Content uploaded by Tzung-Cheng Huan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tzung-Cheng Huan on Jul 13, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Free Time Management Contributes to Better Quality
of Life: A Study of Undergraduate Students in Taiwan
Wei-Ching Wang •Chin-Hsung Kao •Tzung-Cheng Huan •
Chung-Chi Wu
Published online: 30 July 2010
ÓSpringer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Abstract This study was designed to identify the relationship between free time man-
agement and quality of life, exploring whether the amount of free time or the way people
using their free time relates to their quality of life. Data were collected from National
Pingtung University of Science and Technology in Taiwan. Of the 500 questionnaires
distribute, 403 usable questionnaires were received with an 81% response rate. The result
has found a positive relationship between free time management and quality of life.
Contrary to this, there was no significant relationship between time allocation and quality
of life. Results might indicate that people who manage their free time well lead to better
quality of life. Suggestions based on the observed relationship and directions for future
researches were discussed.
Keywords Free time Time management Quality of life Undergraduates
1 Introduction
Free time refers to those periods when individuals are unobligated and can decide alone
what to do. Robinson and Godbey (1999) suggested that free time provides the best
opportunity for people to do what they want to do and to pursue pleasure, happiness and
W.-C. Wang
Graduate School of Business Administration, National Chia-Yi University, Chia-yi, Taiwan
C.-H. Kao
Department of Leisure and Recreation Industry, National Taiwan Sport University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
T.-C. Huan
Graduate Institute of Recreation, Tourism and Hospitality, National Chia-yi University, Chia-yi,
Taiwan
C.-C. Wu (&)
Department of Recreation Sport and Health Promotion, National Pingtung University of Science
and Technology, No. 1, Shuehfu Rd. Neipu, Pingtung 912, Taiwan
e-mail: wu660711@mail.npust.edu.tw
123
J Happiness Stud (2011) 12:561–573
DOI 10.1007/s10902-010-9217-7
self expression. However, rather than using their free time in a healthy and constructive
way, many individuals spend their free time without planning. Such free time usually
involves ‘‘killing time’’ and avoiding boredom. Having no plans for free time can cause
problems. First, when individuals do not know how to fill their free time in an enjoyable
way, they feel bored. For example, Hickerson and Beggs (2007) revealed that students
without leisure skills or the ability to manage leisure time are more likely to be bored
during leisure time. Researchers (Ganley 1989; Newberry and Duncan 2001) have indi-
cated that some social problems, such as media violence (Fedorov 2005) are motivated by
boredom during free time. Second, having no idea of how to use free time probably results
in an unhealthy sedentary lifestyle. One study (Mokhtari et al. 2009) found that college
students spent most of their free time in front of a screen—on the internet or watching
television. For college students, spending too much time on a computer and watching
television is negatively correlated with exercise and physical activity (Buckworth and Nigg
2004). Third, spending time without planning may make individuals feel rushed because
their time is not well organized and allocated. Some surveys (Department of Statistics of
Executive Yuan, Taiwan 2004; Robinson 1998) have revealed an increase in free time.
However, most people feel time-pressured. While more free time is available as working
hours decrease, the fact that people still feel rushed is of particular interest. According to
Robinson and Godbey (2005), the problem is not how much time individuals have, but
rather how they use it. The misuse of time raises the issue of time management.
With respect to work, Many studies indicated time management as a key factor for
lessening stress derived from work, increasing job satisfaction and improving quality of
work life (Averill 1973; Greenberger et al. 1989). The management of time is particularly
important to improving the quality of work. However, only a small proportion life is spent
at work. People have time to contribute to other aspects of life. While time management
can improve the quality of work, the management of free time can contribute to the quality
of life. Although the increase in the amount of available free time, and its importance, have
been of interest for decades (Gussen 1967; Charlesworth 1964), surprisingly little empir-
ical research has been performed on its management. Free time can be spent in various
ways, including watching television, sleeping, exercising, or involvement in outdoor
activities. Thus, the issue of free time use is worth considered.
As already mentioned, free time is regarded as the period of unobligated time during
which individuals can decide what to do. It is usually spent in leisure pursuits to relax
oneself after stress or improve one’s health. Benefits derived from leisure have been
identified. According to Driver et al. (1991), they affect several aspects of life, including
physical health, and psychological, social and economic well-being. Additionally, leisure
may be important in helping people cope with stress and maintain or improve their health,
as it counteracts the negative effects of stress on physical and mental health. Clearly,
leisure pursuits take time. Therefore, free time seems to be so important in any discussion
of quality of life. A high quality of life and the pursuit of a more leisure-oriented lifestyle
depend on healthy use of free time.
