Describe personality as an interaction of genes and environment, apply the Big Five to sport and exercise, evaluate self-report measures and, at HL, explain social learning theory and why no profile predicts performance.
Each is in the SEHS glossary, with every other term in the subject.
A Big Five trait describing how well an individual relates to others and acts in ways that preserve relationships, being cooperative, trusting and considerate.
A model that describes personality with five broad traits (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism), each measured on a continuum from low to high.
A Big Five trait describing the tendency to control impulses, act in socially acceptable ways and behave in an organised, self-disciplined way that supports goal-directed behaviour.
The opposite pole of neuroticism, describing an individual’s tendency to stay calm and maintain emotional balance in stressful or demanding situations.
A Big Five trait describing the extent to which an individual draws energy from interacting with other people and seeks stimulation, being sociable, talkative, assertive and energetic.
The proportion of the variation in a trait within a population that is explained by genetic differences between individuals; it describes a population, not one person.
Outline what personality is and why it is described as an interaction between genetic traits and the environment.
Describe the trait approach to personality and evaluate its strengths and limitations.
Describe each of the Big Five traits, with its high and low poles and examples of behaviour in sport and exercise.
Outline how personality traits are measured with self-report questionnaires, and explain the threats to their validity and reliability.
Discuss research on the personality of athletes and non-athletes, and of more and less successful athletes.
Explain social learning theory and the four processes of observational learning (HL).
Explain how the status of a role model affects how much of their behaviour is imitated (HL).
Discuss whether personality can change, and why no personality profile predicts sport performance (HL).
Explain the interactionist approach to behaviour, B = f(P × E).
Personality is the set of characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving that make one individual different from another. In sport and exercise it helps to explain why two athletes with similar fitness and skill respond differently to the same coach, the same defeat or the same training plan, and why some people keep exercising for decades while others stop after a few weeks.
Personality matters through both lenses of the course. Through the performance lens, it shapes how athletes train, cope with pressure and work in a team. Through the health lens, traits such as conscientiousness and neuroticism are linked to whether adults start and keep up regular physical activity, whether patients follow a rehabilitation programme and how vulnerable individuals are to stress and
With a free account, Augment remembers where you stopped and what you have practiced.
The view that behaviour results from an interaction between an individual’s personality traits and the situation or environment, summarised as B = f(P × E).
The opposite pole of extraversion, describing an individual who finds social interaction draining and prefers quieter, less stimulating settings; it is not the same as shyness.
The process of imitating a behaviour that has been observed in another person, the model; in social learning theory it depends on attention, retention, motor reproduction and motivation.
A Big Five trait describing the extent to which an individual perceives situations as distressing and experiences negative emotions such as anxiety, worry and sadness.
Learning that takes place by watching the behaviour of others and the consequences of that behaviour, without needing to perform it or be rewarded directly.
A Big Five trait describing an individual’s willingness to try new things, their curiosity, imagination and capacity for original thinking, and their willingness to be vulnerable.
The individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving that are relatively stable over time and across situations, shaped by an interaction between genetic traits and the environment.
A person whose behaviour, attitudes and values are observed and imitated by others, especially when they are held in high regard because they are similar, competent or high in status.
A measurement tool in which individuals answer standardised questions about their own thoughts, feelings or behaviour, usually by rating statements on a scale such as a Likert scale.
The tendency of participants to answer questions in a way they believe will be viewed favourably by others rather than accurately, which reduces the validity of self-report data.
A situational approach proposing that individuals learn behaviours, attitudes and their consequences by observing and imitating other people in their social environment.
A relatively stable and enduring characteristic of an individual that predisposes them to think, feel and behave in a consistent way across different situations.
A view of personality as a set of relatively stable, enduring traits that are consistent across situations and can be measured and used to predict behaviour.
An increase in the likelihood of a behaviour that occurs when an individual observes another person being rewarded for that behaviour.
Psychologists use the word personality for the relatively consistent ways in which an individual thinks, feels and acts across situations and over time. A footballer who is talkative and lively in the changing room, at training and at home, year after year, is showing a stable feature of personality. The same footballer being quiet before one important match is a temporary state, not a feature of personality.
