (83%) were involved in a
structured activity at Time 1, and 515 (60%) were involved at Time 2.
Hanging out on the streets. We wanted to be sure that the activity that
we defined as unstructured fit the criteria of being peer oriented and having
no adult supervision, rules, or structure. Hanging out in town in the
evenings without doing anything in particular fits those criteria and has
been defined as an unstructured activity in previous research (Mahoney et
al., 2005; Mahoney & Stattin, 2000). Youths were asked about how
frequently they did this. The five response options ranged from seldom or
never to almost every night. We dichotomized this measure (1 ⫽ hanging
out, 2 ⫽ not hanging out), such that those who answered seldom or never
were defined as not hanging out. By this definition, 384 participants (45%)
were hanging out on the streets at Time 1, and 258 (30%) were hanging out
at Time 2.
Group definitions. The participants were divided into five groups
(stayers, quitters, switchers, both, and nonjoiners) on the basis of their
involvement in structured activities and hanging out on the streets at the
two time points. Stayers comprised 385 youths (54% female) who were
involved in structured activities at both times and were not hanging out on
the streets at Time 2. Quitters comprised 129 youths (48% female) who
were involved in structured activities at Time 1 but not involved in either
structured activities or hanging out at Time 2. Switchers comprised 71
youths (52% female) who were involved in structured activities at Time 1
but were only hanging out on the streets at Time 2. Nonjoiners comprised
146 youths (63% female) who were not involved in structured activities at
either time. The both group comprised 130 youths (49% female) who were
involved in both structured activities and hanging out on the streets at both
times.
Measures of Feelings About Parents and the Family
Context
Feelings in the family context. At Time 1, participants answered three
questions regarding how often, when they were together with their family
at home, they felt (a) respected, (b) that they were an important person, and
(c) proud of themselves. The four response options ranged from never to
very often (M ⫽ 3.06, SD ⫽ 0.67). The Cronbach’s alpha was .82.
 STAYING IN STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES 201

Negative experiences of parent– child interactions. This was a compos- dropped substantially over this 1-year period. Boys seemed to have
ite of two scales that tap specific parenting behaviors that youths should been involved in structured activities to a somewhat larger extent
experience negatively (parents’ bad reactions to the youth’s disclosure) and than girls at Time 1, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 861) ⫽ 6.65, p ⫽ .010, but not at
specific negative feelings that youths attribute to parenting behaviors (feelings Time 2, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 861) ⫽ 0.60, p ⫽ .440. Because of the
of being controlled by parents). The Cronbach’s alpha for this composite scale
difference at Time 1, however, we included gender in the follow-
was .81. Concerning parents’ bad reactions to disclosure, at Time 1 partici-
ing analyses.
pants answered six questions about their parents’ tendencies to react disre-
spectfully to their disclosure attempts. The questions were “Has it happened
that you told your parents things and later regretted that you did?” “How often Youths’ Choices in the Leisure Context—the Role of the
have you regretted that you told your parents too much about yourself, your Peers
friends, and your free time?” “Have you been punished for something that you
spontaneously told your parents?” “Have your parents ever used what you told Do youths drop out of structured activities to spend more time
them against you?” “Do your parents bring up things that you have told them with their peers? Similarly, do they stay in structured activities if
in confidence again and again?” and “Have your parents ever made fun of their peers are involved? To test this, we performed multinomial
things you happened to tell them about yourself and your life?” They answered logistic regression with group membership (involved in both struc-
on a 5-point response scale that ranged from has never happened to very often
tured activities and hanging out on the streets, quit structured
(M ⫽ 1.93, SD ⫽ 0.84) The Cronbach’s alpha was .82. Concerning the youths’
activities, switched to hanging out on the streets, never joined
feelings of being overly controlled by parents, at Time 1 participants answered
these questions: “Do you feel that your parents demand to know everything?” structured activities, and stayed in structured activities) as the
“Do you think you get enough freedom from your parents to do what you want dependent variable. We chose staying in structured activities as the
in your free time?” “Do you think that your parents control everything in your reference category. The independent variable was whether the
life?” and “Do you think that your parents interfere with what you do in your peers were involved in structured activities. Furthermore, because
free time?” The five response options ranged from yes, always to no, never previous research has found that age (Mahoney et al., 2005),
(M ⫽ 3.65, SD ⫽ 0.69). The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .76. family factors such as divorce (McNeal, 1998), and delinquency
(Larson, 1994) are related to participating in or dropping out of
Other Measures structured activities, we entered them as control variables in this
analysis and all further analyses reported in this study.
Family structure. At Time 1, participants were asked whether their
parents were divorced. Two hundred fifty-six (30%) had divorced parents.
The model outperformed the null model, ␹2(20, N ⫽ 861) ⫽
Delinquency. Youths answered 21 questions about whether they had 197.42, p ⬍ .001. As shown in Table 2, delinquency, family
engaged in various delinquent behaviors during the past year. The response structure, gender, and age were all significant predictors of some
scale was a 5-point scale ranging from never (1) to more than 10 times (5). leisure choices. For instance, delinquency increased the likelihood
The questions were about breaking into houses; taking bicycles, motorcy- of being involved in both structured activities and hanging out in
cles, and cars without permission; shoplifting; vandalizing; smoking hash- the streets, switching to hanging out in the streets, and never
ish and using other drugs; hitting someone so hard that he or she needed to joining structured activities. Even after we controlled for these
be treated at the hospital; hurting someone with a knife or some other other factors, however, peers’ leisure activities uniquely predicted
weapon; and threatening or forcing someone to do something he or she did switching and never having joined structured activities. Having
not want to do (Time 1, M ⫽ 1.17, SD ⫽ 0.30; Time 2, M ⫽ 1.14, SD ⫽
peers in structured activities significantly decreased the likelihood
0.34). The Cronbach’s alphas for Times 1 and 2 were .89 and .92,
respectively. This scale has been validated as a part of a longitudinal
of switching from structured activities to hanging out on the streets
project titled Individual Development and Adjustment (Magnusson, Dunér, (OR ⫽ 0.47, confidence interval [CI] ⫽ 0.25, 0.91, p ⫽ .024) and
& Zetterblom, 1975). of never having joined structured activities in the first place (OR ⫽
0.24, CI ⫽ 0.15, 0.38, p ⬍ .001). Thus, youths who switched to
Results hanging out on the streets or who never joined structured activities
were less likely to have peers in structured activities than youths
Descriptive Results who stayed in structured activities. Peers’ leisure activities were
not related to quitting structured activities or being involved in
Table 1 shows participation in structured activities for the dif- both structured activities and loitering. These results are consistent
ferent grades involved in the study and for boys and girls sepa- with the idea that youths’ decisions to stay involved in or leave
rately. As the table shows, participation in structured activities structured activities are partly based on whether their friends are
involved.
Table 1
Percentages of Participants Involved in Structured Activities by Youths’ Choices in the Leisure Context—The Role of
Grade and Gender Parents
Time 1 Time 2 Are youths’ choices of leisure activities also partly based on
their experiences in the family context? In particular, do youths
Grade Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total who have generally negative feelings associated with the home
7–8 88 87 88 66 65 65 context avoid adult-led, structured activities and spend more time
8–9 88 78 83 65 61 63 loitering, and do youths who have generally positive feelings at
9–10 89 78 84 70 57 64 home stay involved in structured activities over time? To examine
10–11 79 76 78 57 56 57 this, we conducted two multinomial logistic regression analyses
11–12 88 78 83 41 52 47
with two different indicators of youths’ feelings at home: feelings
202 PERSSON, KERR, AND STATTIN

