SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Spor Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2026

Different Theories, Different Perspectives: Understanding Extreme Sport Participation

Farklı Kuramlar, Farklı Perspektifler: Ekstrem Spor Katılımını Anlamak

Behlül Özdedeoğlu(Baskent University)0000-0001-7268-4163
Pages
883–906
Publication Date
2026-09-30
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This review therefore provides a conceptual basis for future theoretical integration.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: This study aims to critically assess the explanatory strengths, limitations, and complementarities of five classical theoretical perspectives used to explain extreme sport participation: Type T Personality Theory, Sensation Seeking Theory, Flow Theory, Reversal Theory, and Edgework Theory.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: The analysis demonstrates that the five theories explain different dimensions of extreme sport participation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This review therefore provides a conceptual basis for future theoretical integration.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ekstrem spor · duyum arayışı · akış deneyimi

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to critically assess the explanatory strengths, limitations, and complementarities of five classical theoretical perspectives used to explain extreme sport participation: Type T Personality Theory, Sensation Seeking Theory, Flow Theory, Reversal Theory, and Edgework Theory. The review focuses on these foundational approaches despite the emergence of more recent integrative perspectives. Method: This study employed a critical integrative review approach. The five theories were classified into three analytical levels (personality-based, experience-based, and sociocultural-based) according to their primary explanatory focus. They were comparatively examined in terms of their theoretical foundations, explanatory mechanisms, strengths, and limitations. Results: The analysis demonstrates that the five theories explain different dimensions of extreme sport participation. Personality-based theories primarily explain individual predispositions toward participation, whereas Flow and Reversal theories focus on subjective experiences and motivational processes during participation. Edgework Theory primarily addresses the sociocultural meanings and structural context of voluntary risk-taking. The findings further indicate that no single theory adequately captures the multidimensional nature of extreme sport participation. Conclusion: The findings suggest that the five theories should not be viewed as mutually exclusive alternatives but as complementary perspectives that illuminate different dimensions of extreme sport participation. Their classification across personality, experiential, and sociocultural dimensions provides a comparative basis for understanding how individual predispositions, experiential processes, and sociocultural contexts contribute to participation. This review therefore provides a conceptual basis for future theoretical integration.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışma, ekstrem spor katılımını açıklamak için kullanılan beş klasik teorik perspektifin açıklayıcı güçlü yönlerini, sınırlılıklarını ve tamamlayıcılıklarını eleştirel olarak değerlendirmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bunlar T Tipi Kişilik Teorisi, Duyum Arayışı Teorisi, Akış Teorisi, Tersine Dönüş Teorisi ve Sınır Deneyimi Teorisi. Derleme, yeni bütünleştirici perspektiflerin ortaya çıkmasına rağmen, bu temel yaklaşımlara odaklanmaktadır. Yöntem: Bu çalışma, eleştirel bütünleştirici derleme yaklaşımıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Beş kuram, birincil açıklama odaklarına göre üç analitik düzeyde (kişilik temelli, deneyim temelli ve sosyokültürel temelli) sınıflandırılmıştır. Teoriler teorik temelleri, açıklayıcı mekanizmaları, güçlü yönleri ve sınırlılıkları açısından karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmiştir. Bulgular: Analiz, beş teorinin ekstrem spor katılımının farklı boyutlarını açıkladığını göstermektedir. Kişilik temelli teoriler öncelikle katılıma yönelik bireysel yatkınlıkları açıklarken, Akış ve Tersine Dönüş teorileri katılım sırasındaki öznel deneyimlere ve motivasyonel süreçlere odaklanmaktadır. Sınır Deneyimi Teorisi ise gönüllü risk almanın sosyokültürel anlamlarını ve yapısal bağlamını ele almaktadır. Bulgular ayrıca, hiçbir tekil kuramın ekstrem spor katılımının çok boyutlu doğasını yeterince açıklayamadığını göstermektedir. Sonuç: Bulgular, beş kuramın birbirini dışlayan alternatifler olarak değil, ekstrem spor katılımının farklı boyutlarını aydınlatan tamamlayıcı perspektifler olarak değerlendirilmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir. Kuramların kişilik, deneyimsel ve sosyokültürel boyutlar üzerinden sınıflandırılması, bireysel yatkınlıkların, deneyimsel süreçlerin ve sosyokültürel bağlamların katılıma nasıl katkıda bulunduğunu anlamak için karşılaştırmalı bir temel sunmaktadır. Bu doğrultuda, çalışma gelecekteki teorik bütünleştirme çalışmaları için kavramsal bir temel sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özdedeoğlu, B. (2026). Different Theories, Different Perspectives: Understanding Extreme Sport Participation. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 9 Sayı: 2026, 883–906. https://ajindex.com/articles/1471822

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (72)

  1. Abuhamdeh, S. (2020). Investigating the "flow" experience: Key conceptual and operational issues. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 158. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00158