Undergraduate students are a group of people with more free time and autonomy to
decide what to do in their free time than possibly any other group. However, several
college students do not know how to manage their time by themselves when they are doing
their coursework in college, as their junior and senior high school years were mostly
structured. In the work of Shaikh and Deschamps (2006), most students mentioned that
they were not in sound health because they did not use their time to do anything to promote
their health. Students frequently suffer from not being able to manage their time and
routine. Lee and Graham (2001) suggested that stress management and time management
562 W.-C. Wang et al.
123
can be taught along with curricula. In the research of Caldwell et al. (2004), students who
participated in curriculum on the use of free time reported being better able to restructure
boring situations into something more interesting. They also had better decision-making
skills, initiative, community awareness, and were more likely to participate in new inter-
ests, sports and nature-based activities. The good use of free time thus helps individuals to
arrange their life and have the initiative to make decisions about their life.
Among 24 h a day, work takes only a part in life, while free time takes another part of it
except sleeping time and needed to be well managed. However, as we have mentioned,
management for working (or studying) time has been widely discussed, while management
for free time had not. This study seeks to elucidate how well undergraduate students use
their free time and to examine relationships among amount of free time, management of
free time and quality of life. Therefore, in this study, the researcher tried to have an idea of
how well undergraduate students are using their free time and to explore the relationships
among amount of free time, free time management and quality of life. The objective of this
paper was to empirically test a proposed model to better understand the impact of free time
management on quality of life among undergraduate students. To achieve this research’s
objective, the relationships between free time management and quality of life were
examined.
2 Free Time Management
The literature on the benefits of time management is extensive. Books and magazine
articles on the subject include, ‘‘How to Get Control of Your Time and Your Life’’ (Lakein
1973) and ‘‘Time is the scarcest resource, and unless it is managed, nothing else can be
managed’’ by Peter Drucker. (Huffstutter and Smith 1989).
In the early 60s, several scholars noted the importance of managing free time. Gussen
(1967) argued that the way free time is used can influence not only the individual, but also
the surrounding environment and even society at large. Unfortunately, however, most
people did not recognize the importance of how they used their free time. According to
Charlesworth (1964), good use of the increasing amount of leisure time requires wisdom.
Since the amount of free time has increased throughout the 20th century, the activities
performed in free time, the best way of using free time, and the way in which people
evaluate their free time, are all important issues that are worthy of more academic research.
Free time can be used in a healthy or detrimental way. For example, Mokhtari et al. (2009)
revealed that the internet has created a shift in the allocation of time during the day. More
time on the internet means less time on other activities. Sitting in front of a screen may
result in a sedentary life style.
The development of time management theory has gone through four stage. The first
three emphasized the control and efficiency of use of time. However, the latest stage of
time management theory has focused on values and improvements in the quality of life
(Covey et al. 2004). As mentioned above, people not only earn a living but also pursue a
better quality of life. The value of life has been altered. Although no specific theories of
free time management exist, relevant trends are evident in general time management
theories, in which the pursuit of efficiency alone is being replaced by the pursuit of a better
quality of life and the manifestation of personal values. Additionally, because work time
and free time have different characteristics, free time management no longer emphasizes
efficiency alone.
Free Time Management Contributes to Better Quality of Life 563
123
In managing time, setting goals and prioritizing, planning, organization, time-saving
techniques and attitudes to time are important (Britton and Tesser 1989,1991; Macan
1994). Time management can assume that individuals firstly determine their needs and
desires and rank them in terms of importance. Specific activities include setting goals to
meet needs or realize desires, and prioritizing the tasks necessary for so doing. The most
important tasks are then matched to the time available by planning, scheduling and making
lists. Mannell and Kleiber (1997) point out that time management is a typical behavioral
strategy for overcoming the constraints on leisure imposed by a lack of available time.
Because people cannot do many things at once, the most important concept in the face of
constraints on leisure imposed by the scarcity of time is setting goals and priorities. In this
study, the management of free time involves individuals’ using their uncommitted time
with a positive attitude according to a plan, based on set goals and priorities, exploiting
some techniques for organizing and scheduling. By this definition, the amount of free time
can increase or decrease as determined by the way it is used. Different people may value
free time differently. As Zelmek (1959) stated, free time can be regarded as a raw material,
to be used in a constructive way. For free time management, one can see from the above
definition addressing planning, goal setting, organizing and scheduling. Based on these
headings as directives for item development of the measurement of free time management,
the following dimensions can be considered.
