See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324703394

Towards a definition of “hobby”: An empirical test of a proposed operational

definition of the word hobby

Article  in  Journal of Occupational Science · April 2018

DOI: 10.1080/14427591.2018.1463286

CITATIONS READS

2 1,947

1 author:

Larry Z. Daily
Shepherd University
6 PUBLICATIONS   287 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Psychology of Hobbies View project

Computational Modeling of Working Memory View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Larry Z. Daily on 24 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 2

The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in the Journal of

Occupational Science (2018), volume 25 (3), https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2018.1463286

Towards a Definition of “Hobby”:

An Empirical Test of a Proposed Operational Definition of the Word Hobby

Larry Z. Daily

orcid.org/0000­0002­6130­3705

Shepherd University

Author Note

Larry Z. Daily, Department of Psychology, Shepherd University.

The author wishes to thank Anne Murtagh and Richard Stevens for their assistance as raters

during the data analysis and Anne Murtagh, Richard Stevens, and two anonymous reviewers for their

comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Larry Z. Daily, Department of

Psychology, Shepherd University, PO Box 5000, Shepherdstown, West Virginia, 25443.

Email: ldaily@shepherd.edu

Conflict of Interest: The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 3

Abstract

Hobbies have long been promoted as beneficial leisure occupations, but assessing this claim is difficult as

no commonly used definition of the word “hobby” exists. Gelber’s (1999) definition of a hobby as an

occupation that “involves voluntarily working alone at home with a few relatively simple tools to make an

object (which in the case of collectors is the collection itself) that has economic value (p. 29)” was

proposed as a useful operational definition. The definition was tested by having a sample of 150 men and

women complete a survey that asked them to rank their level of agreement with 138 statements of the

form “X is a hobby” where X was a particular leisure occupation. Results showed that the more closely an

occupation matched the definition, the more likely participants were to agree that the occupation was a

hobby, suggesting that Gelber’s definition matches well with the way the word “hobby” is generally used.

Further analysis revealed that, consistent with the definition, occupations that involve making or

collecting are the most likely to be called hobbies. Reexamination of the extant hobby literature, with this

definition in mind, suggests that little of it actually involves activities that can accurately be called

hobbies. It will be important for future research to utilize a clear, consistent operational definition of

“hobby” in order to clarify the contribution of hobbies to human life and well-being.

Keywords: hobby, leisure, handicrafts, collecting, occupation.

DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 4

Towards a Definition of “Hobby”:

An Empirical Test of a Proposed Operational Definition of the Word Hobby

Occupations are – generally speaking – the things people do (Hocking, 2009; Wilcock, 2003). Leisure

occupations can be very meaningful to those engaged in them (Passmore, 2003; Unruh, 2004) and one

important class of leisure occupations is hobbies. Typically, hobbies are seen as beneficial leisure or non-

work occupations (e.g., Calkins, 1934; Lee, Lee, & Park, 2014; Manson & Caird, 1985; Menninger, 1942,

York & Wiseman, 2012). Prior to the middle of the 19th century, however, a hobby was considered a

preoccupation or obsession and the term often carried a negative connotation (Gelber, 1999). Negative

views of hobbies have persisted (e.g., Belk, 1995; Eisenstein, 1948). The exact reason for this is unclear,

but Posey (2004) was told, upon announcing that he planned to interview model railroaders for a book,

“They’ll all be geeks and nerds” (p. 117) and Pollard and Carver (2016) reported that they were initially

reticent to discuss their modeling activities with one another. Between 1876 and 1885, however, societal

concerns about filling increasing amounts of leisure time with “acceptable” activities led to a shift in the

meaning of the word “hobby.” Since then, hobbies have been promoted to both children and adults as

acceptable occupations to improve oneself (e.g., Calkins, 1934) or to fill time that might otherwise be

used for nonproductive or immoral activities (e.g., Gelber, 1991; Mackintosh, 1935). Fuller accounts of

the history of the word hobby can be found in Gelber (1991; 1999).

Hocking (2009) and Dickie (2003) are among the authors who emphasized a need to develop in

depth descriptions of occupations, descriptions that include the effect of participation in a particular

occupation on health and well-being. In the literature on hobbies, some authors have simply asserted that

hobbies have particular benefits. Calkins (1934), for instance, asserted that a hobby makes the hobbyist

interesting to other people; and Menninger (1942) stated that hobbies “probably” serve as morale builders

that play an important role in maintaining good mental health. For Mackintosh (1935), hobbies for

children were the solution to the “problem of leisure time,” especially during the summer months when

school was not in session. More recently, Juniper (2005) argued that hobbies could be useful in the

treatment of various psychological disorders (e.g., panic attacks). Rupert and Kent (2007) suggested that
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 5

one of the top strategies that clinical psychologists could use to avoid burnout was to have a hobby, and

Fair (2010) suggested that everyone should have a hobby as a way to alleviate stress. Aside from a focus

on hobbies as positive, one thing these articles share is that no empirical support is provided for the

claims made.

Across disciplines, however, a substantial body of literature claims to demonstrate the positive

effects of participating in a hobby. For instance, hobbyists are reported to be better adjusted than their

peers (Bohnert, Richards, Kolomodin, & Lakin, 2008; Boynton, 1940; Phillips & Greene, 1939; Werner,

1993), to show fewer signs of depression or dementia in old age (Hirosaki et al., 2009; Hughes, Chang,

Bilt, & Ganguli, 2010; Regen, Katona, Walker, & Livingston, 2005), to show less cognitive decline in old

age (Dodge, Kita, Takechi, Ganguli, & Ueshima, 2008), to have higher levels of life satisfaction (Gabriel

& Bowling, 2004; Harlow & Cantor, 1996; Hirosaki et al., 2009; Martikainen, 2009; Mishra, 1992), and

to have higher quality of life (Lee et al., 2014). Others have claimed that hobbies meet specific

psychological needs for their participants (Tinsley & Eldredge, 1995), that they bolster self-esteem

(Reynolds, 1997), and that they aid in the restoration of mental resources (Jansen, 2005; 2008). Hobbies

have even been found to have physical benefits; Reynolds’ (1997) participants reported that needlecraft

helped them manage the pain of chronic illness and Saihara et al. (2010) found improved coronary

function in hobbyists.