  2. Apter, M. J. (1982). The experience of motivation: The theory of psychological reversals. Academic Press.
  3. Apter, M. J. (Ed.). (2001). Motivational styles in everyday life: A guide to reversal theory. American Psychological Association.
  4. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
  5. Boudreau, P., Houge Mackenzie, S., & Hodge, K. (2020). Flow states in adventure recreation: A systematic review and thematic synthesis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 46, Article 101611. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101611
  6. Breivik, G. (2010). Trends in adventure sports in a post-modern society. Sport in Society, 13(2), 260-273. doi:10.1080/17430430903522970
  7. Brymer, E. (2005). Extreme dude: A phenomenological perspective on the extreme sport experience [Doctoral dissertation, University of Wollongong].
  8. Brymer, E. (2010). Risk taking in extreme sports: A phenomenological perspective. Annals of Leisure Research, 13(1-2), 218-238. doi:10.1080/11745398.2010.9686857
  9. Brymer, E., & Mackenzie, S. H. (2017). Psychology and the extreme sport experience. In F. Feletti (Ed.), Extreme sports medicine (pp. 3-13). Springer.
  10. Brymer, E., & Oades, L. G. (2009). Extreme sports: A positive transformation in courage and humility. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 49(1), 114-126.
  11. Brymer, E., & Schweitzer, R. (2013a). Extreme sports are good for your health: A phenomenological understanding of fear and anxiety in extreme sport. Journal of Health Psychology, 18(4), 477-487. doi:10.1177/1359105312446770
  12. Brymer, E., & Schweitzer, R. (2013b). The search for freedom in extreme sports: A phenomenological exploration. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(6), 865-873. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.07.004
  13. Brymer, E., & Schweitzer, R. (2017). Phenomenology and the extreme sport experience. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315661643
  14. Cromer, J., & Tenenbaum, G. (2009). Meta-motivational dominance and sensation-seeking effects on motor performance and perceptions of challenge and pressure. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 552-558. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.03.001
  15. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. Harper & Row.
  16. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. HarperCollins.
  17. Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1990). The art of seeing: An interpretation of the aesthetic encounter. J. Paul Getty Museum.
  18. Engeser, S., & Rheinberg, F. (2008). Flow, performance and moderators of challenge-skill balance. Motivation and Emotion, 32(3), 158-172. doi:10.1007/s11031-008-9102-4
  19. Farley, F. (1986). The Big T in personality. Psychology Today, 20(5), 44-52. doi.org/10.1037/e400712009-004
  20. Farley, F. (1991). The Type-T personality. In L. M. Lipsitt & L. L. Mitnick (Eds.), Self-regulatory behavior and risk taking: Causes and consequences (pp. 371-382). Ablex Publishers.
  21. Fletcher, R. (2008). Living on the edge: The appeal of risk sports for the professional middle class. Sociological Spectrum, 28(3), 310-328.
  22. Gomà-i-Freixanet, M. (1991). Personality profile of subjects engaged in high physical risk sports. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(10), 1087-1093. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(91)90038-D
  23. Guszkowska, M., & Bołdak, A. (2010). Sensation seeking in males involved in recreational high risk sports. Biology of Sport, 27(3), 157-162.