1. Setting goals and priorities.
2. Techniques for managing free time.
3. The preference for organization and making schedules.
4. Attitudes toward free time.
3 Quality of Life
The concept ‘‘quality of life’’ can be traced back to the Greek philosopher, Aristotle. He
described quality of life in terms of the concept of happiness, experienced when everything
works well and the soul is satisfied. Since ‘‘life’’ is the thing everyone leads, pursues and is
concerned about, quality of life has been studied extensively. According to Shek (2010),
the concept of quality of life has attracted much research attention in different disciplines,
with more than 10,000 citations, in such areas as psychology, sociology, medicine and
others. Additionally, because of its breadth and multi-dimensional characteristics, quality
of life has become one of the most important social indicators of individual and social
welfare (Bognar 2005). The concept of quality of life usually contains perceptions of social
relationships, physical health, functioning in daily activities and work, economic status,
and an overall sense of well-being.
Since quality of life is a complex and multi-polar concept, as it covers every aspect of
life, it has been defined and measured in a number of ways (Gholam et al. 2010). Health-
related quality of life has been one focus in the past few decades; however, according to
Fayers and Machin (2000), even this term is loose. Related aspects may vary from study to
study, and they can include not only general health, and physical and emotional functions,
but also social well-being, psychological satisfaction with life and others. Because of the
diversity of definitions and measurements of ‘‘Quality of life’’, the World Health Orga-
nization has developed a scale for measuring it. It involves the idea of individuals’ per-
ceptions of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which
they live, and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns. It is a
564 W.-C. Wang et al.
123
broadly ranging concept, incorporating in a complex way persons’ physical health, psy-
chological state, level of independence, social relations, personal beliefs, and relationship
to salient features of the environment (Szabo 1996; The WHOQOL Group 1994,1995,
1998a,b). In this definition, an individual’s perceptions of quality of life are
multidimensional.
4 Relationships between Free Time Management and Quality of Life
As discussed above, the importance of time management and free time has been empha-
sized in many texts. Empirical researches concerning time management has been con-
ducted to discover the linkages between time management, personal control of time and
performance (Bazerman 1982; Greenberger et al. 1989), job satisfaction (Greenberger et al.
1989), stress (Averill 1973), students’ achievement and academic performance (Macan
et al. 1990; Balduf 2009; George et al. 2008).
According to the literature, activities done in people’s free time, mostly leisure activities,
usually contribute to the well-being and satisfaction with their life. Since free time is that
period when individuals are unobligated and can decide what to do, making the best use of it
can have a great impact on their physical and mental health. In the early years of this field,
Mannell and Kleiber (1997) suggested that free time may be a factor in improving well-
being. Godbey (1999) also agreed that leisure improved satisfaction with, and quality of, life.
Pawelko et al. (1997) found that skill in managing free time and to making good choices of
leisure activities contributed to the well-being and quality of life of adolescents. More
recently, in research concerning factors that affect well-being, conducted by Lee and
McCormick (2004), participation in leisure activities and boredom during free time were
found to be predictors of well-being. Trenberth (2005) suggested that educating and coun-
seling people on how to manage their time and plan for leisure can help people apply those
skills and improve physical and mental health. Some studies of the elderly have found that
the use of their free time to perform physical activity, social activities, and leisure activities
provides a sense of belonging to a group and social support, improved mental and physical
health and higher quality of life (Sasidharan et al. 2006; Roberson 2007;Schwartzand
Campagna 2008). A multi-national study also found that opportunities for, and participation
in, leisure activities contributed significantly to the quality of life in several countries,
including the United States, France, Japan and Thailand (Iwasaki 2006). Spiers and Walker
(2009) revealed that satisfaction with leisure time markedly affected happiness, peacefulness,
and quality of life. Additionally, leisure has been regarded as important in coping with stress.
For example, Coleman and Iso-Ahola (1993) postulated that leisure-generated social support
and a leisure-generated self-determination disposition buffer against stress to maintain peo-
ple’s health. It was mentioned in Pierceall and Keim (2007) that the most often used activities
to cope with stress included talking to family and friends, leisure activities, and exercising.
Less desirable coping strategies were drinking alcohol, smoking, and using illegal drugs.
Based on the above studies, participation in leisure activities seems to contribute sig-
nificantly to overall quality of life. As leisure plays an increasingly important role in
people’s lives, the way people use their free time has become an important issue in the
modern society. However, given that the concept ‘‘quality of life’’ includes many areas of
life, such ideas as health, well-being, satisfaction, physical and mental conditions have all
been considered in elucidating this broad concept. The way people deal with leisure time
will affect the way they lead their lives as a whole. To lead a high-quality life and pursue a
more leisure-oriented lifestyle, people must use their free time healthily.
