Introduction
The phrase ‘Extreme Sport’ has developed into an all-encompassing umbrella term for those activities that are traditionally associated with risk-takers or ‘adrenalin junkies’ (Lambton, 2000). Skateboarding, street luge, snow sports, mountain sports, moto-cross and surfing are just some examples of such sports. Participation in these activities has been considered as the expression “of a death wish” (Slanger & Rudestam, 1997, p. 355) and athletes were seen as emotionally unhealthy (Ogilvie, 1974) or crazy (Groves, 1987). Equally, research was invariably interested in the negative aspects of risk-taking (Farley, 1991). However as Brannigan and McDougall (1987) pointed out:

Stereotypes affect not only our perceptions of what we believe high-risk sportsmen to be like but also what we believe others believe them to be like. This affects our judgment regarding expectations of others, and consequently, identity-formation assumes an aspect of the self-fulfilling prophecy (p. 47).

Whilst for some participants there may be a desire for death, perhaps there is more to it. For many, these activities have resulted in positive personal changes (Brannigan and McDougall, 1987). Perhaps also, for some, there is a link to a‘modern-day rite of passage’ (Groves, 1987, p. 193). It may even be that participants have a powerful ‘life wish’ and a desire to experience what is possible.

The aim of this paper is to explore the extreme sport experience by reviewing current understandings through the literature. This paper will argue that research has focused on positing limited theoretical perceptions about the extreme sport experience. There is a focus on risk and often findings show little real difference between the extreme sport experience and any other activity. The overall conclusion being that not only does current research not help with our understanding of the extreme sport experience but perhaps, ironically, hinders any such understanding. The paper concludes by proposing a different perspective to developing a more complete picture of the extreme sport experience.

Defining the boundaries
It would seem that research studies have considered, perhaps naïvely, that extreme sports are just further along the risk continuum than high-risk sports. On the surface extreme sports do have similarities with many high-risk sports, in that they are self-initiated, typically occur in the natural-environment, and have limited outcome certainty. However, extreme sports differ from high-risk sports in that an ineffectively managed accident or mistake has the almost unavoidable potential for death where as for the high-risk activity the result is usually restricted to injury (Hunt, 1996, 1995). Examples of extreme sport activities that are encompassed by this definition are BASE-jumping, extreme skiing, extreme kayaking, solo climbing and high level solo mountaineering.
Interestingly, normal risk has been defined as risk that is culturally accepted as related to skill and experience (Hunt, 1995). Perhaps those involved in the‘culture’ (if there is such a concept) of extreme sports would consider the risk relationship as normal. As such, it may be that participation in extreme sports has little to do with a desire for risk?

A review of the literature indicates that whilst high-risk activities have received considerable attention, very few papers have discussed the extreme sport experience. Further, as we have noted, the focus has been on the link with risk- taking. Despite this limited viewpoint, it is possible to differentiate between a sport that is high-risk and one that is extreme (Hunt, 1995; Slanger & Rudestam, 1997). The following sections consider those studies that have explicitly considered extreme sports. First, despite the comments above, the concept of risk is examined followed by studies involving sensation seeking, personality and self- efficacy.

A question of risk?
As noted, one of the most popular assumptions about extreme sport participation is the link to risk. According to Hunt (1995) there are four main approaches to the study of risk in leisure activities. The first, psychoanalysis, argues that‘unresolved oedipal conflicts’ (Hunt, 1995,p. 440) determine risk-taking behaviour. The second, gender, considers that risk-taking is linked to ‘cultural constructions of masculinity’ (p. 440). The third, structural functionalism, relates risk-taking to ‘the achievement of athletic identity’ (p. 440). The fourth theory used to explain risk-taking, symbolic interaction, concentrates on how
participants ‘manage fear and maintain competent identity whilst engaged in activities that may be perceived as dangerous’ (p. 440). Risk in sporting terms has also been considered a function of subjective perception (Shoham, Rose and Kahle, 2000). This may be in terms of cultures, sub-cultures or individual differences. In symbolic interactionist terms, risk is rationalised using techniques such as humour (Hunt, 1995).