The building blocks of most modern descriptions of personality are traits. A trait is a relatively enduring tendency to behave in a particular way, such as being sociable, organised or easily worried. Traits are tendencies, not fixed rules. A sociable person is more likely than average to seek company, but will still want to be alone at times.
Traits differ from states. A state is a temporary condition that changes from moment to moment, such as feeling nervous on the start line. The distinction appears throughout sport psychology: trait anxiety is a general tendency to perceive situations as threatening, whereas state anxiety is the anxiety felt at a particular moment. A person high in trait anxiety tends to experience more state anxiety in competitive situations, but the two are not the same thing.
Personality is best understood as the product of an interaction between genetic inheritance (nature) and the environment (nurture). Genes influence the development and chemistry of the nervous system, which affects how strongly a person reacts to rewards, threats and other people. The environment includes family, culture, friends, schooling and, for many young people, experiences in sport such as coaching, competition and team membership.
The contribution of genes is estimated with twin and adoption studies. Identical (monozygotic) twins share almost all their genes, while non-identical (dizygotic) twins share about half. If identical twins are more alike on a trait than non-identical twins brought up in the same family, the extra similarity is attributed to their extra genetic similarity. This allows researchers to estimate the heritability of the trait.
A meta-analysis that combined 62 independent estimates from more than 100,000 participants found an average heritability of about 0.40 for personality traits. In other words, about 40% of the differences between people in personality were explained by genetic differences and about 60% by environmental influences. Twin studies gave higher estimates (about 0.47) than family and adoption studies (about 0.22), which shows that the answer depends partly on the research design. Gender and the personality model used made little difference.
Sources: Vukasović and Bratko, Psychological Bulletin, 2015.
The two influences interact rather than simply adding together. A child with a genetic tendency towards sociability may seek out team sports, and the team environment then strengthens that sociability further. A child with a tendency to worry may find a harsh, results-focused coach especially threatening, while a supportive coach may help the same child to manage worry. Genes therefore shape which environments people choose and how they respond to them, and environments shape how genetic tendencies are expressed.
The trait approach describes personality as a set of relatively stable traits that each person possesses to a greater or lesser degree. It assumes that traits are measurable, that they are consistent across situations and over time, and that knowing a person’s traits allows their behaviour to be predicted. Each trait is a continuum: people are not simply “extraverted” or “introverted” but fall somewhere along a scale, with most people near the middle.
Earlier trait models used different numbers of traits. Hans Eysenck described personality with a few broad dimensions, including extraversion–introversion and neuroticism–stability, and linked them to differences in the nervous system. Raymond Cattell used statistical methods to identify 16 more specific personality factors. Later research found that most trait measures can be grouped into five broad dimensions, the Big Five, which is now the most widely used model.
Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|
Traits are relatively stable over time, so the approach explains why a person behaves consistently in many situations. | It underplays the situation: the same athlete may be calm in training and anxious in a final. |
Traits can be measured with standardised questionnaires, allowing large studies and comparisons between groups. | Measurement relies on self-report, which is open to social desirability bias and limited self-awareness. |
The Big Five has been found in many countries and languages, and its traits are partly heritable, which supports a biological basis. | Traits describe behaviour more than they explain it: calling a player “aggressive” does not say why or when they are aggressive. |
Traits predict broad, long-term patterns, such as who keeps exercising over several years. | Traits are weak predictors of a single performance or outcome, and of sporting success in general. |
On balance, the trait approach is useful for describing broad, long-term tendencies, such as which individuals are more likely to adhere to an exercise programme. It is much less useful for predicting what one athlete will do in one situation. That limitation led to the interactionist approach, which treats behaviour as the product of both the person and the situation.
The interactionist approach holds that behaviour depends on the interaction between personality traits and the situation. Kurt Lewin summarised the idea as B = f(P × E): behaviour (B) is a function of the person (P) and the environment (E). The multiplication sign shows that the effect of a trait depends on the situation, and the effect of a situation depends on the person.