Free Time Management Contributes to Better Quality of Life 565
123
5 Method
5.1 Sampling
A Total of 500 undergraduates from National Pingtung University of Science and Tech-
nology in Taiwan were surveyed from 1st, February to 1st, March in 2010. These students
were purposively selected from 10 courses with enrollments of 50 students or more to
represent a variety of academic departments. The administration of the questionnaire was
anonymous and taken in the classroom. There were 403 usable questionnaires completed
and returned, representing an 81% response rate.
5.2 Instrument
5.2.1 Measures of Free Time Management
The two most frequently cited studies of time management are that of Britton and Tesser
(1991) and that of the process model of time management by Macan (1994). To elucidate
the management of time by undergraduates, Britton and Tesser (1991) used a time man-
agement scale. Concerning the same group of subjects of their study and the current study,
we constructed a multiple-item free time management scale for the measurement based on
Britton and Tesser’s (1991) study. Given that this study aimed at a new idea of ‘‘free’’ time
management, five professors were asked to evaluate and offer suggestions about the scale.
One new idea ‘‘the attitudes people perceived for free time’’ was added after amended
according to the suggestions of those professors. There were 15 items with 4 dimensions
including: (a) goal setting and evaluating (b) free time attitudes (c) technique, and (d)
scheduling for measurement. Response categories ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree).
After a principle component factor analysis with varimax rotation undertaken in the
pilot study. Confirmatory factor analyses were then used to assess the measurement model
(Table 1). Because confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is particularly useful in the vali-
dation of scales for the measurement of specific constructs and with the confirmatory CFA,
the latent sources of variation and co-variation in observed measurement (Jo
¨reskog and
So
¨rbom 1993; Hair et al. 1998) were examined. Therefore, We used CFA to cross-validate
the findings of the EFA In an attempt to confirm the factors drawn from the exploratory
factor analysis. The results of the CFA indicate that all standardized loadings exceeded
0.57. With regard to the goodness of fit of the model, the v
2
statistic was 183.41 with 83
degrees of freedom (P\0.01). the goodness of fit index (GFI) was 0.94, the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.06, the adjusted goodness of fit index
(AGFI) was 0.92, the normalized fit index (NFI) was 0.95, the comparative fit index (CFI)
was 0.97, and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) =0.05.
5.2.2 Measures of Quality of Life
The Quality of Life scale developed by the World Health Organization (WHOQOL-BREF)
was adapted and used for measuring. It was a 22 items scale with four dimensions
including physical, psychological, social and environmental dimensions. After a principle
component factor analysis with varimax rotation undertaken in the pre-test. Five items
were deleted because of low factor loadings (below .30). Confirmatory factor analyses
566 W.-C. Wang et al.
123
were then used to assess the measurement model with an acceptable goodness of fit (v
2
/
df =2.33; GFI =0.93; AGFI =0.90; RMSEA =0.06; NFI =0.95; CFI =0.97;
SRMR =0.05.) All these statistics supported the overall measurement quality for the
constructs utilized in this study (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Here, the reliability test was
utilized in order to verify the consistency of the measurement scale for each construct, and
to purify the results via a reliability coefficient. The coefficients of Cronbach’s alpha for all
the subscales in each construct were in excess of 0.60, ranging from 0.60 to 0.83 (Table 2).
5.3 Analysis
This article adopted SPSS14.0 to conduct descriptive statistics and then used LISREL 8.54
to conduct confirmatory factor analysis and verify the relationship of research constructs.
6 Results
6.1 Respondent Profile
Among all the 403 respondents, there were 228 female (56%) and 175 male (44%), with
44% of freshman, 12% of sophomores, 22% of junior, and 22% of senior. The mean age of
the group was 20 years (SD =2.72). The average free time during weekdays and on
Table 1 Assessments of measurement model (free time management)
Constructs and measurement items Mean(SD) Standardized
Loadings (t-value)
R
2
Cronbach’s
alpha
Goal setting and evaluating .83
Sets goals for free time 3.06(.77) .76(16.94*) .58
Makes list of things to do in free time 3.06(.84) .80(18.25*) .64
Sets priorities for free time 3.32(.83) .77(17.37*) .59
Uses waiting time 3.10(.81) .60(12.41*) .36
Evaluates free time use 3.30(.67) .61(12.60*) .37
Technique .70
Organizes free time daily or weekly 2.99(.86) .70(13.91*) .49
Collects information related to leisure pursuits 3.42(.82) .49 (9.32*) .24
Organizes activities to do during free time 3.05(.79) .46 (8.47*) .21
Preserve a period of time for leisure 3.21(.79) .63(12.25*) .39
Free time attitudes .79
Free time is meaningful 3.91(.77) .65(11.36*) .42
Free time is happy 3.88(.77) .93 (7.78*) .86
Free time use is important 4.04(.71) .66 (7.73*) .43
Scheduling .60
Think that making schedules wastes time
a
3.43(.84) .75(13.34*) .56
Believes free time to be too unpredictable
a
3.12(.88) .46(19.72*) .21
Don’t know what to do in free time
a
3.93(.77) .46(13.39*) .21
a
Items were reverse coded
*P\.05
Free Time Management Contributes to Better Quality of Life 567
123
weekends of the respondents was 7 and 13 h per day, respectively. These were measured
by self-reported answers with open-ended questions. The mean score of respondents’ self-
reported condition of general quality of life (item: in general, I satisfied with my quality of
life) is 3.41 (SD =0.73). The mean score of respondents’ self-reported condition of
general free time management (item: in general, I think I manage my free time well) is 3.17
(SD =0.71).