  24. Harris, D. J., Allen, M. S., Vine, S. J., & Wilson, M. R. (2023). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between flow state and performance. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16(1), 693-721. doi:10.1080/1750984X.2021.1929402
  25. Hornby, O., Roderique-Davies, G., Heirene, R., Thorkildsen, E., Bradbury, S., Rowlands, I., Goodison, E., Gill, J., & Shearer, D. (2024). What factors explain extreme sport participation? A systematic review. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 6, Article 1403499. doi:10.3389/fspor.2024.1403499
  26. Houge Mackenzie, S., & Brymer, E. (2020). Conceptualizing adventurous nature sport: A positive psychology perspective. Annals of Leisure Research, 23(1), 79-91. doi:10.1080/11745398.2018.1483733
  27. Houge Mackenzie, S., Hodge, K., & Boyes, M. (2011). Expanding the flow model in adventure activities: A reversal theory perspective. Journal of Leisure Research, 43(4), 519–544.
  28. Hudson, J., Males, J. R., & Kerr, J. H. (2016). Reversal theory-based sport and exercise research: A systematic/narrative review. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 27, 168-179.
  29. Immonen, T., Brymer, E., Davids, K., Liukkonen, J., & Jaakkola, T. (2018). An ecological dynamics conceptualization of extreme sports. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 1274. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01274
  30. Iso-Ahola, S. E., & Baumeister, R. F. (2023). Leisure and meaning in life. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1074649. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1074649
  31. Jack, S. J., & Ronan, K. R. (1998). Sensation seeking among high- and low-risk sports participants. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(6), 1063–1083. doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00081-6
  32. Jackson, S. A. (1995). Factors influencing the occurrence of flow state in elite athletes. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 7(2), 138-166. doi:10.1080/10413209508406962
  33. Jackson, S. A. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding of the flow experience in elite athletes. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67(1), 76-90. doi:10.1080/02701367.1996.10607928
  34. Jackson, S. A., Eklund, R. C., Gordon, A., Norsworthy, C., Houge Mackenzie, S., Hodge, K., & Stephen, S. A. (2023). Flow and outdoor adventure recreation: Using flow measures to re-examine motives for participation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 67, 102427.
  35. Kerr, J. H. (1997). Motivation and emotion in sport: Reversal theory. Psychology Press.
  36. Kerr, J. H., & Mackenzie, S. H. (2012). Multiple motives for participating in adventure sports. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(5), 649-657. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.04.002
  37. Klinar, P., Burnik, S., & Kajtna, T. (2017). Personality and sensation seeking in high-risk sports. Acta Gymnica, 47, 41-48. doi:10.5507/ag.2017.005
  38. Knutson, J. F., & Farley, F. H. (1995, April). Type T personality and learning strategies [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
  39. Laurendeau, J. (2006). "He didn't go in doing a skydive": Sustaining the illusion of control in an edgework activity. Sociological Perspectives, 49(4), 583-605. doi:10.1525/sop.2006.49.4.583
  40. Laurendeau, J. (2008). "Gendered risk regimes": A theoretical consideration of edgework and gender. Sociology of Sport Journal, 25(3), 293-309. doi:10.1123/ssj.25.3.293
  41. Laurendeau, J., & Van Brunschot, E. G. (2006). Policing the edge: Risk and social control in skydiving. [Publication details not provided in the source file].
  42. Lyng, S. (1990). Edgework: A social psychological analysis of voluntary risk taking. American Journal of Sociology, 95(4), 851-886. doi:10.1086/229379
  43. Lyng, S. (Ed.). (2005). Edgework: The sociology of risk-taking. Routledge.
  44. Lyng, S. (2014). Action and edgework: Risk taking and reflexivity in late modernity. European Journal of Social Theory, 17(4), 443-460. doi:10.1177/1368431014530477
  45. Martinho, D. V., Gouveia, É. R., Field, A., Ribeiro, A., Ordoñez-Saavedra, N., Pereira, F., Braz, D. S., Rebelo, A., & Sarmento, H. (2024). Psychological traits of extreme sport participants: A scoping review. BMC Psychology, 12(1), Article 544. doi:10.1186/s40359-024-02047-3
  46. Mei-Dan, O., Carmont, M. R., & Monasterio, E. (2012). The epidemiology of severe and catastrophic injuries in BASE jumping. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 22(3), 262-267. doi:10.1097/JSM.0b013e31824bd53a
  47. Moneta, G. B. (2021). On the measurement and conceptualization of flow. In C. Peifer & S. Engeser (Eds.), Advances in flow research (pp. 31-69). Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-53468-4_2
  48. Morehouse, R., Farley, F. H., & Youngquist, J. (1990). Type T personality and the Jungian classification system. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54(1-2), 231-235.