Unambiguous interpretation of this literature is complicated, however, by the fact that there

seems to be no widely accepted, commonly used definition of the word hobby. Indeed, most authors seem

to use the word hobby as a synonym for the phrase “leisure activity.” Even during the time that hobbies

were actively being promoted as acceptable ways to occupy leisure time, no one seemed to know exactly

which occupations actually were hobbies (Gelber, 1999). The situation is complicated by the fact that an

occupation may be classified as a hobby by one set of researchers and as something else by another set of

researchers. For instance, reading was classified as a hobby by Boynton (1940), Dodge, Kita, Takechi,

Ganguli, and Ueshima (2008), Giotakos (2004), Lippa (2005), Manson and Caird (1985), Mower (1940),

and Saihara et al. (2010), but was separated from hobbies by Brajša-Žganec, Merkaš, and Šverko (2011),
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 6

Hughes, Chang, Bilt, and Ganguli (2010), Iso-Ahola, Jackson, and Dunn (1994), McHale, Crouter, and

Tucker (2001), Patrick (1945), and Shmotkin, Blumstein, and Modan (2003). Active sports have been

considered a hobby by a large number of researchers (e.g., Boynton, 1940; Dodge et al., 2008; Donnelly

& Dumas, 1997; Phillips & Greene, 1939), but not by Iso-Ahola et al. (1994), McHale et al. (2001), and

Patrick (1945). Table 1 provides a partial list of the wide variety of activities that have been called

hobbies.

<Insert Table 1 here>

If the goal of occupational science is to understand what people do and to support the use of

occupation therapeutically (Hocking, 2009; Wilcock, 2003), conflating all of these disparate occupations

into a single category called hobbies is inappropriate. Different occupations can have different effects

(Kabanoff, 1980; Tinsley, Teaff, Colbs, & Kaufman, 1985). Tinsley et al. (1985), for instance, reported

that different leisure activities satisfied different psychological needs for their participants. Similarly,

Dodge et al. (2008) found that frequency of engagement in “nonphysical hobbies” (e.g., watching TV,

reading, writing, playing board games, traveling, and doing crafts) was associated with higher scores on a

variety of cognitive tasks, but that engaging in “physical hobbies” (e.g., hiking, swimming, stretching,

walking, gardening, and playing a type of miniature golf called gate ball) was not related to cognitive

function. Lajunen et al. (2009) found that, for a sample of Finnish boys, playing a musical instrument

reduced the risk of being overweight, but that listening to music increased the risk of being overweight.

Ghisletta, Bickel, and Lövedén (2006) examined the performance of older adults on two cognitive tasks:

the Cross Out Test (a measure of perceptual speed) and the Category Fruit Test (a measure of verbal

fluency). They also noted whether the participant engaged in any of six types of activities. Two types of

activities – media (reading, listening to the radio, and watching television) and leisure (playing games and

doing crossword puzzles) – were related to perceptual speed; participants who engaged in those activities

showed less of a decline in perceptual speed over time. None of the other activity types – manual
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 7

(gardening, craftwork), physical (walking or other exercise), social (visiting coffee shops, participating in

trips or outings, attending cultural events or fairs), and religious (praying, attending services) – were

related to perceptual speed and none of the activity types related to verbal fluency. Clearly, classifying as

hobbies all of the disparate activities described previously makes it difficult or impossible to determine

precisely what the effects of engaging in a hobby might be.

Similar concerns have been raised by researchers in occupational science and other areas (Dickie,

2003; Ellerin, 2015; Ghisletta et al., 2006; Jansen & von Sadovszky, 2004). Ellerin (2015), for example,

noted that a rigorous definition of “what people do” is required to determine the scope of and to guide the

research agenda of occupational science. Yet, before the study of hobbies can occur, it will be necessary

to first define the category hobby. In moving towards a definition of the category hobby, that would

enable the kinds of descriptions called for by Hocking (2009), it is important to recognize that hobby is

typically considered a subcategory of the category leisure (Bammel & Burrus-Bammel, 1982; Gelber,

1991, 1999; Iso-Ahola et al., 1994; Menninger, 1942; Stebbins, 1982). Generally, a category will inherit

some of its characteristics from the superordinate category to which it belongs (e.g., Barsalou, 1992). As a

subcategory of leisure, hobby should, therefore, inherit the characteristics of leisure. Though the

definition of leisure tends to differ from theorist to theorist, nearly all agree that leisure involves freely-

chosen activities that are participated in because they are intrinsically rewarding (e.g., Godbey, 2003; Iso-

Ahola, 1980; McGuire, Boyd, & Tedrick, 2009; Neulinger, 1974; Tinsley & Tinsley, 1986).

For Stebbins (1982), hobbies were a type of serious leisure and he argued that serious leisure

activities possess six characteristics. The first of these is the occasional need to persevere at the activity.

Though leisure activities are generally pleasant, such activities occasionally can get difficult and require

substantial effort from the participant (Tinsley & Tinsley, 1986). Stebbins (1982) suggested that the

pleasant memories that individuals possess of a serious leisure activity come from having stuck it out

through those difficult periods. The second characteristic of serious leisure is that individuals tend to

progress through various levels of achievement and pass various milestones in the endeavor. This

development within the activity is based on a significant personal effort, the third characteristic of serious
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 8

leisure. Such effort arises from special knowledge, training, or skill possessed or acquired by the

individual. The fourth characteristic is that the effort expended on serious leisure leads to durable benefits

(e.g., self-enrichment, recreation or renewal of self, feelings of accomplishment, lasting physical products

of the activity). Stebbins’ fifth characteristic of serious leisure is that such activities tend to develop their

own unique subcultures. Finally, individuals tend to identify quite strongly with their chosen leisure

activities, frequently speaking about them with pride and excitement.