A footballer high in trait anxiety may take penalties confidently in training, where little is at stake, but show a hurried, hesitant run-up in a shoot-out at the end of a cup final. A teammate low in trait anxiety may behave similarly in both situations. The interactionist approach predicts that personality differences show up most strongly in demanding, unfamiliar or high-pressure situations, and less in routine ones.
The Big Five model describes personality with five broad traits: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism. Each trait is a continuum with two poles, and each person has a score on all five. A personality profile is therefore a combination of five scores rather than a “type”.
Openness to experience describes a person’s willingness to try new things, their curiosity and imagination, their capacity for original thinking and their willingness to be vulnerable. A person high in openness enjoys variety and new ideas; a person low in openness prefers the familiar, routine and practical.
In sport, openness may help an athlete accept a new technique, a new position or a new training method, such as a swimmer trying an unfamiliar recovery routine or a runner adopting a different training model. In exercise, high openness is linked to trying new activities, which can help adults find an activity they enjoy and keep doing.
Conscientiousness describes the tendency to control impulses, act in socially acceptable ways and behave in ways that support goal-directed behaviour. Highly conscientious people are organised, self-disciplined, reliable and persistent; people low in conscientiousness are more spontaneous, flexible and sometimes careless or disorganised.
Conscientiousness is the trait most consistently linked to health behaviours. Conscientious individuals are more likely to follow a training plan, keep a training diary, complete a rehabilitation programme after injury, sleep and eat well, and keep up regular physical activity. In elite sport it is associated with the quality and consistency of practice over many years.
Extraversion describes the extent to which individuals draw energy from interacting with other people and seek stimulation. Extraverts are sociable, talkative, assertive and energetic. Its opposite pole, introversion, describes individuals who find social interaction draining and prefer quieter, less stimulating settings. Introversion is not the same as shyness or low confidence.
Introversion is the same continuum seen from the other end, so a low extraversion score describes an introvert.
Extraverts may be drawn to team sports, group exercise classes and sports with lots of social contact and excitement, and may enjoy performing in front of a crowd. Introverts may prefer individual sports or training alone, such as long-distance running, swimming or cycling. These are tendencies, not rules: many elite team-sport athletes are introverted.
Agreeableness describes how well individuals relate to others and act in ways that preserve relationships. Highly agreeable people are cooperative, trusting, considerate and helpful; people low in agreeableness are more competitive, sceptical, blunt and sometimes hostile.
In team sports, agreeableness supports teamwork, cohesion and good relationships with coaches and teammates. Low agreeableness is associated with more aggressive and antisocial behaviour, such as arguing with officials or deliberately fouling. In some contact sports a degree of competitiveness can be useful, which shows why traits are not simply “good” or “bad”.
Neuroticism describes the extent to which individuals perceive situations as distressing and experience negative emotions such as worry, anxiety, anger and sadness. Its opposite pole, emotional stability, describes the ability to stay calm and maintain emotional balance under pressure.
A low neuroticism score therefore indicates high emotional stability.
High neuroticism is linked to higher anxiety before competition, stronger reactions to mistakes, and a greater risk of burnout and of dropping out of sport. Emotionally stable athletes tend to recover from errors more quickly and perform more consistently under pressure. In the general population, neuroticism is associated with a lower likelihood of starting regular exercise.
Trait | High pole | Low pole | Possible behaviour in sport and exercise |
|---|---|---|---|
Openness to experience | Curious, imaginative, open to new ideas | Conventional, prefers routine | Willing to try new training methods, positions or sports; may enjoy varied, creative activities such as dance or freestyle sports |
Conscientiousness | Organised, disciplined, persistent | Spontaneous, careless, disorganised | Adheres to training and rehabilitation programmes; keeps training logs; arrives prepared; keeps exercising over years |
Extraversion | Sociable, energetic, assertive | Introverted: reserved, prefers solitude | May prefer team sports and group classes and enjoy a crowd; introverts may prefer individual or solo training |
Agreeableness | Cooperative, trusting, considerate | Competitive, sceptical, blunt | Good teamwork and coach–athlete relationships; low agreeableness linked to aggression and conflict with officials |
Neuroticism | Anxious, easily stressed, moody | Emotionally stable: calm, resilient | Higher pre-competition anxiety, stronger reactions to errors, higher risk of burnout and dropout |
YouTubePersonality traits cannot be observed directly, so they are usually measured with a self-report questionnaire. The individual rates how well a series of statements describes them, typically on a Likert scale, for example from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). The answers to the items for each trait are combined into a trait score.