In one study, Hunt (1996) considered that psychoanalytic theory was the most appropriate theoretical framework for explaining the extreme sport experience. Hunt researched deep-water scuba diving. In particular, she considered the case of a diver who had suffered decompression sickness. Interestingly Hunt noted that the sub-culture of the group to which the subject belonged viewed injury as a function of incompetence. Often those who took extreme-risks and made mistakes were socially sanctioned. However, a number of important points can be gleaned from this study. Firstly, Hunt considered that part of the reason her subject was diving was to ‘get something valuable that he felt he lacked from his father’ (p. 597). Hunt specifically referred to ‘preoedipally rooted castration concerns’ (p. 598), aggressive fantasies and compensation for a ‘perceived lack of power’ (p. 598) and the use of the diving gear as ‘masculine toys’ (p. 598). She also presumed that equipment lost by her subject were ‘related to fantasies of other lost objects’ (p. 599), such as his father and his own masculinity, though Hunt admitted that her subject denied these assumptions. Assumptions were made with regards to her subjects ‘masochistic conflicts’ (p. 603), ego deficiencies, bi-sexual conflicts, hostility towards his mother and wife, lacking an ‘appropriate sense of fear’ (p.
610) and love of pain. Hunt concluded by stating that all extended-range divers (p.
613) had ‘deficiencies in their relationships with their fathers’ (p. 613). She considered cases of physical abuse, verbal abuse, absence, passivity and sickness to influence risk-taking behaviour in divers. Further she noted that ‘the more risky and violent the sport, the more likely do issues of bisexuality, masculinity, aggression, and sadomasochism appear to influence an individual’s sport participation’ (p. 620).

However, despite these descriptions and definitions Hunt concluded by accepting that individuals react differently to childhood patterns and that some men may be involved in extended-range diving as a result. On reading the published transcripts it is noteworthy that comments made by the subject such as ‘maybe I put up a challenge because I was frustrated. I don’t feel that I am doing something worthwhile at work. I should do more creative work’ (p. 601) seemed to have been ignored.

Hunt’s concluding statements point out the possibility that divers seek symbolic immortality, have rich intelligence and intellectual curiosity. Also of note is that this study seems to suggest that involvement in ‘extreme-risk’ sports is linked to problematic father-son relationships. Yet women are also involved in ‘extreme-risk’ sports. Perhaps also, as Farley (1991) pointed out, there are negative and positive aspects to physical risk-taking, it may be that the risk-taking behaviour would have been acted out in some other way if Hunt’s client had not been introduced to extended-diving.

A further study on deep sea diving (Hunt, 1995) analysed information from unstructured interviews and fieldwork to explain how divers were socialised into expanding their risk-taking behaviour. The sample (n=19 women, n=17 men) chosen by Hunt consisted of those divers who identified themselves with the diving sub-culture above family and occupation. She found that the adoption of‘new technologies’ (p. 445), ‘informal competition’ (p. 445), positive/negative sanctions and anxiety neutralisation were among the main phenomena that enhanced risk-taking behaviour. Other socialising considerations were linked to mastering of unplanned challenges (e.g. narcosis and shark attacks) and injury or death encounters. However, as Hunt appreciated, not all divers who are exposed to the sub-culture succumb to these socialisation processes. Furthermore, divers were also negatively sanctioned if they took excessive risks. Perhaps there is something else? As Farley noted:

I sometimes think psychologists see too much pathology out there ... to the contrary, these are people who are pushing the envelope and that’s their life. They would not want the life of someone who never pushes the envelope. To them, that is an unlived life (cited in Terwilliger, 1998, p. 4E).

Despite Hunt’s insistence that extreme sport participation is about the desire to take dysfunctional risks there is perhaps another explanation. Groves (1987) noted that high-risk athletes deliberately become very familiar with all the variables including their equipment and the weather. Brannigan and McDougal (1987) found that participants tend to develop heightened perceptions through participating. This heightened perception may not be as a result of a homogenous desire or need for risk as opposed to an individual’s desire to take personal control or responsibility. Perhaps participation in extreme sports is about engaging life. As such risks may be involved, but they are not the reason
(Terwilliger, 1998). In the same way that it is risky to cross the road yet very few cross the road to take risks.

Further, as Celsi, Rose and Leigh (1993) observed, individuals participating in extreme sports do not consider that they are pushing the edge of their control. In fact Celsi, Rose & Leigh cited numerous examples of well-respected extreme sport participants who considered that they participated within their comfort zone. For some, the preference was to leave participation for another day if they felt that the limits of their control were being extended. That is if risks were being taken. Also, extreme sport participants know that the slightest mistake could mean death or at the very least serious injury. There is no illusion as to the level of risk they are participating under or the seriousness of the potential consequences. It is one thing to risk overconfidence while making a $2 lottery bet, where little is risked on the outcome, and quite another to trust your life to a potentially fatal and frightening behaviour without carefully weighing the outcomes (Celsi,
Rose & Leigh 1993, p. 17)

As such any suggestion that participants might be overconfident or overestimate their abilities would be erroneous (Celsi, Rose & Leigh, 1993).