As a subcategory of leisure, hobbies should possess the characteristics of leisure, but should also

possess a unique set of characteristics that set them apart from other leisure occupations. Stebbins (1982;

1994) attempted to distinguish hobbies from amateur activities and volunteering, all three of which he

identified as types of serious leisure. Amateurs, according to Stebbins, are part of a professional-amateur-

public system of relationships (e.g., professional and amateur orchestras). Like professionals, amateurs

serve publics, often the same publics as the professionals. Volunteers usually undertake their chosen tasks

for reasons other than money or to meet physical needs. Among the types of activities engaged in by

volunteers are management and board work (e.g., fund-raising, committee work), service (e.g.,

information giving, tutoring, child care, youth work), and political and civic activities (e.g., social

advocacy or political functions). Hobbyists, like amateurs, are serious about their leisure activities, but

unlike amateurs, hobbyists are outside a professional-amateur-public system. A hobby is not one’s

occupation, nor is it done for money. According to Stebbins (1982), “A hobby is a specialized pursuit

beyond one’s occupation, a pursuit one finds particularly interesting and enjoys doing because of its

durable benefits (p. 260).” Stebbins (1982; 1994) identified five categories of hobbyists: collectors,

makers and tinkers (e.g., quilters, handicrafters), activity participants (e.g., bodybuilding, tourism,

surfing), players of sports or games (such as long-distance running or field hockey for which there are no

professional equivalents), and liberal arts enthusiasts. The problem with Stebbins’ (1982; 1994) definition

is that participants in very different activities – activities as disparate as collecting, barbershop singing,

and playing volleyball – are all classified as hobbyists, rendering investigation of the characteristics of

hobbyists or the effects of engaging in a hobby difficult, if not impossible.

DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 9

Several other definitions of hobby have been proposed (Bogardus, 1943; Gelber, 1999;

Menninger, 1942). Menninger (1942), for instance, noted that the dictionary definition of hobby – which

he quoted without attribution as “something in which one takes absorbing interest” – is insufficiently

specific to distinguish hobbies from other activities. To Menninger, the hobbyist receives more

satisfaction from a hobby than from any other occupation and the satisfaction comes from the occupation

itself rather than from any external motivation such as pay. This definition, however, is not really any

more specific than the one he was attempting to replace. Bogardus (1943) defined a hobby as an

occupation that an individual finds fascinating and to which a part of the individual’s leisure time is

devoted. A hobby is an occupation that the person is not paid to participate in, tends to be engaged in

alone (though some hobbies have social aspects), and, while the individual is highly motivated to

participate in the occupation, time may be allocated to it irregularly. While the specification that a hobby

is typically a solitary occupation begins to narrow the number of occupations classified as hobbies,

Bogardus’s definition still allows a large number of very dissimilar occupations to be categorized as

hobbies (e.g., watching television, reading, jogging, playing solitaire, and building models). Thus, the

difficulty of discerning the effects of participating in hobbies is still not eliminated.

In developing his definition of hobby, Gelber (1999) began by assuming that collecting and

handicrafts were prototypical hobbies. This assumption seems reasonable as descriptions of both as

hobbies are ubiquitous in the literature (Boynton, 1940, 1941; Dodge et al., 2008; Giotakos, 2004;

Hughes et al., 2010; Hyyppä, Mäki, Alanen, Impivaara, & Aromaa, 2008; Lippa, 2005; Mason & Caird,

1985; McHale et al., 2001; McGhee, 1941; Mower, 1940; Saihara et al., 2010). After examining those

activities, Gelber concluded that “a hobby involves voluntarily working alone at home with a few

relatively simple tools to make an object (which in the case of collectors is the collection itself) that has

economic value” (p. 29). Gelber’s definition is similar to, but more specific than, the definition of

Bogardus (1943). It shares the specification that hobbies tend to be solitary activities, but adds that

hobbies are active (as in making) and result in the production of an object (a quilt, a collection, a model),

one of the durable benefits mentioned by Stebbins (1982). The purpose of the current study was to
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 10

determine whether Gelber’s (1999) definition accurately captures people’s understanding of the word

hobby. If so, that would support its use as an operational or working definition of hobby in occupational

science and other fields. Participants completed a survey that consisted largely of a series of statements of

the form “X is a hobby” where X is some leisure occupation and were asked to indicate their level of

agreement with each statement. It was expected that the more closely an occupation matched Gelber’s

definition, the more strongly participants would agree that the occupation was a hobby.

Method

Participants

A total of 150 participants completed either a pencil-and-paper or an online version of the rating

instrument. The 53 individuals who completed the pencil-and-paper version were undergraduate students

at Shepherd University and were enrolled in an introductory psychology course. Participation earned them

credit that partially fulfilled a course requirement. Those who completed the online version of the

instrument were not students of the University nor were they local residents. Online participants were

recruited through social networking sites such as Facebook, a posting on the web site Psychological

Research on the Net (http://psych.hanover.edu/research/exponnet.html), and flyers placed at hobby shops

(one in Maryland and one in Pennsylvania) and gatherings of model railroad enthusiasts in Maryland. A

total of 134 people began the online version of the instrument, but 36 were excluded for failure to respond

to at least 90% of the activities. An additional person who reported being 15 years of age (and who was,

thus, legally unable to consent to participate) was also excluded, leaving 97 who completed the online

instrument. There were no specific inclusion or exclusion criteria beyond these.

Of the 150 participants in the final sample, 63 were men, 84 were women, 1 was a female-to-male

transsexual, and 2 did not report their gender. The mean age for the men was 36.83 years (SD = 19.94,

range 18 to 81, MDN = 28.00). For the women, the mean age was 32.04 years (SD = 17.28, range 18 to

78, MDN = 23.50). The transsexual participant was 25 years old. Table 2 provides more detail about the

age distribution of the total sample. English was the native language of 142 participants (2 did not
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 11

respond to this item). In terms of employment status, 47 participants were employed full-time, 41 were

employed part-time, and 61 were not employed. Finally, 136 of the participants reported having a hobby

(by their definition). The study was reviewed and approved by the Shepherd University Institutional

Review Board and all participants were treated in accordance with the Ethical Principles of Psychologists

and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2002).