Table 2
Multinomial Logistic Regression Predicting Group Membership From Peers’ Activity Participation and Controlling for Age,
Delinquency, Gender, and Family Structure

Both Quitters Switchers Nonjoiners

Variable OR CI OR CI OR CI OR CI sr2

Peers in structured activities (1 ⫽ yes) 1.06 0.56, 2.00 0.76 0.44, 1.31 0.47* 0.24, 0.90 0.24*** 0.15, 0.38 .043
Age 0.82** 0.71, 0.95 1.26*** 1.10, 1.44 0.82* 0.68, 0.99 1.09 0.95, 1.24 .032
Delinquency Time 1 14.23*** 6.39, 31.66 0.96 0.30, 3.10 13.76*** 5.71, 33.15 9.31*** 4.08, 21.26 .082
Gender (1 ⫽ boys) 1.06 0.70, 1.60 1.35 0.90, 2.04 0.96 0.57, 1.62 0.65* 0.43, 0.98 .009
Family structure (1 ⫽ divorced) 1.29 0.80, 2.06 2.41*** 1.56, 3.75 2.44*** 1.41, 4.22 1.95** 1.26, 3.01 .023

Note. Staying in structured activities was the reference category for the equation. All predictors were assessed at Time 1. n ⫽ 861. sr2 represents the
reduction in Nagelkerke R2 when the variable is removed from the equation. Nagelkerke R2 ⫽ .22. OR ⫽ odds ratio; CI ⫽ confidence interval.
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.

in the family context, and negative experiences of parent– child
interactions. In these models, leisure group membership was en-
tered as the dependent variable, and feelings in the family context
(or negative experiences of parent– child interactions), gender, age,
family structure, and self-reported delinquency at Time 1 were
entered as control variables. Staying in structured activities was
chosen as the reference category.
The model that included feelings in the family context outper-
formed the null model, ␹2(20, N ⫽ 861) ⫽ 174.93, p ⬍ .001. As
reported in the upper part of Table 3, positive feelings in the family
context significantly reduced the likelihood of switching from
structured activities to hanging out (OR ⫽ 0.59, CI ⫽ 0.40, 0.86,
p ⫽ .007) or of never joining structured activities (OR ⫽ 0.53,
CI ⫽ 0.39, 0.72, p ⬍ .001), independently of age, gender, delin-
quency, and family structure. Hence, youths who switched from
structured activities to hanging out on the streets or never joined
structured activities were less likely than youths who stayed in
structured activities to have positive feelings in the family context.
Feelings in the family context were not related to quitting struc-
tured activities or being involved in both structured activities and
hanging out on the streets.
The model that included negative experiences of parent– child
interactions as the indicator of youths’ feelings at home also
outperformed the null model, ␹2(20, N ⫽ 861) ⫽ 168.27, p ⬍ .001.
As shown in the lower part of Table 3, negative experiences of
parent– child interactions predicted being involved in both struc-
tured activities and hanging out on the streets (OR ⫽ 1.47, CI ⫽
1.11, 1.93, p ⫽ .007) and switching to hanging out on the streets
(OR ⫽ 1.52, CI ⫽ 1.08, 2.16, p ⫽ .017) but not any other leisure
choice. Hence, both feelings in the family context and negative
experiences of parent– child interactions, beyond the other predic-
tors, predicted switching from structured activities to hanging out
on the streets. Therefore, these results are consistent with the idea
that the feelings youths have connected with the home context