Sensation seeking
Another well-documented theory that has been posited as an explanation for the extreme sport experience involves ‘sensation seeking’. Sensation seeking has been defined as a trait theory that explains the continual search for risky, complex or novel experiences as a need in certain individuals (Rossi & Cereatti, 1993; Schroth, 1995). Though a state connection has been indicated the general perception is that one is ‘born with a general sensation seeking motive’ (Zuckerman, 1978, p. 510). A popular and evolving method for measuring this trait is termed the sensation seeking scale (Straub, 1982; Zuckerman, 1971, 1978).

Slanger and Rudestam (1997) conducted a multi-faceted quantitative and qualitative study in an attempt to explain extreme and high physical risk-taking behaviour. Ten participants from rock-climbing, white water kayaking, skiing and small plane piloting were categorised as extreme risk takers (n=5 per activity) or high-risk takers (n=5 per activity). A lower risk (n=20) control group from various sports was also included. Amongst other tests, participants were administered the standard questionnaire on sensation seeking and a 21 item structured interview.

The study found no significant difference between extreme, high risk and lower risk groups in terms of sensation seeking. One explanation for these findings could be that the control group were a selected collection of “highly trained athletes” (p. 360) from a variety of sports. That is because many studies have found athletes, in general, score higher than the average population in sensation seeking. Furthermore, athletes that participate in contact sports score higher still (Schroth, 1995). Another consideration is that the ‘sensation seeking’ scale was designed for the general population and may not be fine enough to measure extreme levels of sensation seeking as potentially expressed by those who participate in extreme sports (Slanger and Rudestam, 1997). Furthermore many of the questions (e.g. I would like to try parachute jumping) specifically relate to
the activities being tested. As such it may be that answers relate to the questions as opposed to the potential for sensation seeking (Zarevski, Marusc, Zolotic, Bunjevac, & Vukosav, 1998).

Goma (1991) investigated alpinists (n=27), mountaineering related sportsmen (n=72) and general sportsmen (271) and non-participating individuals (n=54). They considered that alpinist’s were extreme sportsmen (as related to the potential for death – 4 participants died whilst climbing on another expedition). In sensation seeking terms they found no difference between the mountaineers and alpinists. Interestingly there was also no difference found between alpinists and others sports people, though there was a difference between mountaineers and other sports people. Perhaps then there is a limit to the level of risk or desire to search out new sensations that is acceptable and therefore accountable through the concept of sensation seeking. Perhaps, sensation seeking may indicate a potential for involvement in high-risk sports but the trait may not
necessarily predict the continued involvement to an extreme level. It may also be that definitions of what constitutes high and extreme risk have muddied the waters. For example some sports may be riskier than others (e.g. skating and scuba) (Schrader and Wann, 1999). It is also possible for one activity to have different degrees of risk (Slanger and Rudestam, 1997).

Breivik (1996) also used Zuckerman’s sensation seeking scale (form V) on Norwegian Everest climbers (n=7), with elite climbers (n=26), sports students (n=43) and military recruits (n=26) acting as reference groups. When Everest climbers were compared with elite climbers he found a positive significant difference (at 0.05 t-test significance) on the boredom susceptibility (BS) scale, only. Comparisons between Everest climbers and the sports and military group demonstrated positive significant differences for all but the disinhibition scale (DIS). Breivik indicated that the high thrill and adventure seeking (TAS) and experience seeking (ES) scores might be indicative of environmental considerations. That is, whilst a participant may need these traits to survive in such harsh environments the traits may not explain the choice to participate in such extreme situations. Equally there was no explanation for the lack of significance between Everest climbers and elite climbers for TAS, ES, DIS and the full sensation seeking scale (SSS).

Breivik considered the significance of the BS scale as a direct indication that Everest climbers need to continually move on as a result of impulsivity and restlessness. Interestingly high-level climbers invariably take great care to develop effective safety procedures at an advanced skill level. As such, to consider their behaviour as impulsive or risk-taking behaviour may not be appropriate.