<Insert Table 2 here>

Measure

The measurement instrument consisted of a 146-item survey. The majority of the survey consisted of a

series of 138 statements of the form “X is a hobby” where X was a leisure occupation. The activities used

were drawn from the Avocational Activities Inventory, a taxonomy of leisure activities proposed by

Overs, Taylor, and Adkins (1977). To ensure adequate coverage of the leisure domain (and, thus, content

validity), at least one example was chosen from each of the Overs et al. categories. The specific activities

used are listed in the Appendix. The items were forced-choice (participants had to agree or disagree with

each statement; there was no neutral choice) with 6 response alternatives (strongly disagree, disagree,

somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree). The remaining items asked the participants to

indicate their sex, age, whether English was their native language, their employment status and

occupation (if employed), and whether they had a hobby or hobbies. If participants indicated that they had

hobbies, they were asked to list them in order of importance and to say what made their first choice

occupation a hobby.

Data collection

Participants who completed the pencil-and-paper version of the survey were tested individually or in

groups of 2 to 7 individuals. The nature of the task and the length of the survey were explained and then

participants who chose to continue read and signed ‘informed consent’ forms. They were then allowed as

much time as they needed to complete the survey; no session took longer than 20 minutes. Upon
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 12

completion of the survey the purpose of the research was discussed in detail and questions that

participants had were answered. Participants who completed the survey online were directed to a

SurveyMonkey URL. They first read the same information presented to the face-to-face participants,

including the information contained on the consent form. They were advised that completing the survey

constituted their consent to participate. Following completion of the survey they were presented with

debriefing information and were provided with the author’s email address should they have had questions

or concerns about their participation.

Data analysis

According to Gelber’s (1999) definition, a hobby 1) is a voluntary activity, 2) is a solitary activity, 3) is

usually engaged in at home, 4) requires only a few simple tools, and 5) results in the production of an

object with economic value. To determine the extent to which each of the 138 activities on the survey

possessed these characteristics, 2 members of the Psychology faculty at Shepherd University who were

not otherwise associated with this project rated each occupation on each of the characteristics. These

ratings were given on a scale that varied from 0 (definitely does not have the characteristic) to 1

(definitely does have the characteristic). For each characteristic for each occupation, the 2 ratings were

averaged. The average ratings for each occupation, along with the percentage of the sample calling the

activity a hobby, can be seen in the Appendix. Using SPSS, the ratings were then regressed on the

participants’ average level of agreement that each occupation was a hobby using the procedures outlined

in Tabachnick and Fidell (2007).

Results

The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 3. Four of the five characteristics – the

activity is voluntary (sr2 = .13), is usually engaged in alone (sr2 = .05), involves relatively few tools (sr2 =

.03), and produces an object (sr2 = .09) – contributed significantly to prediction of how strongly

participants agreed that the activity was a hobby. The four characteristics together accounted for an

additional .28 in shared variability. In total, the four characteristics accounted for 58% of the variance in

participants’ rating of the activities as hobbies.

DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 13

The remaining characteristic – that the activity is usually engaged in at home – did not contribute

significantly to the regression. The zero order correlation of this characteristic with participants’ ratings

was .17, which is significantly different from 0, t (136) = 1.99, p = .0485, SE = .99. This suggests that the

relationship between “home” and the rating of an activity as a hobby is a result of its relationship with at

least one of the other variables. To determine which variables shared variance with the “home”

characteristic a series of hierarchical regressions was conducted. For each pair of variables, two analyses

were run. In the first, “home” was entered on the first step, followed by the addition of the other variable.

In the second, the other variable was entered on the first step, followed by addition of “home” on the

second step. In all cases in which “home” was entered first, addition of the second variable resulted in a

significant increase in R2. In the analyses in which “home” was entered second, only in one – the

combination with “is voluntary” – did the addition of “home” result in a significant increase in R2. This

suggests that the “home” variable is redundant with the “alone,” “tools,” and “object” variables.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to determine how well Gelber’s (1999) definition of the word

“hobby” captured people’s usage of that word. The results suggest that the definition is accurate; the more

closely a leisure occupation matched the definition, the more likely participants were to agree that the

occupation was a hobby. Singly, each of the characteristics was related to participants’ ratings of the

occupations; an occupation was likely to be called a hobby if it is voluntary, tends to be engaged in alone,

at home, using relatively few tools to produce an object with economic value. Taken as a set, however,

the “at home” characteristic failed to account for any unique variance. This finding is not surprising if it is

assumed that an individual working alone with tools to make an object during leisure time would most

likely be doing so at home. This assumption seems reasonable. For example, the Trains.com Model Train

Magazine Index (http://trc.trains.com/en/Train%20Magazine%20Index.aspx) – which indexes some 47

model railroading publications – listed 71 articles on setting up, equipping, or making better use of a

home workshop between the years 1933 and 2012, slightly less than one article per year. In addition, in

his description of the expansion of handicrafts to include men, Gelber (1999) stated, “…there was a
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 14

strong sense that the craftsman style bungalows so popular after the turn of the century should make room

somewhere for a man’s workshop” (p. 207).

Thus, the definition seems to capture the core of what people understand a hobby to be,

suggesting that it may provide a basis for developing a description of hobbies as occupations as called for

by Hocking (2009). As Gelber (1999) noted, however, the definition describes the prototypical hobby.