6.2 Relationships between Free Time Management and Quality of Life
Before we started to analyze the relationships between free time management and quality
of life, Pearson correlation analysis was first used to explore whether the amount of free
time that the respondents perceived was related to their general quality of life. The results
(Table 3) revealed that there were no significant relationships observed between the
amount of time and general quality of life. These analyses indicated that the amount of free
time were not exactly the factors affecting people’s quality of life.
Furthermore, path analysis was then conducted in order to evaluate the relationship
between free time management and quality of life. The hypothesized relationships in the
proposed research model were simultaneously tested via path analysis, and the results are
Table 2 Assessments of measurement model (quality of life)
Constructs and measurement items Mean(SD) Standardized
Loadings (t-value)
R
2
Cronbach’s
alpha
Physical .76
I have enough energy for life 3.24(.73) .65(13.39*) .42
I have enough mobility 4.20(.77) .48(9.36*) .23
I’m satisfied with the sleep I get 3.16(.88) .64(13.30*) .41
I’m satisfied with my ability
to perform routine daily activities
3.60(.71) .76(16.41*) .58
I’m satisfied with my working ability 3.43(.74) .66(13.89*) .43
Psychological .70
My life has meaning 3.64(.75) .59(11.29*) .35
I have ability to concentrate 3.17(.77) .52(10.29*) .27
I can accept my appearance 3.62(.76) .62(12.45*) .38
I’m satisfied with myself 3.42(.75) .73(15.57*) .53
I have negative feelings
a
3.12(.94) .35 (6.61*) .12
Social .70
I have opportunity to take leisure 3.84(.77) .47 (8.98*) .22
I’m satisfied with my interpersonal relationships 3.47(.74) .69(14.35*) .48
I’m satisfied with my sexual activity 3.52(.73) .66(13.55*) .43
I’m satisfied with the support from my friends 3.85(.67) .64(12.96*) .41
Environment .65
I’m satisfied with my living conditions 3.52(.77) .61(11.15*) .37
I’m satisfied with the convenience
of medical service
3.27(.82) .66(12.00*) .43
I’m satisfied with the transportation 3.54(.83) .61(11.09*) .37
a
Items were reverse coded
*P\.05
568 W.-C. Wang et al.
123
depicted in Fig. 1. The goodness of fit statistics from the path analysis showed that the
model reasonably fits the data. The overall fit of the model appeared to be acceptable with
v
2
/df =3.46; GFI =0.96; AGFI =0.93; RMSEA =0.07; NFI =0.95; CFI =0.96, and
SRMR =0.05.
Table 4presents the relationship between the latent variables and the observed variables
in the measurement model. With respect to quality of life, the social dimension had the
highest loading (0.77*), and the psychological dimension had the second highest (0.74*).
With respect to free time management, the dimension with the highest loading was goal
setting and evaluation (0.75*); it comprised setting goals and priorities for free time and
evaluating its use. The use of a technique such as organizing activities and collecting
Table 3 Relationship between
time allocation and quality of life
*PB.05
Free time during
weekdays (h/day)
Free time on
weekend (h/day)
Quality
of life
Free time during
weekdays (h/day)
1
Free time on
weekend (h/day)
0.45* 1
Quality of life 0.04 0.05 1
0.75*
Free Time Management Quality of Life
Goal Setting and
evaluation
Technique
Values
Scheduling
0.73*
0.54*
0.43*
0.61*
Psychological
Social
0.62*
0.77*
Physical
0.74*
0.52*
Environmental
R2=0.37
Fig. 1 Relational structure model
Table 4 Relationships among
latent variables and observed
variables in the measurement
model
Latent variables Observed variable Factor
loading
Quality of life Physical .62
Psychological .74
Social .77
Environmental .52
Free time management Goal setting
and evaluation
.75
Technique .73
Free time attitudes .54
Scheduling .43
Free Time Management Contributes to Better Quality of Life 569
123
related information had the second highest loading (0.73*). In the structural model, the
structural coefficient that linked free time management to quality of life was 0.61
(P\.05), indicating significance. Restated, free time management was positively corre-
lated with quality of life. In the overall model, free time management explained 37% of the
variance in quality of life.