Table 3
Multinomial Logistic Regression Predicting Group Membership From Feelings About the Home Context and Parent–Youth
Interactions and Controlling for Age, Delinquency, Gender, and Family Structure

Both Quitters Switchers Nonjoiners

Variable OR CI OR CI OR CI OR CI sr2

Feelings in the family contexta

Feelings in the family context 0.84 0.61, 1.15 0.91 0.66, 1.25 0.59** 0.40, 0.86 0.53*** 0.39, 0.72 .021
Age 0.82* 0.71, 0.95 1.27*** 1.11, 1.45 0.84 0.70, 1.02 1.15* 1.00, 1.31 .036
Delinquency Time 1 13.66*** 6.14, 30.40 0.95 0.30, 3.05 12.60*** 5.22, 30.42 8.33*** 3.67, 18.91 .079
Gender (1 ⫽ boys) 1.07 0.71, 1.62 1.37 0.91, 2.06 1.00 0.59, 1.71 0.67 0.44, 1.00 .009
Family structure (1 ⫽ divorced) 1.31 0.82, 2.09 2.43*** 1.57, 3.77 2.48* 1.43, 4.28 1.99** 1.29, 3.06 .025

Negative experiences of parent–child interactionsb

Negative experiences 1.47** 1.11, 1.92 0.94 0.71, 1.24 1.52* 1.08, 2.15 0.94 0.72, 1.24 .014
Age 0.84 0.72, 0.97 1.26* 1.10, 1.45 0.85 0.70, 1.03 1.14 0.99, 1.30 .031
Delinquency Time 1 12.51*** 5.61, 27.90 1.01 0.31, 3.25 12.16*** 5.03, 28.41 9.27*** 4.10, 20.99 .077
Gender (1 ⫽ boys) 1.07 0.71, 1.62 1.36 0.90, 2.05 0.95 0.56, 1.60 0.62* 0.41, 0.93 .011
Family structure (1 ⫽ divorced) 1.26 0.79, 2.03 2.45*** 1.58, 3.80 2.35** 1.36, 4.07 2.02** 1.32, 3.10 .025

Note. Staying in structured activities was the reference category for the equation. All predictors were assessed at Time 1. n ⫽ 861. sr2 represents the
reduction in Nagelkerke R2 when the variable is removed from the equation. OR ⫽ odds ratio; CI ⫽ confidence interval.
a
High scores mean positive feelings, Nagelkerke R2 ⫽ .20. b High scores mean negative experiences, Nagelkerke R2 ⫽ .19.
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.
 STAYING IN STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES 203

influence their choices of leisure contexts—in particular, whether
they choose adult-led, structured contexts or avoid them.
Peers and Parents
The peer and parent explanations are both supported by the data,
but are they two independent explanations? To test this, we used
multinomial logistic regression to predict group membership and
entered both feelings in the family context and peers in structured
activities into the equation. In addition, we computed an interac-
tion term between feelings in the family context and peers in
structured activities to examine whether, for example, feelings in
the family context influence how likely youths are to gravitate to
activities in which their peers are involved. As before, we entered
adolescents’ gender, age, family structure, and self-reported delin-
quency at Time 1 as control variables. In this model, both feelings
in the family context and peers in structured activities remained
unique, significant predictors of switching and never joining struc-
tured activities when we controlled for the opposite variable and
the other factors (see Table 4), and the interaction effect was not
significant.
Then we repeated the procedure with negative experiences of
parent– child interactions as the indicator of youths’ feelings at
home. Again, both the peer and the parent measures remained
significant, unique predictors when included in the same model
(see Table 4). Therefore, it seems that feelings at home and peers’
leisure activities are two independent explanations that are both
useful for understanding why some youths switch from structured
activities to hanging out on the streets.
Feelings in the Family Context as a Moderator of the
Consequences of Switching From Structured Activities to
Hanging Out on the Streets
Previous research suggests that youths who spend time in peer-
oriented, unstructured activities increase in delinquency over time
(Mahoney, Stattin, & Magnusson, 2001). Thus, we expected to
find that those who switched from structured activities to hanging
out on the streets increased their delinquent activity over time.
That expectation was confirmed. In a multiple regression analysis,
switching from structured activities to hanging out on the streets
(dummy coded) predicted delinquency at Time 2 (␤ ⫽ .113, SE ⫽
.029, p ⬍ .001) when we controlled for delinquency at Time 1,
age, gender, and family structure. Our question, however, was
whether this tendency would be less for youths who had close ties
to their parents, as evidenced by positive feelings in the family
context. To test this, we used multiple regression, predicting de-
linquency at Time 2 while controlling for delinquency at Time 1.
We ran two different models, one with feelings in the family
context, and one with negative experiences of parent– child inter-
actions. In the first model, switching from structured activities to
hanging out on the streets, feelings in the family context, and the
interaction of the two were entered as predictors along with age,
family structure, and gender as controls. A significant interaction
term would indicate that feelings in the family context moderated
the negative effect of switching from structured activities to hang-
ing out on the streets. As reported in Table 5, the interaction was
not significant.
In the second model, switching from structured activities to
hanging out on the streets, negative experiences of parent– child