With natural kind categories such as hobby, exemplars of the category can match the prototype to a

greater or lesser degree (e.g., Rosch & Mervis, 1975). This could be interpreted as suggesting that other

definitions simply are more accepting of non-prototypical hobbies. For instance, Stebbins (1994)

suggested that there are five broad types of hobbies: makers and tinkers, collectors, activity participants,

players of sports and games, and liberal arts enthusiasts. Calkins (1934) described a similar typology of

hobbies: making things (makers and tinkers), acquiring things (collectors), doing things (activity

participation and sports and games), and learning things (liberal arts enthusiasts). As noted previously,

however, including all of these activities as hobbies may not be appropriate. Even Calkins was somewhat

ambivalent about his classification, at one point stating that sports and games are “not exactly hobbies”

(p. 20).

Though the prototype view of categories accounts for the graded structure of natural kind

categories, as Komatsu (1992) noted, it fails to capture people’s knowledge of category boundaries.

Although bats are in many ways quite similar to the prototype bird, people do not classify bats as birds.

Gelber (1999) explicitly stated that his purpose was not to rule out some activities as hobbies, an

acknowledgement of the fuzzy boundaries of natural kind categories. To enable the investigation of

hobbies, however, the purpose of the current paper was to determine which activities may be classified as

hobbies and which may not. Thus, additional effort is needed to determine, as nearly as possible, the

boundaries between hobbies and other leisure activities.

Examination of the Appendix shows that 29 occupations were endorsed as hobbies by 90% or

more of the sample. Of those occupations, 11 can be classified as examples of making (e.g., building

models, knitting, quilting) and another 10 as examples of collecting (e.g., butterflies, coins, stamps).
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 15

Three additional occupations – racing model airplanes, racing model boats, and racing model cars – all

involve models, which are usually built by the owner (Butsch, 1984; Gelber, 1999; King, 1996). The

remaining occupations in this top grouping (drawing, scrapbooking, photography, and making floral

arrangements) all involve some degree of making, but add an element of artistic expression. All of the

collecting occupations on the list fall into this grouping, as do all but three of the making occupations.

Those three occupations – making clothes, whittling, and reupholstering furniture – were endorsed as

hobbies by approximately 85%, 83%, and 73% of the sample, respectively. A review of the 42

occupations endorsed as hobbies by fewer than 50% of the participants – thus those activities that can be

considered outside the category hobby – reveals that most are forms of activity participation (going to

concerts, traveling overseas, gathering wild berries), playing games (Monopoly, tic-tac-toe, charades),

group membership (belonging to a lodge, veteran’s group, or Parent-Teacher Organization), learning

(geology, chemistry), volunteering, and non-serious leisure activities (listening to the radio, watching

television). Together, these analyses suggest that hobbies are – in Calkins’ (1934) terms – occupations

that involve making things or acquiring things.

The issue can be further clarified by noting that, according to Stebbins (1982), serious leisure is

often described in terms appropriate to the world of work. London, Crandall, and Fitzgibbons (1977), for

instance, found that their two hobby occupations – knitting and crocheting – fell into a group that they

labelled “productive-intellectual” and Ritchie (1975) labeled a group that contained gardening and

handicrafts as “achievement-oriented hobbies.” Gelber (1999), too, noted that hobbies are work-like; in

his view the work-like nature of hobbies was what made them attractive to a society looking for ways to

productively fill expanding leisure time. Maines (2009) also observed that many occupations currently

considered hobbies were once work activities necessary for survival or comfort. Clear examples of this

include needlework, gardening, and home mechanics, but model building also once served practical

purposes in education, experimentation, architecture, and patent demonstration (Jackson, 1972; King,

1996; Lozier, 1967; Maines, 2009). Others (e.g., Rigby & Rigby, 1944) have suggested that collecting is

motivated by the same psychological mechanisms once used for the finding and gathering of food. Thus,
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 16

true hobbies all have a work-like character. What differentiates hobbies from work is that hobbies are

completely voluntary (Gelber, 1999; Stebbins, 1982).

Given this definition of hobby, what then can be said about hobbies as occupations? Several of

the elements that Hocking (2009) said were needed to describe an occupation are embedded in the

definition: what kinds of people participate in hobbies, where hobbies take place, what objects are

required to participate in a hobby, and the function or outcomes of a hobby. Hobbyists are the kind of

people who choose to spend at least part of their leisure time alone, a hobby takes place in the home,

requires some tools, and results in the production of an object. This answer is, however, somewhat

simplistic and woefully incomplete.

Consider, for instance, the question of what kinds of people participate in hobbies. An

individual’s private identity is at least partially revealed by that person’s choice of leisure occupations

(Carlson, Park, Kuo, & Clark, 2014), possibly because people are free to choose occupations that they

find intrinsically rewarding. The work-like and productive nature of hobbies suggests that hobbyists value

productivity. According to Unruh (2004), however, leisure occupations balance a person’s productivity

occupations, a proposal similar to those of Calkins (1934) and Kabanoff and O’Brien (1980). If this is

true, the hobbyist’s choice of a work-like leisure occupation is a puzzling one. In contrast, Holland (1973)

proposed that an individual’s leisure and vocational choices are affected by that person’s personality,

which Holland defined in terms of interests. This would suggest that a person’s leisure occupations might

be similar to the person’s vocation or productivity occupation; similar ideas were proposed by Rousseau

(1978) and Kornhauser (1965). Further exploration of these issues is required to clarify the nature of the

work-leisure interface.

Hocking’s (2009) list also included the function or outcomes of the occupation. As Stebbins

(1982) suggested, one of the durable benefits of serious leisure is the lasting physical products of the

activity. Thus, one obvious answer is that one of the benefits of a hobby is the object – the model, the

quilt, the collection – produced as part of the occupation. Whether production and subsequent possession

of an object is a primary or secondary motivation for participating in the hobby or whether it has no real
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 17

influence is unclear. Another possibility is that hobbies have mental health benefits (e.g., Calkins, 1934;

Lee et al., 2014; Manson & Caird, 1985; Menninger, 1942, York & Wiseman, 2012). Stebbins (1982)

suggested that participants in serious leisure occupations progress through various levels of achievement

and Passmore (2003) reported that leisure enhances competency. Passmore also found that an enhanced

sense of competency and self-efficacy was related to better mental health and York and Wiseman (2012)

found that gardening increased the gardener’s sense of well-being, suggesting that hobbies may, indeed,

provide mental health benefits.