7 Discussion
This study was designed to elucidate the undergraduate students’ management of free time
and their quality of life, and to identify relationships between them. It seeks to determine
whether the amount of free time or free time management contributes to quality of life. The
result has found a positive relationship between free time management and quality of life.
Contrary to this, there were no significant relationships between time allocation and quality
of life. As shown in some researches, time commitments do not necessarily imply inability
to participate in leisure and time constraints may in fact increase individuals’ levels of
participation (Kay and Jackson 1991; Hultsman 1995). The results of this study also reveal
that with increasing free time does not itself contribute to quality of life; rather the way
people use their free time does so. That is, the connection between increase amount of free
time and improved quality of life depends on the management of that free time. People
who manage their free time well have a higher quality of life. Individuals who gain free
time but do not use it properly, benefit little from it.
The structure model revealed that free time management and quality of life were
interrelated with the coefficient of .61. Regarding each dimension of quality of life, we
could find that the most important dimension that free time management contributed to is
social quality of life and psychological quality of life, where environmental quality of life
is the least affected. This might indicate that the environmental aspect of life was largely
related to the physical setting which could not easily improved by changing one’s way
using their free time. It needed both the government and leisure service organizations to
offer more opportunities for leisure and recreation, safer facilities and a better environ-
ment. This idea is consistent with the multidimensional concept in quality of life. It needs a
lot of factors combined to improve people’s quality of life. Compared with the environ-
mental aspect of life, the way people manage their free time could rather affect their social,
psychological, and physical aspects of their quality of life well. In congruence with some
previous studies, using free time in some sort of physical activity, social activities, and
participating in leisure can help to generate a sense of belonging to a group and social
support, ability to remain mental and physically health and better quality of life (Sasidh-
aran et al. 2006; Roberson 2007; Schwartz and Campagna 2008). Interaction with family
members or friends during free time, the release of stress by participating in activities or
resting, the improvement of health by performing physical activities, and the positive
feelings gained by leisure pursuits, can all enhance people’s lives.
Based on the research results, we found that among four generic dimensions of free time
management, the dimension ‘‘goal setting and evaluating’’ and ‘‘technique’’ were more
closely related to quality of life than ‘‘free time attitudes’’ and ‘‘scheduling’’. It suggested
that undergraduate students could better manage their free time and hence to improve their
quality of life by setting their goals for free time, evaluating whether these goals were
appropriate and achievable; using some techniques to manage their free time such as
collecting relative information, organizing free time daily or weekly, preserving a period of
time for leisure. Moreover, it was worth noted that among these four dimensions, ‘‘free
570 W.-C. Wang et al.
123
time attitudes’’ and ‘‘Scheduling’’ was least two dimensions related to quality of life but
with higher mean scores. These results might indicate that people view their free time as
worthy and scheduling for free time as important, however, they do not practice in action.
As the concept of leisure became slowly accepted in modern society, people put a high
value on free time, regarding it as a good period for pursuing leisure activities and
believing it to be important in their life. They also believe in the importance of effective
management of free time. However, most people do not act on these beliefs and some do
not know how to improve the ‘‘quality’’ of their free time. Leisure education could
therefore provide a significant benefit. To educate people to use their free time more
effectively and improve their quality of life is the responsibility of not only the individuals,
but also government and leisure service organizations. Some organizations have promoted
a curriculum that can help people to learn leisure skills that can be used throughout their
life, with a view to increasing the positive use of free time. Research findings support a
positive outcome of this approach (Caldwell et al. 2004).
The current study offers some insight into the relationship between free time use and
quality of life; however, certain limitations should be noted. First, we only used self-report
questionnaires to evaluate the perception of free time management and quality of life. It
may have been useful to use other methods. For example, using time diaries can help
researchers to understand respondents’ time use pattern specifically. Experimental design
can also be utilized to examine the outcomes of free time management courses. Second,
this study is based on a convenient sampling of undergraduate students from a single
university, although students from various departments and years were sampled.