Table 4
Multinomial Logistic Regression Predicting Group Membership From Peers’ Activity Participation, Feelings About the Home
Context, and Parent–Youth Interactions and Controlling for Age, Delinquency, Gender, and Family Structure

Both Quitters Switchers Nonjoiners

Variable OR CI OR CI OR CI OR CI sr2

Feelings in the family contexta

Peers in structured activities (1 ⫽ yes) 1.07 0.55, 1.98 0.77 0.44, 1.34 0.47* 0.24, 0.93 0.30*** 0.18, 0.49 .025
Feelings in the family context 0.89 0.64, 1.24 0.93 0.67, 1.28 0.60* 0.40, 0.89 0.63** 0.46, 0.87 .012
Peers ⫻ Feelings 1.23 0.94, 1.62 1.05 0.83, 1.34 1.08 0.83, 1.42 0.86 0.71, 1.05 .008
Age 0.82** 0.70, 0.95 1.26*** 1.10, 1.45 0.83* 0.68, 1.00 1.10 0.96, 1.26 .032
Delinquency Time 1 14.07*** 6.30, 31.341 0.94 0.30, 3.30 12.78*** 5.28, 30.94 8.01** 3.47, 18.46 .075
Gender (1 ⫽ boys) 1.06 0.70, 1.62 1.37 0.91, 2.06 1.02 0.60, 1.73 0.68 0.45, 1.03 .008
Family structure (1 ⫽ divorced) 1.28 0.79, 2.04 2.41*** 1.55, 3.75 2.44*** 1.41, 4.22 1.96** 1.26, 3.05 .023

Negative experiences of parent–child interactionsb

Peers in structured activities (1 ⫽ yes) 1.07 0.55, 2.09 0.75 0.43, 1.31 0.45* 0.23, 0.88 0.23*** 0.14, 0.36 .043
Negative experiences 1.49** 1.12, 1.98 0.95 0.71, 1.26 1.53* 1.08, 2.18 0.80 0.59, 1.10 .017
Peers ⫻ Experiences 1.03 0.80, 1.32 1.04 0.84, 1.30 0.96 0.74, 1.24 1.18 0.98, 1.42 .003
Age 0.84* 0.72, 0.97 1.26** 1.10, 1.44 0.83 0.69, 1.01 1.07 0.94, 1.23 .026
Delinquency Time 1 12.62*** 5.65, 28.16 0.99 0.31, 3.18 12.31*** 5.08, 29.84 9.41*** 4.10, 21.61 .072
Gender (1 ⫽ boys) 1.05 0.69, 1.59 1.36 0.90, 2.05 0.94 0.55, 1.60 0.66* 0.43, 1.00 .008
Family structure (1 ⫽ divorced) 1.23 0.76, 1.97 2.43*** 1.57, 3.77 2.32** 1.34, 4.02 1.95** 1.26, 3.03 .022

Note. Staying in structured activities was the reference category for the equation. All predictors were assessed at Time 1. n ⫽ 861. sr2 represents the
reduction in Nagelkerke R2 when the variable is removed from the equation. OR ⫽ odds ratio; CI ⫽ confidence interval.
a
High scores mean positive feelings, Nagelkerke R2 ⫽ .24. b High scores mean negative experiences, Nagelkerke R2 ⫽ .24.
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.
204 PERSSON, KERR, AND STATTIN

Table 5
Multiple Regression Analyses Testing Whether Positive Feelings About the Home Context and
Parent–Youth Interactions Moderate the Link Between Switching From Structured Activities to
Hanging Out on the Streets and Increases in Delinquency Over Time

Variable ␤ CI sr2 p

Feelings in the family contexta

Delinquency Time 1 .543 .50, .62 .278 ⬍.001

Age ⫺.118 ⫺.17, ⫺.06 .014 ⬍.001
Gender ⫺.063 ⫺.12, ⫺.01 .004 .026
Family structure ⫺.065 ⫺.12, ⫺.01 .004 .022
Switching to hanging out on the streets .123 .06, .18 .014 ⬍.001
Feelings in the family context ⫺.020 ⫺.08, .04 .000 .475
Switching ⫻ Feelings in the Family Context .046 ⫺.01, .10 .002 .110