Widely used Big Five questionnaires differ mainly in length and detail. The NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-3) has 240 items and measures six narrower facets within each trait, so it is detailed but takes a long time. The Big Five Inventory (BFI) has 44 short items. The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) has only two items per trait; it takes about a minute, which suits large surveys, but it is less precise.
Questionnaire | Items | Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
NEO-PI-3 | 240 | Detailed: six facets per trait; well validated | Long and costly; participants may lose concentration |
Big Five Inventory (BFI) | 44 | Good balance of reliability and length | No detail on facets |
Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) | 10 | Very quick; useful in large studies | Less reliable and less precise than longer questionnaires |
Some items are worded in the opposite direction to the trait, so that a person cannot simply agree with every statement. These reverse-scored items are converted before the trait score is calculated. On a 7-point scale, a reverse-scored rating is found by subtracting the rating from 8, so a rating of 2 becomes 6.
A useful questionnaire must be both valid and reliable. Validity is the extent to which it measures what it claims to measure: a conscientiousness scale is valid if high scorers really are more organised and persistent, for example in their training attendance. Reliability is the consistency of the measurement: a person who completes the same questionnaire twice a few weeks apart should get similar scores (test–retest reliability). Questionnaires such as the NEO-PI-3 and the BFI have been tested for both in large samples.
Self-report has several weaknesses that limit validity:
Social desirability bias: people may answer in the way that makes them look good, for example rating themselves as more conscientious than they are, especially if a coach or selector will see the results.
Limited self-awareness: people do not always know themselves accurately, and their answers reflect their self-image.
Response styles: some people tend to agree with every statement or always avoid the extreme points of a scale.
Cultural bias: items written in one language and culture may be understood differently elsewhere, and norms for what counts as “high” or “low” may not transfer between cultures.
Researchers reduce these problems by guaranteeing anonymity, explaining that there are no right or wrong answers, using reverse-scored items, and checking self-reports against other evidence, such as ratings by people who know the participant well or observed behaviour. Completing a questionnaire is also an ethical matter: participants should give informed consent, know how their results will be used and be free to withdraw.
Research on personality in sport asks three main questions: whether people who play sport differ from those who do not, whether more successful athletes differ from less successful ones, and whether athletes in different sports differ. Because personality cannot be randomly assigned, almost all of this research is correlational, so it shows associations rather than causes.
A review of research on personality in organised sport concluded that there are clear personality differences between people who take part in organised sport and people who do not, and that personality contributes to long-term success in sport.
A study of 881 men compared athletes with non-athletes on the Big Five. The most successful athletes scored higher than non-athletes on every trait except openness, while less successful athletes scored higher than non-athletes only on extraversion and agreeableness. Among the athletes, the more successful group was higher in agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability. Individual-sport athletes scored higher than team-sport athletes on some aspects of extraversion and on openness.
Sources: Allen, Greenlees and Jones, International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2013; Steca et al., Personality and Individual Differences, 2018.
These findings need careful wording. The differences are averages with large overlap: many non-athletes score higher on conscientiousness than many elite athletes. The study included only men, from a limited range of sports. It was also cross-sectional, so it cannot show whether personality helped athletes to succeed, whether years of sport changed their personality, or whether less conscientious athletes dropped out before reaching a high level.
The link between personality and physical activity matters for health as well as for performance. Large studies of adults show that people high in conscientiousness, extraversion and openness are more likely to be active, and people high in neuroticism less likely. For a health professional, this suggests tailoring exercise programmes: a highly extraverted adult may stay motivated in a group class, while an introverted adult may prefer a home programme or a walking route alone.
Trait theories look inside the person for the causes of behaviour. Social learning theory looks at the social environment instead. Developed by Albert Bandura, it proposes that people learn behaviours, attitudes and the likely consequences of behaviours by watching others and then imitating them. It is called a situational approach because it explains behaviour mainly through the situations and people an individual is exposed to, rather than through fixed inner traits.