Respondents from a wider range of sources should be used in future research. Furthermore,
although undergraduate students have more free time than other people, and more
autonomy to decide how to use it, different groups of people, such as the retirees or the
elderly, should also be considered in future research on the relationship between free time
management and quality of life. Although the relationship between management of free
time and quality of life was studied, the proposed model did not incorporate the amount
of free time that individuals reported. It is suggested for future researches that the amount
of free time needed to be contained in the model to see whether there exist mediating or
moderating effects.
In summary, out study showed that many undergraduate students perceived high values
towards free time management but did not take it in action or did not know how to deal
with free time well. Therefore, we recommend that the government authorities, leisure
services organizations and the campus should provide opportunities not only for recreation,
but also for leisure education to teach students how to manage their free time. To design a
‘‘free time use’’ curriculum, the factors ‘‘goal setting and evaluating’’ and ‘‘technique’’
should be first considered first based on this study results. In this curriculum, students can
learn to set goals and priorities for their free time, for example, a student can set goal, ‘‘I
want to use my free time to improve my fitness’’ and decide to ‘‘use free time to go jogging
at least three times a week’’. Students can also receive information about how and where to
accomplish the above purpose, such as by using a facility on campus, or finding a natural
route around the park for jogging. The same process could be used to help individuals
pursue a better quality of life, which is rather a broad and multidimensional concept that
derived from any aspects which would relate to individuals. As the concept of leisure and
free time is gradually accepted by most people in modern societies and affects many
aspects of life, it was recommended that in the future studies, more leisure related variables
should be considered to find better predictors affecting quality of life.
Free Time Management Contributes to Better Quality of Life 571
123
References
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
Averill, J. R. (1973). Personal control of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Process, 50, 179–211.
Balduf, M. (2009). Underachievement among college students. Journal of advanced academics, 20(2),
274–294.
Bazerman, M. H. (1982). Impact of personal control on performance: Is added control always beneficial?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 472–479.
Bognar, G. (2005). The concept of quality of life. Social Theory and Practice, 31(4), 561–580.
Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1989). Time management questionnaire. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C.
R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 439–440). NY: Plenum.
Britton, B. K., & Tesser, A. (1991). Effects of time-management practices on college grades. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 83(3), 405–410.
Buckworth, J., & Nigg, C. (2004). Physical activity, exercise, and sedentary behavior in college students.
Journal of American College Health, 53(1), 28–34.
Caldwell, L. L., Baldwin, C. K., Walls, T., & Smith, E. (2004). Preliminary effects of a leisure education
program to promote healthy use of free time among middle school adolescents. Journal of Leisure
Research, 36(3), 310–335.
Charlesworth, J. C. (1964). A comprehensive plan for the wise use of leisure. In J. C. Charlesworth (Ed.),
Leisure in America: Blessing or curse (pp. 30–46). PA: American Academy of Political Social Science.
Coleman, D., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (1993). Leisure and health: The role of social support and self determi-
nation. Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 111–128.
Covey, S. R., Merill, A. R., & Merill, R. R. (2004). First things first: To live, to love, to learn, to leave a
legacy. NY: Covey Leadership Center, Inc.
Department of Statistics of Executive Yuan, Taiwan. (2004). National time spending survey. http://www.
dgbas.gov.tw/census*n/three/analysis89.htm. Accessed 12 Dec 2009.
Driver, B. L., Brown, P. J., & Peterson, G. L. (1991). Leisure benefits. PA: Venture.
Executive Yuan, Taiwan. (2004). Time use survey in Taiwan. http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/census*n/three/
analysis89.htm. Accessed 25 Jan 2009.
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000). Quality of life: Assessment, analysis and interpretation. Engldand: John
Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Fedorov, A. V. (2005). School students and computer games with screen violence. Russian Education and
Society, 47(11), 88–96.
Ganley, R. M. (1989). Emotion and eating in obesity: A review of the literature. International Journal of
Eating Disorders, 8, 343–361.
George, D., Dixon, S., Stansal, E., Gelb, S. L., & Pheri, T. (2008). Time diary and questionnaire assessment
of factors associated with academic and personal success among university undergraduates. Journal of
American College Health, 56(6), 706–715.
Gholam, H. G., Azadeh, T., Maryam, B., Mahdieh, M., & Mahdi, S. (2010). Quality of life in college
students with and without social phobia. Social Indicators Research, 97, 247–256.
Godbey, G. (1999). Leisure and leisure services in the 21st century. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Greenberger, D. B., Strasser, S., Cummings, L. L., & Dunham, R. B. (1989). The impact of personal control
on performance and satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 43, 29–51.