Negative experiences of parent–child interactionsb

Delinquency Time 1 .543 .50, .62 .278 ⬍.001

Age ⫺.118 ⫺.17, ⫺.06 .014 ⬍.001
Gender ⫺.063 ⫺.12, ⫺.01 .004 .025
Family structure ⫺.071 ⫺.13, ⫺.02 .005 .012
Switching to hanging out on the streets .092 .03, .15 .007 .003
Negative experiences .009 ⫺.05, .07 .000 .768
Switching ⫻ Negative Experiences .062 .00, .12 .003 .039

Note. All predictors were assessed at Time 1.

a
High scores mean positive feelings, R2 ⫽ .37. b
High scores mean negative experiences, R2 ⫽ .37.

interactions, and the interaction of the two were entered as pre-
dictors along with the same controls as in the previous model. With
this indicator of youths’ feelings at home, the interaction reached
significance (␤ ⫽ .062, SE ⫽ .030, p ⫽ .039). To understand the
nature of the interaction, we solved the regression equation for
high and low values of switching and negative experiences of
parent– child interactions, and we plotted these points. The plot
indicated that, as expected, youths who switched and had highly
negative experiences at home increased in delinquency somewhat
more than switchers with less negative experiences at home. Thus,
there is some evidence, albeit weak and for only one of two
indicators, that positive feelings about home and parents might
protect youths once they switch from structured activities to hang-
ing out on the streets.
Discussion
Youths spend a great deal of time in different leisure activities.
Most are involved in adult-led, structured activities in early ado-
lescence, but many eventually drop out. Given that structured
activities are related to positive development (Cooper et al., 1999;
Landers & Landers, 1978; Mahoney & Cairns, 1997; Mahoney et
al., 2002) and peer-oriented, unstructured activities, such as loi-
tering on the streets, are related to increasing problems over time
(Agnew & Petersen, 1989; Osgood et al., 1996), one would like to
understand why youths quit structured activities or switch from
structured to unstructured activities. Our findings lend support to
two explanations. One is that youths leave structured activities to
spend time with peers who are not in those activities. The other is
that youths who do not feel valued and respected at home avoid
other adult-controlled, structured settings when they are old
enough to choose their own leisure activities. These seem to be two
independent explanations, as they both remained significant pre-
dictors when entered into the same equation. Furthermore, we
found some indications that positive feelings at home might pro-
tect youths who switch from structured activities to hanging out on
the streets from increases in delinquency. Thus, parents seem to
play an indirect role in youths’ leisure choices by contributing to
youths’ feelings associated with the home, but they might also play
an indirect role in what happens once choices are made.
This study advances the literature in several ways. First, previ-
ous research has mainly focused on being engaged in or joining
structured (Fletcher, Nickerson, & Wright, 2003; McNeal, 1998)
or unstructured activities (Mahoney et al., 2001; Persson et al.,
2004). To our knowledge, this study is the first to propose and
examine explanations for movements between structured activities
and unstructured activities, such as hanging out on the streets.
Second, this study examines new explanations regarding the roles
of parents and peers in youths’ leisure activities. Although some
studies have considered peer factors (Eccles, Barber, Stone, &
Hunt, 2003; Fredricks et al., 2002; Huebner & Mancini, 2003;
Mahoney & Stattin, 2000; Patrick et al., 1999; Smith, 1999; Weiss
& Smith, 2002), ours is the first to examine the idea that youths
switch leisure activities to spend time with peers outside of struc-
tured activities. Concerning parents, previous research primarily
has focused on different forms of reinforcement in explaining
youths’ structured activity participation (Anderson et al., 2003;
Huebner & Mancini, 2003). We have broadened the view of how
parents might have an influence, showing that parents might in-
fluence youths’ leisure choices unintentionally by creating positive
or negative feelings about adult-controlled, structured settings in
general. Furthermore, our findings regarding delinquency and
youths’ leisure choices extend previous research. One study found
that delinquents were inclined to drop out of sports (Larson, 1994).
In this study, we have found that delinquency was a significant
 STAYING IN STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES
predictor of not only quitting structured activities but switching to
hanging out on the streets and never having joined structured
activities as well. Thus, this study extends previous research on the
roles of peers, parents, and delinquency in youths’ leisure choices.
How do youths end up having negative feelings at home? We
have implied that this is something under parents’ control, but
what might parents actually do to create negative feelings? One
possibility is that they do not allow youths a voice in making
decisions about things that concern them. This could leave youths
with the feeling that they are not valued and respected and that
they cannot control what happens to them. In line with this,
previous research has found that parental efforts to control youths’
freedom— by, for example, requiring that the youth ask for per-
mission before going out—are linked to youths’ feelings of being
overly controlled, which, in turn, are related to internal problems,
such as depressive symptoms and low self-esteem (Barber, 1996;
Kerr & Stattin, 2000). Another way parents might create negative
feelings is by consistently reacting to youths’ communication with
disrespect or insensitivity. They might, for instance, punish or
ridicule a youth who spontaneously discloses some misdeed or
personal information. In previous research, such reactions from
parents have been negatively linked to youths’ feelings of being
trusted by their parents (Kerr, Stattin, & Trost, 1999). Hence, there
are several ways parents might contribute to youths’ negative
feelings about the home setting. Other research, however, suggests