The central process is observational learning: learning by watching what others do and what happens to them as a result. The behaviour is then reproduced through modelling, also called imitation. A young netball player who watches an international player calmly argue with an umpire and then does the same in her own match has learned the behaviour by observation and reproduced it by modelling.
Observation alone does not guarantee that the behaviour appears; it must also be reproduced.
In Bandura’s best-known experiment, young children watched an adult either attack an inflatable “Bobo” doll, hitting it and shouting at it, or play quietly with other toys. When the children were later left alone with the doll, those who had seen the aggressive model were much more likely to copy the specific aggressive actions and words, which showed that behaviour can be learned by observation alone.
Sources: Bandura, Ross and Ross, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961.
YouTubeBandura described four processes that must all happen for an observed behaviour to be imitated. If any one of them fails, the behaviour is not reproduced.
Attention: the learner must notice the model and the important features of the behaviour. Attention is greater when the model is similar to the learner, competent, high in status or attractive, and when the behaviour is distinctive or rewarded.
Retention: the learner must remember the behaviour, by storing it as a mental image or as verbal cues (“toss high, reach up, snap the wrist”) and by mentally rehearsing it.
Motor reproduction: the learner must have the physical ability, fitness and skill to perform the behaviour. A child can remember a slam dunk but cannot reproduce it without the necessary height and power.
Motivation: the learner must want to perform the behaviour, which depends on the consequences they expect. These expectations come from reinforcement.
Bandura distinguished three sources of reinforcement that affect motivation to imitate. Direct reinforcement is a consequence the learner receives personally, such as praise from a coach. Vicarious reinforcement is learning from the consequences that the model receives: a young player who sees a professional rewarded with applause for a dive in the penalty area learns that diving pays, even without being rewarded. Self-reinforcement is the satisfaction or pride a learner feels when they meet their own standards.
Vicarious punishment works in the opposite direction. If a young player watches a professional sent off and suspended for violent conduct, imitation of that behaviour becomes less likely. Social learning therefore explains both why antisocial behaviour spreads in sport and how good behaviour, such as fair play, can be encouraged.
A role model is a person whose behaviour is observed and imitated by others. The extent to which a role model’s behaviour is copied depends on the regard in which the follower holds them. Followers are more likely to imitate a model who is:
Similar to them, in age, sex, ethnicity, background or sport. A 14-year-old girl is more likely to copy a young female footballer than a retired male player.
Competent: skilled and successful at the behaviour.
High in status or prestige: famous, admired, a captain or an Olympic champion.
Warm and accessible: a coach or older teammate with whom the learner has a positive relationship.
Rewarded for the behaviour, which provides vicarious reinforcement.
This explains why coaches, parents, captains and professional athletes have such influence on young people in sport. A parent who shouts at referees from the touchline models that behaviour for their child. A captain who shakes hands with opponents after a defeat models sportsmanship. Coaches who model the behaviours they want, such as arriving on time, warming up properly and treating officials with respect, use social learning deliberately.
Social learning theory also predicts that visible, successful role models can encourage participation. After England won the UEFA Women’s European Championship on home soil in 2022, the number of women’s and girls’ football teams registered with the 31 county football associations in England that reported figures rose to 12,150, compared with 5,632 in the 2016–17 season. The largest single-season increase, almost 1,500 new teams, came in 2022–23, immediately after the tournament.
Sources: England Football (The FA), 2024.
These data fit the theory, because a highly visible, successful and relatable group of models was followed by more girls playing. They do not prove a causal link. Team numbers had already been rising for several years, with just over 1,400 new teams in 2021–22, before the tournament. Investment in facilities, school programmes and media coverage of women’s football grew at the same time and could explain part of the increase.
Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|
Explains why behaviour varies across situations and between teams or clubs with different cultures, which trait theories cannot. | Underplays biological and genetic influences: heritability studies show that traits are partly inherited. |
Supported by controlled experiments, such as the Bobo doll study, and by everyday observation of children copying athletes. | Laboratory studies with children and toys may not reflect behaviour in real sport (low ecological validity). |
Has practical uses: coaches can use demonstrations, positive role models and vicarious reinforcement. | Does not explain why two people exposed to the same model behave differently; individual differences need traits. |
Explains how antisocial and prosocial behaviour spread in sport. | Hard to test in the field because many models and reinforcements act at once. |
Social learning theory is strongest at explaining how specific behaviours and attitudes are acquired in a particular social setting. Trait theory is strongest at explaining broad consistencies in an individual. Most psychologists therefore combine them, which is the basis of the interactionist view of behaviour.
Traits are relatively stable, but not fixed. Over a significant period of time, personality can be modified through experience, coaching and reflection. Change is usually slow and modest, and it is clearest over years and decades rather than weeks.
A meta-analysis of 92 longitudinal samples found that people, on average, become more conscientious and more emotionally stable, and more socially dominant (an aspect of extraversion), especially between the ages of about 20 and 40. Openness and social vitality (another aspect of extraversion) increased in adolescence and then decreased in old age, and agreeableness changed mainly in old age. This general increase in conscientiousness and emotional stability in adulthood is often called the maturity principle, because it is linked to taking on adult roles such as work, relationships and parenthood.
Sources: Roberts, Walton and Viechtbauer, Psychological Bulletin, 2006.
Researchers still debate why this change happens. One view is that new social roles and experiences shape personality, which supports the environmental side of the interaction. Another view, held by Costa and McCrae, is that much of the change reflects biologically based maturation that occurs in all cultures. Both views accept that some change occurs.
Some longitudinal studies suggest that sport participation and physical activity are linked to small changes in personality. In Australian children followed for two years, those who played more organised sport showed changes such as a smaller increase in introversion and a greater increase in persistence than less active children. In large samples of children and adolescents, those who dropped out of sport showed greater decreases in extraversion than those who continued. In adults followed for 20 years, physical inactivity was associated with steeper declines in conscientiousness.
Sources: Allen, Vella and Laborde, British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 2015; Allen et al., Journal of Sports Sciences, 2021; Stephan et al., Journal of Research in Personality, 2018.
These effects are small. In the 20-year adult study, the standardised association between inactivity and decline in conscientiousness was β = −0.06, which explains well under 1% of the differences between people. In the adult samples of the extraversion study, sport participation was unrelated to change in extraversion. The evidence is also observational: children and adults choose whether to play sport, so other factors (family income, health, friends) may explain both sport participation and personality change.
Coaching and deliberate reflection can also change typical behaviour over time. A coach who consistently helps an anxious athlete reinterpret pressure, set process goals and review performances calmly may help that athlete become less reactive to setbacks. These approaches overlap with the psychological skills taught in coping and goal setting. Change in a deep trait is slow; change in how a trait is expressed in a familiar situation can be faster.
For several decades, sport psychologists hoped to find a personality profile that would identify future champions. The search produced the credulous–sceptical debate. Credulous researchers believed that personality could predict sport performance and could be used to select athletes. Sceptical researchers argued that personality explained very little of performance and that tests should not be used for selection. In 1980 William Morgan reviewed the evidence and argued that both positions were too extreme: personality measures could explain some, but only a small part, of the differences in performance.
Morgan’s best-known contribution is the iceberg profile. Using the Profile of Mood States (POMS), a questionnaire that measures tension, depression, anger, vigour, fatigue and confusion, he reported that successful athletes tended to score below the population average on the five negative moods and above it on vigour. Plotted on a graph, the scores form the shape of an iceberg, with vigour as the peak above the “waterline”.
Later meta-analyses showed how weak the profile is as a predictor. One combined 33 studies comparing the POMS scores of more and less successful athletes and found an overall effect size of only 0.15, which accounted for less than 1% of the variation in success. A second pair of meta-analyses found almost no relationship between mood and level of achievement (effect size 0.10), but a moderate relationship between mood just before competition and the outcome of that competition (effect size 0.31).
Sources: Morgan, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 1980; Rowley et al., Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1995; Beedie, Terry and Lane, Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 2000.
Mood is a state, which changes with training load, sleep and life events, so it predicts how well an athlete is likely to perform on a given day better than it predicts who will reach the elite level. The POMS has therefore been used more successfully to monitor athletes for signs of overtraining than to select them.