Gussen, J. (1967). The Psychodynamics of Leisure. In P. A. Martin (Ed.), Leisure and mental health: A
psychiatric viewpoint (pp. 51–69). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.).
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hickerson, B. D., & Beggs, B. A. (2007). Leisure time boredom: Issues concerning college students. College
Student Journal, 41(4), 1036–1044.
Huffstutter, S., & Smith, S. (1989). Managing time and stress. Office of Educational Research and
Improvement (Ed.), Washington, DC (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 309 518).
Hultsman, W. Z. (1995). Recognizing patterns of leisure constraints: An extension of exploration of
dimensionality. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(3), 228–244.
Iwasaki, Y. (2006). Leisure and quality of life in an international and multicultural context: What are major
pathways linking leisure to quality of life? Social Indicators Research, 82, 233–264.
Jo
¨reskog, K. G., & So
¨rbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago:
Scientific Software International.
572 W.-C. Wang et al.
123
Kay, T., & Jackson, G. (1991). Leisure despite constraint: The impact of leisure constraints on leisure
participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 23(4), 301–313.
Lakein, A. (1973). How to get control of your time and your life. NY: New American Library.
Lee, J., & Graham, A. V. (2001). Students’ perception of medical school stress and their evaluation of
wellness elective. Medical Education, 35, 652–659.
Lee, Y., & McCormick, B. P. (2004). Subjective well-being of people with spinal cord injury: Does leisure
contribute? Journal of Rehabilitation, 70(3), 5–12.
Macan, T. H. (1994). Time management: Test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,
381–391.
Macan, T. M., Shahani, C., Dipboye, R. L., & Phillips, A. P. (1990). College students’ time management:
Correlations with academic performance and stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 760–768.
Mannell, R. C., & Kleiber, D. A. (1997). A social psychology of leisure. PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.
Mokhtari, K., Reichard, C. A., & Gardner, A. (2009). The impact of Internet and television use on the
reading habits and practices of college students. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52(7),
609–619.
Newberry, A. L., & Duncan, R. D. (2001). Roles of boredom and life goals in juvenile delinquency. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 31(3), 527–541.
Pawelko, Katharine, A., Magafas, & Anita, H. (1997). Leisure Well-being among adolescent groups: Time,
choices and self-determination. Parks and Recreation, 32(7), 26–38.
Pierceall, E. A., & Keim, M. C. (2007). Stress and coping strategies among community college students.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 31(9), 703–712.
Roberson, D. N., Jr. (2007). Learning wellness: A water exercise class in Zagreb, Croatia. Educational
Gerontology, 33, 631–648.
Robinson, J. (1998). Americans’ use of free time. Washington, DC: Discovery Communications, Inc.
Robinson, J. P., & Godbey, G. (1999). Time for life: The surprising ways Americans use their time. PA: The
Pennsylvania State University Press.
Robinson, J., & Godbey, G. (2005). Time in our hands. The Futurist, 18–22 (Sep–Oct).
Sasidharan, V., Payne, L., Orsega-Smith, E., & Godbey, G. (2006). Older adults’ physical activity partic-
ipation and perceptions of wellbeing: Examining the role of social support for leisure. Managing
Leisure, 11(3), 164–185.
Schwartz, G. M., & Campagna, J. (2008). New meaning for the emotional state of the elderly, from a leisure
standpoint. Leisure Studies, 27(2), 207–211.
Shaikh, B. T., & Deschamps, J. P. (2006). Life in a university residence: issues, concerns and responses.
Education for Health, 19(1), 43–51.
Shek, D. T. L. (2010). Introduction: Quality of life of Chinese people in a changing world. Social Indicators
Research, 95, 357–361.
Spiers, A., & Walker, G. J. (2009). The effects of ethnicity and leisure satisfaction on happiness, peace-
fulness and quality of life. Leisure Sciences, 31(1), 84–99.
Szabo, S. (1996). Chap 36: The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) assessment
instrument. In B. Spiker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 355–362).
Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.
The WHOQOL Group. (1994). Development of the WHOQOL: Rationale and current status. International
Journal of Mental Health, 23(3), 24–56.
The WHOQOL Group. (1995). The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL):
Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science Medicine, 41(10), 1403–1409.
The WHOQOL Group. (1998a). The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL):
Development and general psychometric properties. Social Science Medicine, 46(12), 1569–1585.
The WHOQOL Group. (1998b). Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality
of life assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28, 551–558.
Trenberth, L. (2005). The role, nature and purpose of leisure and its contribution to individual development
and well-being. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 33(1), 1–6.
Zelmek, A. W. (1959). A changing America: At work and play. NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Free Time Management Contributes to Better Quality of Life 573
123