that parental behaviors such as responding negatively to the child’s
disclosure are partly reactions to the youths’ internalizing and
externalizing problems and other characteristics (Dishion, Nelson,
& Bullock, 2004; Kerr & Stattin, 2003; Kerr, Stattin, & Pakalni-
skiene, in press). Thus, the conditions at home that leave youths
not feeling valued or respected might come about through complex
family interactions in which parents react to the child’s character-
istics or behaviors as well as acting on their own characteristics,
values, and beliefs about parenting.
To what extent can our findings based on youths’ leisure activ-
ities in Sweden be generalized to other settings? In North America,
for instance, leisure activities are often attached to the school
system. In Sweden, they operate independently of the school.
Nonetheless, similar percentages of youths in Sweden and North
America are involved in structured activities (Eccles & Barber,
1999; U.S. Department of Education, 1995). Both in North Amer-
ica and in Sweden, structured activities are voluntary, have regular
meeting schedules and adult leaders, take place in specific con-
texts, and are focused on building skills. Hence, the core features
of extracurricular or structured activities are similar in Sweden and
North America. As such, the conditions for youths who participate
in structured activities seem to be the same in Sweden as in North
America. Structured activities are adult-controlled environments in
both places. It seems reasonable to assume, therefore, that the
processes we have proposed generalize beyond Sweden to North
America.
Some caution should be taken in interpreting causality in our
results. First, we tested an idea that youths’ feelings at home guide
their choices in the leisure context; however, the reverse is also
possible. That is, youths’ leisure choices might influence parent–
adolescent relationships and, in turn, the adolescents’ feelings at
home. For instance, parents might react negatively to a youth’s
decision to drop out of structured activities, and these reactions
might change the youth’s feelings at home. This does not appear to
205
be a good explanation for the switchers in this study, however,
because feelings at home were assessed while youths were still
involved in structured activities. In addition, one previous study
found that poor parental knowledge preceded youths’ choices of
unstructured leisure settings (Mahoney et al., 2004). Both of these
findings support the conclusions drawn in this study.
Some limitations of the study should be mentioned. One is that
we did not include any measures of youths’ individual character-
istics in our analyses. Characteristics such as motivation and
competence have been related to structured activity participation
(Fredricks et al., 2002; Klint & Weiss, 1987), whereas factors such
as impulsivity and sensation seeking have been related to partici-
pation in unstructured activities (Persson et al., 2004). In this
study, we focus on youths’ social relationships and the feelings
these relationships evoke. The question remains regarding whether
these different explanations overlap. Another limitation is that our
measure of youths’ involvement in structured activities was not
activity specific at Time 2. Hence, we have no information on
youths’ participation in specific structured activities over time.
However, the purpose of this study is to test why youths switch
from structured activities that have characteristics (i.e., emphasis
on skill building, regularity, and adult leadership) related to pos-
itive adjustment (for a review, see Gilman, Meyers, & Perez, 2004)
to a peer-oriented, unstructured activity that has been related to
problems (Persson et al., 2004) and whether there are differences
in adjustment over time among adolescents with different feelings
at home. Although they might differ in other aspects, all the
structured activities involved in this study share the theoretically
relevant characteristics.
Although this study extends previous research on youths’ leisure
choices and the roles of parents and peers, it leaves some questions
unanswered. One is what role feelings at home play in youths’
leisure choices compared with aspects of the parent–adolescent
relationship, such as parental reinforcement of structured activi-
ties. In addition, we have focused on specific leisure activities that
were clearly within or outside the definition of being adult con-
trolled and structured, but the actual range of activities that youths
can choose from is much broader. Some activities could be con-
sidered structured, in the sense that there are regularly scheduled
meetings and that they focus on building skills, but they might still
lack or have little adult supervision. Others offer close contact with
adults but little skill building (e.g., some types of neighborhood
recreation centers). Another unanswered question is, then, whether
feelings at home offer a valid explanation for youths’ choices of
leisure activities that are structured in many respects but in which
adults are not present or play a less dominant role or youths’
choices of activities that involve adults but no structure. A third
unanswered question is whether the links to adjustment are differ-
ent in this more complex pattern of youths’ leisure activities. These
are questions for future research.
The study has several strengths, however. One is that we used
longitudinal data on participation in both structured activities and
the unstructured activity of hanging out on the streets. We were
therefore able to examine why youths dropped out of structured
activities and began to spend their time hanging out on the streets
and what happened over time. Another strength is that we used
independent information from peers concerning their involvement
in structured activities and therefore eliminated the risk of certain
perceptual biases in the data. Previous research has shown that
206 PERSSON, KERR, AND STATTIN
youths’ reports of their peers’ behaviors tend to inflate similarity
(Iannotti et al., 1996; Kandel, 1985). Thus, by using independent
data from peers, we removed the potential risk of youths misre-
porting their peers’ involvement in structured activities.
