Means-end theory provides a useful approach for characterizing the relationship among the attributes or components of an experiential education course (the “means”), the benefits, or the outcomes associated with these attributes/course components, and the personal values (the “ends”) these outcomes help to reinforce for course participants. The purpose of this article is to show how this “means-end” perspective can enhance our understanding of the outcomes associated with outdoor adventure programming. A self-administered questionnaire designed to identify the linkages among program attributes (i.e., course components), course outcomes, and personal values was administered to a sample of 216 Outward Bound course participants. Analysis of the data provided useful insights into the outcomes associated with Outward Bound course experiences and with specific course components. The results can assist experiential educators in linking outdoor adventure course outcomes to course components, and in marketing course programs to potential clients.
BagozziR.DobholkarP. (1994). Consumer recycling goals and their effect on decision-making to recycle: A means-end chain analysis. Psychology & Marketing, 11(4), 313–340.
2.
BogdanR.BilkenS. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
3.
BotschenG.HemetsbergerA. (1998). Diagnosing means-end structures to determine the degree of potential marketing program standardization. Journal of Business Research, 42, 151–159.
4.
CaughronD. (Ed.). (1998). North Carolina Outward Bound School Instructor Handbook. Ashville, NC: North Carolina Outward Bound School.
5.
BuntingC. (1990). Interdependency: A key in environmental and adventure education. In MilesJ. C.PriestS. (Eds.), Adventure education (pp. 453–458). State College, PA: Venture.
6.
DriverB. L., NashR., & HaasG. (1987). Wilderness benefits: A state-of-knowledge review. In LucasR. C. (Ed.), Proceedings of the National Wilderness Research Conference (General Technical Report No. INT-220, pp. 294–319). Ft. Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service.
7.
EstesC. A. (1994). Outward Bound: The congruence of principles and practice. In McAvoyL. H., StringerL. A., & EwertA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Coalition for Education in the Outdoors (pp. 22–32). Bradford Woods, IN.
8.
EwertA. (1987). Research in experiential education: An overview. Journal for Experiential Education, 10(2), 4–7.
EwertA.HeywoodJ. (1991). Group development in the natural environment: Expectations, outcomes, and techniques. Environment and Behavior, 23, 592–615.
11.
EwertA., & McAvoyL. (2000). The effects of wilderness settings on organized groups: A state-of-knowledge paper. In McCoolS., ColeD., BorrieW., & O'LoughlinJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 3: Wilderness as a Place for Scientific Inquiry (pp. 13–26). Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.
12.
FieldingK.HoggM. (1997). Social identity, self-categorization, and leadership: A field study of small interactive groups. Group-Dynamics, 1(1), 39–51.
13.
FraumanE.CunninghamP. H. (2001). Using means-end approach to understand the factors that influence greenway use. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19(3), 93–113.
14.
GenglerC. E.KlenoskyD. B.MulveyM. (1995). Improving the graphic representation of mean-end results. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(3), 245–256.
GoldenbergM. A.KlenoskyD. B.O'LearyJ. T.TemplinT. J. (2000). A means-end investigation of ropes course experiences. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(2), 208–224.
17.
GutmanJ. (1982). A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of Marketing, 46, 60–72.
18.
HattieJ.MarshH.NeillJ.RichardsG. (1997). Adventure education and Outward Bound: Out-of-class experiences that make a lasting difference. Review of Educational Research, 67(1), 43–87.
19.
HirschJ. (1999). Developmental adventure programs. In MilesJ. C.PriestS. (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 13–27). State College, PA: Venture.
20.
HofstedeF.AudenaertA.SteenkampJ.WedelM. (1998). An investigation into the association pattern technique as a qualitative approach to measuring means-end chains. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15, 37–50.
21.
HultsmanW. (1996). Benefits of and deterrents to recreation participation: Perspectives of early adolescents. Journal of Applied Recreation Research, 21(3), 213–241.
22.
KlenoskyD. B. (2002). The “pull” of tourism destinations: A means-end investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 385–395.
23.
KlenoskyD. B.FraumanE.NormanW.GenglerC. (1998). Nature-based tourists' use of interpretive services: A means-end investigation. Journal of Tourism Studies, 9 (2), 26–36.
24.
KlenoskyD. B.GenglerC.MulveyM. (1993). Understanding the factors influencing ski destination choice: A means-end analytic approach. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(4), 362–379.
25.
KlenoskyD. B.TemplinT. J.TroutmanJ. A. (2001). Athletic recruiting: A means-end investigation of student athletes' school choice decisions. Journal of Sport Management, 15(2), 95–106.
26.
MartinA. J. (2001). Towards the next generation of experiential education programmes: A case study of Outward Bound. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
27.
NeillJ. T.RichardG. E. (1998). Does outdoor education really work? A summary of recent meta-analyses. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 3(1), 2–9.
28.
PaxtonT., & McAvoyL. (2000). Social-psychological benefits of a wilderness adventure program. In McCoolS., ColeD., BorrieW., & O'LoughlinJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 3: Wilderness as a Place for Scientific Inquiry (pp. 202–205). Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.
29.
PietersR.BotschenG.ThelenE. (1998). Customer desire expectations about service employees: An analysis of hierarchical relations. Psychology & Marketing, 15(8), 755–773.
30.
PriestS. (1990). Semantics of adventure education. In MilesJ. C.PriestS. (Eds.), Adventure education (pp. 113–117). State College, PA: Venture.
31.
RaiolaE., & O'KeefeM. (1999). Philosophy in practice: A history of adventure programming. In MilesJ. C.PriestS. (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 45–54). State College, PA: Venture.
32.
ReynoldsT. J.GutmanJ. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 28(1), 11–31.
33.
ReynoldsT. J.RochonJ. P. (1991). Means-end based advertising research: Copy testing is not strategy assessment. Journal of Business Research, 22, 131–142.
34.
RoggenbuckJ. W., & DriverB. L. (2000). Benefits of nonfacilitated uses of wilderness. In McCoolS., ColeD., BorrieW., & O'LoughlinJ. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Conference, Volume 3: Wilderness as a Place for Scientific Inquiry (pp. 33–49). Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service.
35.
RothM. S. (1994). Enhancing consumer involvement in health care: The dynamics of control, empowerment, and trust. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13(1), 115–132.
36.
ToddS. J.AndersonL.YoungA. B.AndersonD. (2002, April). Differences in motivations over time by level of development: An examination of pre/post adventure recreation experiences. Paper presented at the meeting of the Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium, Bolton Landing, NY.
37.
SibthorpJ. (2003). Learning transferable skills through adventure education: The role of an authentic process. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 3(2), 145–157.
38.
WalkerB. A.OlsonJ. C. (1991). Means-end chains: Connecting products with self. Journal of Business Research, 22, 111–118.