Study Limitations

The goal of the current study was to provide a working definition of the word hobby and the data support

the use of Gelber’s (1999) definition for that purpose. Since World War II, however, commercial interests

and technological advances have altered the exact activities engaged in by some hobbyists (e.g., Butsch,

1984; Gelber, 1999; King, 1996). In model railroading, for instance, a model freight car kit in the 1950s

and 1960s was often simply a “box of sticks” that required a very different set of skills to assemble than

modern injection-molded plastic kits with finely detailed, easily assembled parts (White, 2017). It is

possible, therefore, that the definition of hobby might be different for older than for younger individuals.

The current sample, however, included individuals as young as 18 and as old as 81 and 58% of the sample

was under the age of 30. While the means of making may have changed, people still see making things as

hobbies.

The sample in the current study, while somewhat diverse in terms of age, lacked diversity in other

areas. Though drawn from across the United States, the participants were all US citizens and were,

presumably, mostly White (participants were not asked to indicate their race or ethnicity). Floyd, Shinew,

McGuire, and Noe (1994) found that different leisure preferences were expressed by Whites and Blacks

who considered themselves working class, especially women. Among those who considered themselves

middle class, however, there were no differences in leisure preferences. Thus, Floyd et al.’s data suggest

that though social class might affect who participates in hobbies, it does not necessarily affect which

leisure occupations are seen as hobbies. It is also possible that understanding of the term hobby and
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 18

participation in hobbies might differ outside the United States. Though further investigation of this issue

is needed, it should be noted that Lee et al. (2014) used crafts as an example of the hobbies participated in

by their elderly Korean participants and that the International Plastic Modelers Society has 63 national

branches around the globe.

Conclusion

With a clear definition of hobby – that a hobby is a voluntary activity engaged in alone, at home, using

tools to produce an object – questions about hobbies as occupations can be answered. In the past, hobbies

have been seen as beneficial (e.g, Calkins, 1934; Fair, 2010; Manson & Caird, 1985; Menninger, 1942)

and as detrimental (e.g., Belk, 1995; Eisenstein, 1948). Given the importance of leisure occupations in

well-being (Passmore, 2003; York & Wiseman, 2012), quality of life (Lee et al., 2014), and the

construction of identity (Unruh, 2004), it is time to determine conclusively which claims are true.
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 19

References

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.

American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060-1073. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060.

Bammel, G., & Burrus-Bammel, L. (1982). Leisure and human behavior. Dubuque, IA: William C.

Brown.

Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Cognitive psychology: An overview for cognitive scientists. Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Belk, R. W. (1995). Collecting as luxury consumption: Effects on individuals and households. Journal of

Economic Psychology, 16(3), 477-490.

Bogardus, E. S. (1943). Hobbies in war and peace. Sociology and Social Research, 27(3), 215-222.

Bohnert, A. M., Richards, M. H., Kolmodin, K. E., & Lakin, B. L. (2008). Young urban African

American adolescents’ experience of discretionary time activities. Journal of Research on

Adolescence, 18(3), 517-539.

Boynton, P. L. (1940). The relationship of hobbies to personality characteristics of school children.

Journal of Experimental Education, 8(4), 363-367.

Boynton, P. L. (1941). The relationship between children’s tested intelligence and their hobby

participations. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 58(1), 353-362.

Brajša-Žganec, A., Merkaš, M., & Šverko, I. (2011). Quality of life and leisure activities: How do leisure

activities contribute to subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 102(1), 81-91. doi:

10.1007/s11205-010-9724-2

Butsch, R. (1984). The commodification of leisure: The case of the model airplane hobby and industry.

Qualitative Sociology, 7(3), 217-235.

Calkins, E. E. (1934). The care and feeding of hobby horses. New York, NY: Leisure League of America.

Carlson, M., Park, D. J., Kuo, A., & Clark, F. (2014). Occupation in relation to self. Journal of

Occupational Science, 21(2), 117-129. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2012.727356

DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 20

Dickie, V. A. (2003). The role of learning in quilt making. Journal of Occupational Science, 10(3), 120-

129.

Dodge, H. H., Kita, Y., Takechi, H., Ganguli, M., & Ueshima, H. (2008). Healthy cognitive aging and

leisure activities among the oldest old in Japan: Takashima Study. The Journals of Gerontology:

Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 63A(11), 1193-1200.

Donnelly, C. M., & Dumas, J. E. (1997). Use of analogies in therapeutic situations: An analogue study.

Psychotherapy, 34(2), 124-132.

Eisenstein, V. W. (1948). Obsessive hobbies. The Psychoanalytic Review, 35(2), 151-170.

Ellerin, B. E. (2015). The meaning is in the making: A linguistic perspective on human occupation.

Journal of Occupational Science, 22(4), 403-421. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2015.1016998

Fair, D. J. (2010). ‘You need a hobby’: We all need to practice self-care. Annals of the American

Psychotherapy Association, 13(4), 72.

Floyd, M. F., Shinew, K. J., McGuire, F. A., & Noe, F. P. (1994). Race, class, and leisure activity

preferences: Marginality and ethnicity revisited. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(2), 158-173.

Gabriel, Z., & Bowling, A. (2004). Quality of life from the perspectives of older people. Aging and

Society, 24(5), 675-691. doi: 10.1017/S0144686X03001582

Gelber, S. M. (1991). A job you can’t lose: Work and hobbies in the great depression. Journal of Social

History, 24(4), 741-766.

Gelber, S. M. (1999). Hobbies: Leisure and the culture of work in America. New York, NY: Columbia

University Press.

Ghisletta, P., Bickel, J., & Lövedén, M. (2006). Does activity engagement protect against cognitive

decline in old age? Methodological and analytical considerations. Journal of Gerontology:

Psychological Sciences, 61B(5), P253-P261.

Giotakos, O. (2004). Handedness and hobby preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98(3, Pt 1), 869-

872.
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 21

Godbey, G. (2003). Leisure in your life (6th ed.). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.