Structured leisure activities are generally regarded as an impor-
tant context in youth development. We started out by asking why
some youths stay in structured activities, whereas others quit,
switch to unstructured activities, or avoid structured activities
altogether. Past research has mainly theorized about mechanisms
involving reinforcement. In this study, we have focused on ado-
lescents’ relationships with important others and how these rela-
tionships might guide their choices in the leisure context. Parents
and peers are important persons in adolescents’ life, and both seem
to play a part in youths’ leisure choices. Thus, adolescents’ rela-
tions towards others, even to those beyond the leisure context
itself, seem to be involved when they choose where to spend their
free time.
References
Agnew, R., & Petersen, D. M. (1989). Leisure and delinquency. Social
Problems, 36, 332–350.
Anderson, J. C., Funk, J. B., Elliot, R., & Hull Smith, P. (2003). Parental
support and pressure and children’s extracurricular activities: Relation-
ships with amount of involvement and affective experience of partici-
pation. Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 241–257.
Barber, B. K. (1996). Parental psychological control: Revisiting a ne-
glected construct. Child Development, 67, 3296 –3319.
Brustad, R. J., Babkes, M. L., & Smith, A. L. (2001). Youth in sport:
Psychological considerations. In R. Singer, H. Hausenblas, & C. Janelle
(Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (pp. 604 – 636). New York: Wiley.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of
youth in our time. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Carpenter, P. J., & Scanlan, T. K. (1998). Changes over time in the
determinants of sport commitment. Pediatric Exercise Science, 10, 356 –
365.
Cooper, H., Valentine, J. C., Nye, B., & Lindsay, J. J. (1999). Relationships
between five after-school activities and academic achievement. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 91, 369 –378.
Dishion, T. J., French, D. C., & Patterson, G. R. (1995). The development
and ecology of antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.),
Developmental psychopathology: Vol. 2. Risk, disorder, and adaptation
(pp. 421– 471). New York: Wiley.
Dishion, T., Nelson, S. E., & Bullock, B. M. (2004). Premature adolescent
autonomy: Parent disengagement and deviant peer process in the am-
plification of problem behaviour. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 515–530.
Duncan, S. C. (1993). The role of cognitive appraisal and friendship
provisions in adolescents’ affect and motivation toward activity in
physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 3, 314 –
323.
Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering,
basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement
matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 10 – 43.
Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular
activities and adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59,
865– 889.
Fincham, F. D., Grych, J. H., & Osborne, L. N. (1994). Does marital
conflict cause child maladjustment? Directions and challenges for lon-
gitudinal research. Journal of Family Psychology, 8, 128 –140.
Fletcher, A. C., Elder, G. H., & Mekos, D. (2000). Parental influences on
adolescent involvement in community activities. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 10, 29 – 48.
Fletcher, A. C., Nickerson, P., & Wright, K. L. (2003). Structured leisure
activities in middle childhood: Links to well-being. Journal of Commu-
nity Psychology, 31, 641– 659.
Fredricks, J. A., Alfeld-Liro, C. J., Hruda, L. Z., Eccles, J. S., Patrick, H.,
& Ryan, A. M. (2002). A qualitative exploration of adolescents’ com-
mitment to athletics and the arts. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17,
68 –97.
Gilman, R. (2001). The relationship between life satisfaction, social inter-
est, and frequency of extracurricular activities among adolescent stu-
dents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30, 749 –767.
Gilman, R., Meyers, J., & Perez, L. (2004). Structured extracurricular
activities among adolescents: Findings and implications for school psy-
chologists. Psychology in Schools, 41, 31– 41.
Gould, D., Feltz, D., Horn, T., & Weiss, M. (1982). Reasons for attrition
in competitive youth swimming. Journal of Sport Behavior, 5, 155–165.
Gould, D., Feltz, D., & Weiss, M. (1985). Motives for participating in
competitive youth swimming. International Journal of Sport Psychol-
ogy, 16, 126 –140.
Guillet, E., Sarrazin, P., Carpenter, P. J., Trouilloud, D., & Cury, F. (2002).
Predicting persistence or withdrawal in female handballers with social
exchange theory. International Journal of Psychology, 37, 92–104.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of Cali-
fornia Press.
Huebner, A. J., & Mancini, J. A. (2003). Shaping structured out-of-school
time use among youth: The effects of self, family, and friend systems.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 453– 463.
Iannotti, R. J., Bush, P. J., & Weinfurt, K. P. (1996). Perceptions of friends’
use of alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana among urban schoolchildren: A
longitudinal analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 21, 615– 632.
Kandel, D. B. (1985). On processes of peer influences in adolescent drug
use: A developmental perspective. Advances in Alcohol and Substance
Abuse, 4, 139 –163.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and
several forms of adolescent adjustment: Further support for a reinter-
pretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366 –380.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2003). Parenting of adolescents: Action or reac-
tion? In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s influence on family
dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 121–151).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., Biesecker, G., & Ferrer-Wreder, L. (2003). Relation-
ships with parents and peers in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, M. A.
Easterbrooks, & J. Mistry (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 6.