In summary, studies examining sensation seeking indicate no difference between those that participate in extreme sport or high-risk activities (Slanger & Rudestam, 1997). Though Breivik (1996) did note a difference in the boredom scale. There was also an indication that sensation seeking scores for extreme sports participants were equivalent to general sport participants (Goma, 1991; Slanger & Rudestam, 1997), despite a potential difference between high-risk participants and general sports participants (Goma, 1991). Explanations for these findings include questions on the appropriateness of the theory, refined nature of the scale and the precision of the definitions used. It may also be that participation in extreme sports is not just further along the risk continuum,
perhaps other explanations are more appropriate?

Type T personality
Literature explaining extreme sport participation using type T personality theory has indicated that individuals may be positively expressing a need to take physical risks. A ‘Type T’ positive person accepts risk in a positive way as such those that require physical risk should be encouraged to participate in risk- sports. ‘Type T’ negative risk takers are those that participate in a negative way (e.g. delinquency and crime) (Groves, 1987). As such ‘Type T’ people require something more than baseball or long distance running (Groves, 1987). However, there was no attempt to present empirical data or to differentiate between high- risk sports and extreme sports.

General personality
Personality studies that have considered the extreme sport category (Magni, Simini,De Leo & Rampazzo 1985; Goma, 1991; Breivik, 1996) indicate that extreme sport participants are generally more relaxed and less governed by super-ego than the general population (Magni, et al; 1985 Breivik, 1996). However, these differences may not differentiate between high-risk and extreme sport participants (Breivik, 1996). Anxiety has also been shown to be lower in the extreme sport group than the ‘average’ opulation (Magni et al, 1985) but not necessarily significantly lower than high-risk participants (Slanger & Rudestam, 1997). There was no indication as to whether participants start out more relaxed or become more relaxed as a result of participation. Equally, personality would seem limited in explaining the difference in participation between activities that
have the potential to end in death or injury.

Self-efficacy
On the surface, self-efficacy would seem to be the only defining concept that highlights differences between the extreme and high-risk groups (Slanger & Rudestam, 1997). The Slanger and Rudestam (1997) study indicated that an individual’s self-belief enables participation at the extreme sport end of the continuum. However, no indication was given as to whether the self-efficacy trend was learned through the activity or already possessed. An indication that self- efficacy may have been learned was noted in the answers to some questions, that is, a number of the high risk group were willing to take further risk.

However, in actual fact, some of the high risk group expressed a willingness to take the risk to which the subjects exposed themselves. For them it was opportunity which precluded involvement in the extreme risk activities (Slanger & Rudestam, 1997, p. 371).

Shoham, Rose and Kahl (2000) found no relationship between efficacy and frequency of participation and a negative relationship between efficacy and the probability of individuals participating in another risky sport. Interestingly they postulated a ceiling effect to explain the lack of relationship between efficacy and frequency of participation. That is, it may be that once a certain level of skill has been achieved the activity ‘fails to contribute sufficiently to encourage further participation’ (p. 246). Further, as Ewert and Hollenhurst (1989) noted, self-efficacy does not fully explain involvement that contains risk and real danger: ‘Risk and danger serve as more than a setting for expressing mastery and self-sufficiency’ (p. 127).

Conclusion
One of the aims of this paper was to introduce the extreme sport experience by outlining a brief description and examining contemporary literature. Essentially research has focused on high-risk participation with few studies attempting to explicitly consider the extreme sport experience (Slanger & Rudestam, 1997). Those studies that have included an extreme sport group have generally compared the extreme sport group to high-risk or normal-risk groups. The assumption being that an extreme sport is just further along the risk sport continuum. However, little real difference has been found between the extreme
sport group and any other activity. There also seems to be an assumption that positivist assessment tools that have been developed without explicit consideration to the extreme sport experience are appropriate for examining the extreme sport group. Yet, these tools found little comparative differences from other groups.

Furthermore, as Lipscombe (1999) noted, research has not investigated the link between the meaning and nature of high-risk sports and continued participation let alone why some individuals continue to pursue the outer limits of their chosen activity. It would also seem that the over-riding research process has been to test theoretical pre-suppositions as opposed to exploring the phenomenon with participants. Yet, as Slanger and Rudestam (1997) noted when participants were involved in the research process and their opinions considered, they often reported links to higher aesthetic motivations. Perhaps epitomised by the following reflections from an extreme skier:

The feeling of putting in a good run, of being out there in the mountains. It’s awesome. You feel like you’re floating. You’re kind of weightless. You feel like you can do anything, kind of indestructible, you just feel so good.... Freedom. You feel so free out there. You don’t worry about anything, you don’t think about the bills you’ve got to pay or your life
problems, you [are] just kind of free of thought. That’s kind of what makes it all worthwhile, just for that whatever, five minutes of freedom (McCallum, 2001 brackets added).

