Abstract

In introducing their article "What is Enjoyment? A Conceptual/Definitional Analysis With Implications for Sport and Exercise Psychology," Kimiecik and Harris ( 1996) state their hope that the paper might serve as "a catalyst for more indepth discussion about conceptualization and measurement of enjoyment as it pertains to the study of people's experiences in sport and exercise settings" (p. 248). Unfortunately, Kimiecik and Harris's arguments are based on an unclear and, at times, distorted interpretation of the research that has been previously conducted in this area. Thus, the value of Kimiecik and Harris's work in terms of facilitating future research and discussion on the topic of sport and exercise enjoyment is very much compromised. In this commentary, I will specifically address the limitations and inaccuracies contained in the Kimiecik and Harris article. Kimiecik and Harris (1961) outlined three purposes for their paper: 1. Review the prevalent definitions of enjoyment espoused by sport and exercise psychology researchers and discuss the conceptual and measurement implications 2. Propose a working definition of enjoyment as flow and compare enjoyment/ flow with other related constructs 3. Present implications of their suggested definition of enjoyment for past and present enjoyment research in sport and exercise psychology. A comment on their contributions in each of these three areas is given. Verf.-Referat