Developmental psychology (pp. 395– 422). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Pakalniskiene, V. (in press). What do parents do
when faced with adolescent problem behavior? In M. Kerr, H. Stattin, &
R. Engels (Eds.), What can parents do? New insights into the role of
parents in adolescent problem behavior [Hot Topics in Developmental
Research series]. London: Wiley.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Trost, K. (1999). To know you is to trust you:
Parents’ trust is rooted in child disclosure of information. Journal of
Adolescence, 22, 737–752.
Klint, K. A., & Weiss, M. R. (1986). Dropping in and dropping out:
Participation motives of current and former youth gymnasts. Canadian
Journal of Applied Sport Science, 2, 106 –114.
Klint, K. A., & Weiss, M. R. (1987). Perceived competence and motives
for participating in youth sports: A test of Harter’s competence motiva-
tion theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 9, 55– 65.
Landers, D. M., & Landers, D. M. (1978). Socialization via interscholastic
athletics: Its effects on delinquency. Sociology of Education, 51, 299 –
303.
Larson, R. W. (1994). Youth organizations, hobbies, and sports as devel-
opmental contexts. In R. K. Silberiesen & E. Todt (Eds.), Adolescence in
context (pp. 47– 65). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. M. (1983). Socialization in the context of
the family: Parent-child interaction. In P. H. Mussen & E. M. Hether-
 STAYING IN STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES
ington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization,
personality, and social development (4th ed., pp. 1–101). New York:
Wiley.
Magnusson, D., Dunér, A., & Zetterblom, G. (1975). Adjustment: A lon-
gitudinal study. New York: Wiley.
Mahoney, J. L. (2000). School extracurricular activity participation as a
moderator in the development of antisocial patterns. Child Development,
71, 502–516.
Mahoney, J. L., & Cairns, R. B. (1997). Do extracurricular activities
protect against early school dropout? Developmental Psychology, 33,
241–253.
Mahoney, J. L., Larson, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Lord, H. (2005). Organized
activities as developmental contexts for children and adolescents. In J. L.
Mahoney, R. W. Larson, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized activities as
contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and
community programs (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mahoney, J. L., Schweder, A. E., & Stattin, H. (2002). Structured after-
school activities as a moderator of depressed mood for adolescents with
detached relations to their parents. Journal of Community Psychology,
30, 69 – 86.
Mahoney, J. L., & Stattin, H. (2000). Leisure activities and adolescent
antisocial behavior: The role of structure and social context. Journal of
Adolescence, 23, 113–127.
Mahoney, J. L., Stattin, H., & Lord, H. (2004). Unstructured youth recre-
ation centre participation and antisocial behaviour development: Selec-
tion influences and the moderating role of antisocial peers. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 28, 553–560.
Mahoney, J. L., Stattin, H., & Magnusson, D. (2001). Youth recreation
centre participation and criminal offending: A 20 year longitudinal study
of Swedish boys. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25,
509 –520.
Marsh, H. W. (1992). Extracurricular activities: Beneficial extension of the
traditional curriculum or subversion of academic goals? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84, 553–562.
McNeal, R. (1995). Extracurricular activities and high school dropouts.
Sociology of Education, 68, 62– 80.
McNeal, R. (1998). High school extracurricular activities: Closed struc-
tured and stratifying patterns of participation. Journal of Education
Research, 91, 183–191.
Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., &
207
Johnston, L. D. (1996). Routine activities and deviant behavior. Amer-
ican Sociological Review, 61, 635– 655.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., Alfeld-Liro, C., Fredricks, J. A., Hruda, L. Z., &
Eccles, J. S. (1999). Adolescents’ commitment to developing talent: The
role of peers in continuing motivation for sports and the arts. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 28, 741–763.
Persson, A., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2004). Why a leisure context is linked
to normbreaking for some girls and not others: Personality characteris-
tics and parent-child relations as explanations. Journal of Adolescence,
27, 583–598.
Rodin, J., & Langer, E. J. (1977). Long-term effects of a control-relevant
intervention with the institutionalized aged. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 35, 897–902.
Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. (2002).
Motivation and dropout in female handballers: A 21-month prospective
study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 395– 418.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state
of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and
death. San Francisco: Freeman.
Smith, A. L. (1999). Perceptions of peer relationships and physical activity
participation in early adolescence. Journal of Sports & Exercise Psy-
chology, 21, 329 –350.
Stattin, H., Kerr, M., Mahoney, J., Persson, A., & Magnusson, D. (2005).
Explaining why a leisure context is bad for some girls and not for others.
In J. L. Mahoney, R. W. Larson, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Organized
activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-
school and community programs (pp. 211–235). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
U.S. Department of Education. (1995). The condition of education. Wash-
ington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Weiss, M., Kimmel, L. A., & Smith, A. L. (2001). Determinants of sport
commitment among junior tennis players: Enjoyment as a mediating
variable, Pediatric Exercise Science, 13, 131–144.
Weiss, M., & Smith, A. L. (2002). Friendship quality in youth sport:
Relationship to age, gender, and motivational variables. Journal of
Sports & Exercise Psychology, 24, 420 – 437.
Received July 14, 2005
Revision received July 11, 2006
Accepted August 1, 2006 䡲