Harlow, R. E., & Cantor, N. (1996). Still participating after all these years: A study of life task

participation in later life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(6), 1235-1249.

Hirosaki, M., Ishimoto, Y., Kasahara, Y., Kimura, Y., Konno, A., Sakamoto, R. … Matsubayashi, K.

(2009). Community-dwelling elderly Japanese people with hobbies are healthier than those

lacking hobbies. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 57(6), 1132-1133.

Hocking, C. (2009). The challenge of occupation: Describing the things people do. Journal of

Occupational Science, 16(3), 140-150.

Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall.

Hughes, T. F., Chang, C. H., Bilt, J. V., & Ganguli, M. (2010). Engagement in reading and hobbies and

risk of incident dementia: The MoVIES project. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and

Other Dementias, 25(5), 432-438. doi: 10.1177/1533317510368399

Hyyppä, M. T., Mäki, J., Alanen, E., Impivaara, O., & Aromaa, A. (2008). Long-term stability of social

participation. Social Indicators Research, 88(2), 389-396. doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9199-y

Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1980). The social psychology of leisure and recreation. Dubuque, IA: William C.

Brown Company.

Iso-Ahola, S. E., Jackson, E., & Dunn, E. (1994). Starting, ceasing, and replacing leisure activities over

the life-span. Journal of Leisure Research, 26(3), 227-249.

Jackson, B. (1972). Model making in schools. London, England: B. T. Brantsford.

Jansen, D. A. (2005). Perceived barriers to participation in mentally restorative activities by community-

dwelling elders. Activities, Adaptation and Aging, 29(2), 35-53. doi: 10.1300/J016v29n02_03

Jansen, D. A. (2008). Mentally-restorative activities and daily functioning among community-dwelling

elders. Activities, Adaptation and Aging, 32(3-4), 181-197. doi: 10.1080/01924780802339919

Jansen, D. A., & von Sadovszky, V. (2004). Restorative activities of community-dwelling elders. Western

Journal of Nursing Research, 26(4), 381-399. doi: 10.1177/0193945904263010

DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 22

Juniper, D. (2005). Leisure counseling, coping skills and therapeutic applications. British Journal of

Guidance and Counselling, 33(1), 27-36. doi: 10.1080/03069880412331335920

Kabanoff, B. (1980). Work and nonwork: A review of models, methods, and findings. Psychological

Bulletin, 88(1), 60-77.

Kabanoff, B., & O’Brien, G. E. (1980). Work and leisure: A task attributes analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 65(5), 596-609.

King, J. R. (1996). Remaking the world: Modeling in human experience. Urbana, IL: University of

Illinois Press.

Komatsu, L. K. (1992). Recent views of conceptual structure. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 500-526.

Kornhauser, A. W. (1965) Mental health of the industrial worker. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Lajunen, H., Keski-Rahkonen, A., Pulkkinen, L., Rose, R. J., Rissanen, A., & Kaprio, J. (2009). Leisure

activity patterns and their associations with overweight: A prospective study among adolescents.

Journal of Adolescence, 32(5), 1089-1103. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence,2009.03.006

Lee, J. H., Lee, J. H., & Park, S. H. (2014). Leisure activity participation as predictor of quality of life in

Korean urban-dwelling elderly. Occupational Therapy International, 21(3), 124-132.

Lippa, R. A. (2005). How do lay people weight information about instrumentality, expressiveness, and

gender-typed hobbies when judging masculinity-femininity in themselves, best friends, and

strangers? Sex Roles, 53(1/2), 43-55. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-4277-6

London, M., Crandall, R., & Fitzgibbons, D. (1977). The psychological structure of leisure: Activities,

needs, people. Journal of Leisure Research, 9(4), 252-263.

Lozier, H. (1967). Model making. Philadelphia, PA: Chilton Book Company.

Mackintosh, H. K. (1935). Grand Rapids schools develop children’s hobbies. Educational Method: A

Journal of Progressive Public Schools, 14(1), 300-304.

Maines, R. P. (2009). Hedonizing technologies: Paths to pleasure in hobbies and leisure. Baltimore, MD:

The Johns Hopkins University Press.

DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 23

Manson, L., & Caird, F. I. (1985). Survey of the hobbies and transport of patients with Parkinson’s

disease. The British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 48(7), 199-200.

Martikainen, L. (2009). The many faces of life satisfaction among Finnish young adults. Journal of

Happiness Studies, 10(6), 721-737. doi: 10.1007/s10902-008-9117-2

McGehee, W. (1941). Changes in interest with changes in grade status of elementary-school children.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 32(2), 151-156.

McGuire, F., Boyd, R., & Tedrick, R. (2009). Leisure and aging: Ulyssean living in later life.

Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.

McHale, S. M., Crouter, A. C., & Tucker, C. J. (2001). Free-time activities in middle childhood: Links

with adjustment in early adolescence. Child Development, 72(6), 1764-1778.

Menninger, W. C. (1942). Psychological aspects of hobbies; a contribution to civilian morale. The

American Journal of Psychiatry, 99, 122-129.

Mishra, S. (1992). Leisure activities and life satisfaction in old age: A case study of retired government

employees living in urban areas. Activities, Adaptation, and Aging, 16(4), 7-26.

Mower, J. W. (1940). A comparative study of hobby activities. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 4(1), 82-

87.

Neulinger, J. (1974). The psychology of leisure: Research approaches to the study of leisure. Springfield,

IL: C. C. Thomas, Publisher.

Overs, R. P., Taylor, S., & Adkins, C. (1977). Avocational counseling manual. Washington, DC:

Hawkins & Associates.

Passmore, A. (2003). The occupation of leisure: Three typologies and their influence on mental health in

adolescence. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 23(2), 76-83.

Patrick, C. (1945). Relation of childhood and adult leisure activities. The Journal of Social Psychology,

21(1), 65-79.
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 24

Phillips, W. S., & Greene, J. E. (1939). A preliminary study of the relationship of age, hobbies, and civil

status to neuroticism among women teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30(6), 440-

444.