  49. Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2002). The concept of flow. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 89-105). Oxford University Press. Özdedeoğlu, B. (2020). Ekstrem sporlara katılan bireylerin aktivitelere katılım nedenlerinin araştırılması [Doktora tezi, Ankara Üniversitesi]. Ankara Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
  50. Paixão, J. A. D., & Tucher, G. (2012). Risk perception for paragliding practitioners. International Journal of Sports Science, 2(2), 6-10. doi:10.5923/j.sports.20120202.01
  51. Perry, S. K. (1999). Writing in flow: Keys to enhanced creativity. Writer's Digest Books.
  52. Pomfret, G., & Bramwell, B. (2014). The characteristics and motivational decisions of outdoor adventure tourists: A review and analysis. Current Issues in Tourism, 19(14), 1447–1478. doi:10.1080/13683500.2014.925430
  53. Roberti, J. W. (2004). A review of behavioral and biological correlates of sensation seeking. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 256-279. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00067-9
  54. Scott, S., & Austin, D. M. (2016). Edgework, fun, and identification in a recreational subculture: Street BMX riders. Qualitative Sociology Review, 12(4), 84–99.
  55. Slanger, E., & Rudestam, K. E. (1997). Motivation and disinhibition in high risk sports: Sensation seeking and self-efficacy. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(3), 355-374. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2193
  56. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
  57. Stebbins, R. A. (2020). The serious leisure perspective: A synthesis. Palgrave Macmillan.
  58. Swann, C., Keegan, R. J., Piggott, D., & Crust, L. (2012). A systematic review of the experience, occurrence, and controllability of flow states in elite sport. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(6), 807-819. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.05.006
  59. Swann, C., Piggott, D., Schweickle, M. J., & Vella, S. A. (2018). A review of scientific progress in flow in sport and exercise: Normal science, crisis, and a progressive shift. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 30(3), 249-271. doi:10.1080/10413200.2018.1443523
  60. Thomson, C. J., Power, R. J., Carlson, S. R., Rupert, J. L., & Michel, G. (2015). A comparison of genetic variants between proficient low- and high-risk sport participants. Journal of Sports Sciences, 33(18), 1861-1870. doi:10.1080/02640414.2015.1020841
  61. Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367. doi:10.1177/1534484305278283
  62. Weishaar, M. G., Kentopp, S. D., Wallace, G. T., & Conner, B. T. (2021). An investigation of the effects of sensation seeking and impulsivity on extreme sport participation and injury using path analysis. Journal of American College Health. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/07448481.2021.1942008
  63. Worthen, M. G. F., & Baker, S. A. (2016). Pushing up on the glass ceiling of female muscularity: Women's bodybuilding as edgework. Deviant Behavior, 37(5), 471-495. doi:10.1080/01639625.2015.1060741
  64. Wiersma, L. D. (2014). A phenomenological investigation of the psychology of big-wave surfing at Maverick's. The Sport Psychologist, 28(2), 151-163. doi:10.1123/tsp.2013-0001
  65. Willig, C. (2008). A phenomenological investigation of the experience of taking part in "extreme sports." Journal of Health Psychology, 13(5), 690-702. doi:10.1177/1359105307082459
  66. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  67. Zuckerman, M. (1990). The psychophysiology of sensation seeking. Journal of Personality, 58(1), 313-345.
  68. Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge University Press.
  69. Zuckerman, M. (2007). Sensation Seeking and Risky Behavior. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11555-000
  70. Zuckerman, M., & Aluja, A. (2015). Measures of sensation seeking. In G. J. Boyle, D. H. Saklofske, & G. Matthews (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 352-380). Elsevier Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00013-9
  71. Zuckerman, M. (2016). Sensation seeking beyond the optimal level of arousal. Psychology Press.
  72. Zuckerman, M., & Kuhlman, D. M. (2000). Personality and risk-taking: Common biosocial factors. Journal of Personality, 68(6), 999-1029. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00124 Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(1), 139-149. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.46.1.139