It may be possible that participation motivations and learning develop over time and that experience and skills developed through participation could expand into other areas of life (Shoham, Rose and Kahl 2000). However, few conclusions can be drawn from current studies. Equally little attempt has been made to determine patterns across sport participation (Celsi, Rose & Leigh, 1993). Hence it can be concluded that not only does current research not help with an understanding of the extreme sport experience it perhaps limits any such understanding. As such, it is the overall contention of this paper a more useful approach would be to accept the call of phenomenology and ‘return to the experience’ itself by considering the opinions of those that participate.

References
Brannigan, A. and McDougall, A.A. (1983) Peril and pleasure in the maintenance of a high risk sport: A study of hang-gliding, Journal of Sport Behaviour, 6, pp. 37-51

Breivik, G. (1996) Personality, sensation seeking and risk-taking among Everest climbers, International Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, pp. 308-320

Celsi, R.L., Rose, R.L. & Leigh, T.W. (1993) An exploration of high-risk leisure consumption through skydiving, Journal of Consumer Research, 20, pp. 1-23

Ewert, A & Hollenhorst, S. (1989) Testing the adventure model: empirical support for a model of risk recreation participation, Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 2, p. 124

Farley, F. (1991) The type-T personality. In The Type T Personality in Self- Regulatory Behaviour and Risk-taking Eds L.Lipsitt and L Mitnick, Wiley and Sons

Goma, M. (1991) Personality profiles of subjects engaged in high physical risk sports, Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 10, pp. 1087-1093

Groves, D. (1987) Why do some athletes choose high-risk sports? The Physician and Sports Medicine, 15, 2, pp. 186-193

Harris, M. (1979) Cultural Materialism: the Struggle for a Science of Culture. Random House, New York

Hunt, J. (1995) Divers’ accounts of normal risk, Symbolic Interaction, 18(4), pp. 439-462

Hunt, J.C. (1996) Diving the wreck: risk and injury in sport scuba diving. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, LXV, pp. 591-622

Lambton, D. (2000 Extreme sports flex their muscles, Allsports, 18th September

Lipscombe, N. (1999) The relevance of the peak experience to continued skydiving participation: a qualitative approach to assessing motivations. Leisure Studies, 18, 4, pp. 267-288

Magni,G., Rupolo, G., Simini, G., De Leo, D., & Rampazzo, M. (1985). Aspects of the psychology and personality of high altitude mountain climbers. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 16, pp. 12-19

McCallum, K. (2001) Interview with an Extreme Skier, (Personal Communication)

Ogilvie, B.C. (1974) The sweet psychic jolt of danger. Psychology Today, Oct, pp. 88-94

Robinson, D.W. (1985) Stress seeking: Selected behavioural characteristics of elite rock climbers, Journal of Sport Psychology, 7, pp. 400-404

Rossi, B. & Cereatti, L. (1993) The sensation seeking in mountain athletes as assessed by Zuckerman’s sensation seeking scale, International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, pp. 417-431

Schrader, M.P. & Wann, D.L. (1999) High-risk recreation: the relationship between participant characteristics and degree of involvement. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 22, 3, pp. 426-431

Schroth, M.L. (1995) A comparison of sensation seeking among different groups of athletes and nonathletes, Personality and Individuals Differences, 18, 2, p. 219

Shoham, A., Rose, G.M., and Kahle, L.R. (2000) Practitioners of Risky Sports: A Quantitative Examination, Journal of Business Research, 47, pp. 237-251

Slanger, E. and Rudestam, K., E. (1997) Motivation and disinhibition in high risk sports: sensation seeking and self-efficacy, Journal of Research in Personality, 31, pp. 355-374

Straub, W.F. (1982) Sensation seeking among high and low-risk male athletes, Journal of Sport Psychology, 4, pp. 246-253

Terwilliger, C. (1998) Type ‘T’ personality. The Denver Post, Saturday March 28, 1E and 4

Zarevski, P., Marusic, I., Zolotic, S., Bunjevac, T., & Vukosav, Z. (1998). Contribution of Arnett’s inventory of sensation seeking and Zuckerman’s sensation seeking scale to the differentiation of athletes engaged in high and low risk sports. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, p. 763

Zuckerman, M. (1971) Dimensions of sensation seeking, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 1,p. 45

Zuckerman, M. (1978) Sensation Seeking, In Dimensions of Personality, H. London and J.E. Ermer Ed’s, John Wiley and Sons, New York