Pollard, N., & Carver, N. (2016). Building model trains and planes: An autoethnographic investigation of

a human occupation. Journal of Occupational Science, 23(2), 168-180. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2016.1153509

Posey, S. (2004). Playing with trains: A passion beyond scale. New York, NY: Random House.

Regen, C., Katona, C., Walker, Z. & Livingston, G. (2005). Relationship of exercise and other risk factors

to depression of Alzheimer’s disease: The LASER-AD study. International Journal of Geriatric

Psychiatry, 20(3), 261-268. doi: 10.1002/gps.1278

Reynolds, F. (1997). Coping with chronic illness and disability through creative needlecraft. British

Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60(8), 352-356.

Rigby, D., & Rigby, E. (1944). Lock, stock, and barrel. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott Company.

Ritchie, J. R. B. (1975). On the derivation of leisure activity types – A perceptual mapping approach.

Journal of Leisure Research, 7(2), 128-140.

Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories.

Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573-605.

Rousseau, D. M. (1978). Relationship of work to nonwork. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 513-

517.

Rupert, P. A., & Kent, J. S. (2007). Gender and work setting differences in career-sustaining behaviors

and burnout among professional psychologists. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,

38(1), 88-96. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.38.1.88

Saihara, K., Hamasaki, S., Ishida, S., Kataoka, T., Yoshikawa, A., Orihara, K., … Tei, C. (2010).

Enjoying hobbies is related to desirable cardiovascular effects. Heart Vessels, 25(2), 113-120.

doi: 10.1007/s00380-009-1173-y
DEFINITION OF “HOBBY” 25

Shmotkin, D., Blumstein, T., & Modan, B. (2003). Beyond keeping active: Concomitants of being a

volunteer in old-old age. Psychology and Aging, 18(3), 602-607. doi: 10.1037/0882-

7974.18.3.602

Stebbins, R. A. (1982). Serious leisure: A conceptual statement. Pacific Sociological Review, 25(2), 251-

272.

Stebbins, R. A. (1994). The liberal arts hobbies: A neglected subtype of serious leisure. Society and

Leisure, 17(1), 173-186.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson

Education.

Tinsley, H. E. A., & Eldredge, B. D. (1995). Psychological benefits of leisure participation: A taxonomy

of leisure activities based on their need-gratifying properties. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

42(2), 123-132.

Tinsley, H. E. A., Teaff, J. D., Colbs, S. L., & Kaufman, N. (1985). A system for classifying leisure

activities in terms of the psychological benefits of participation reported by older persons.

Journal of Gerontology, 40(2), 172-178.

Tinsley, H. E. A., & Tinsley, D. J. (1986). A theory of the attributes, benefits, and causes of leisure

experience. Leisure Sciences, 8(1), 1-45.

Unruh, A. M. (2004). Reflections on: “So… what do you do?” Occupation and the construction of

identity. The Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71(5), 290-295.

Werner, E. E. (1993). Risk, resilience, and recovery: Perspectives from the Kauai longitudinal study.

Development and Psychopathology, 5(4), 503-515.

White, E. (2017). Building a vintage wooden freight car kit. Model Railroader, 84(12), 36-40.

Wilcock, A. (2003). Making sense of what people do: Historical perspectives. Journal of Occupational

Science, 10(1), 4-6.

York, M., & Wiseman, T. (2012). Gardening as an occupation: A critical review. British Journal of

Occupational Therapy, 75(2), 76-84.

Table 1: A partial list of activities that have been called hobbies

Activity Authors citing the activity as a hobby

reading fiction Boynton (1940), Giotakos (2004), Lippa (2005), McGehee (1941), Mower (1940),
Saihara et al. (2010)

reading nonfiction Boynton (1940), Giotakos (2004), Dodge et al. (2008), Manson and Caird (1985),
Mower (1940), Saihara et al. (2010)

sports Boynton (1940), Donnelly and Dumas (1997), Giotakos (2004), Lippa (2005),
Phillips and Greene (1939), Saihara et al. (2010)

watching television Dodge et al. (2008), Lippa (2005), Manson and Caird (1985)

cooking Boynton (1940), Lippa (2005), Mower (1940), Saihara et al. (2010)

religious activity Boynton (1940), Donnelly and Dumas (1997), Manson and Caird (1985)

art Donnelly and Dumas (1997), Giotakos (2004), McHale, Crouter, and Tucker
(2001), Mower (1940), Saihara et al. (2010)

crafts Dodge et al. (2008), Hughes et al. (2010), McHale et al. (2001), Mower (1940),
Saihara et al. (2010)

building models McHale et al. (2001)

playing video or Lippa (2005), Saihara et al. (2010)

computer games
Table 2: The age distribution in the current sample

Age range Frequency Percent

Under 20 42 28.00
20 to 29 45 30.00
30 to 39 13 8.67
40 to 49 13 8.67
50 to 59 10 10.00
60 to 69 14 9.33
70 to 79 6 4.00
80 to 89 1 .67
Total: 149* 99.34
* One person did not report age, thus the totals do not equal the total sample.
 Table 3: Summary of the results of regressing ratings of the degree to which each activity involved the
characteristics of the definition on mean degree of agreement by participants that each activity is a hobby

sr2
Variables Rating Voluntary Alone Home Tools Object B β (unique)
Voluntary .26** 2.38** .39 .13
Alone .54** -.17* .70** .29 .05
Home .17* -.07 .35** -.12 -.05 .002
Tools -.40** .33** -.45** -.13 -.45* -.22 .03
Object .64** -.04 .60** .30** -.47** .81 .40 .09
Intercept = 1.43
Means 3.93 .95 .47 .36 .67 .29
Standard .88 .14 .36 .39 .42 .43
deviations
R2= .58
* p < .05 Adjusted R2= .57
** p < .001 R= .76**
Sest= .58

* p < .05
** p < .001

View publication stats