Small effects: even reliable differences between athletes and non-athletes are averages with large overlap between groups.
Many other factors: skill, fitness, physique, training history, coaching, opportunity and luck explain far more of performance than personality.
Different routes to success: athletes with very different personalities succeed in the same sport, and different positions and sports reward different traits.
Measurement problems: self-report is open to social desirability bias, especially when selection is at stake.
The situation matters: personality affects behaviour through interaction with the situation, so the same trait helps in one setting and hinders in another.
Observed behaviour is an interaction between personality traits and social learning. Traits create tendencies; the social environment, through role models and reinforcement, shapes how and when those tendencies are expressed. A naturally competitive, less agreeable young rugby player in a club where captains model respect for referees and foul play is punished may learn to channel competitiveness into hard but fair play. The same player in a club where foul play is admired may become persistently aggressive.
This is the interactionist approach, B = f(P × E), with the environment now including the social learning history of the individual. It explains both the consistency of behaviour (traits) and its variation between situations and groups (social learning).
Because personality profiles do not predict performance, using personality tests to select or deselect athletes is scientifically weak and ethically questionable. Professional guidelines for sport psychologists stress several principles:
Principle | What it means in practice |
|---|---|
Informed consent | Athletes know what the test measures, why it is used and who will see the results, and agree freely. |
Confidentiality | Results are not shared with selectors or the media without the athlete’s permission. |
Appropriate use | Tests are used to help athletes understand themselves and to tailor coaching, not to select teams. |
Competence | Tests are administered and interpreted by qualified practitioners, using validated questionnaires with feedback to the athlete. |
Cultural fairness | Norms are appropriate to the athlete’s culture, language, age and sex. |
Physical inactivity is one of the major risk factors for chronic disease, and many adults who start exercising stop again. A large longitudinal study asked whether the Big Five traits predict which inactive adults become active and which active adults become inactive. It combined data from nine samples with more than 28,000 adults in the United States, England, the Netherlands and Japan, followed for between about 3 and 10 years.
At the start, each participant completed a Big Five questionnaire and reported their physical activity. At follow-up, physical activity was reported again. The researchers then calculated, separately for each sample, how the odds of starting or stopping physical activity changed for every one standard deviation (SD) increase in each trait, after adjusting for sex, age and education. The results were combined by meta-analysis.
Across the samples, 37% of inactive participants became active and 19% of active participants became inactive. Higher extraversion, openness, conscientiousness and agreeableness were linked to a greater likelihood of starting and a lower likelihood of stopping physical activity, while higher neuroticism showed the opposite pattern.
Trait (per 1 SD higher) | Change in likelihood of starting physical activity (range across samples) | Change in likelihood of stopping physical activity (range across samples) |
|---|---|---|
Extraversion | 21–66% higher | 12–27% lower |
Openness to experience | 19–34% higher | 9–30% lower |
Conscientiousness | 18–51% higher | 14–26% lower |
Agreeableness | about 12% higher | 6–12% lower |
Neuroticism | 11–24% lower | 13–35% higher |
Several mechanisms could explain these links. Extraverts may enjoy the social side of exercise and seek out group activities. Conscientious people may plan and keep to routines. Open people may try new activities until they find one they enjoy. People high in neuroticism may experience exercise as more unpleasant or stressful, worry more about how they look while exercising, or be more easily discouraged by setbacks. These explanations connect personality with the motives studied in self-determination theory.
The study has important strengths: a very large sample, several countries, a longitudinal design that measured personality before the change in activity, and replication across nine samples. It also has limits. Physical activity was self-reported, and people tend to overestimate their activity. “Active” was defined loosely, as doing at least some activity, which is not the same as meeting health guidelines. The effects varied widely between samples, especially for extraversion. The design is still correlational, and the authors note that physical activity may in turn change personality.
For health, the findings suggest that exercise programmes could be matched to personality. A highly extraverted person might be offered group classes or team-based activities; a person high in neuroticism might benefit from extra support, low-pressure settings and early success. For performance, the same principle applies to young athletes: conscientiousness and emotional stability support long-term adherence to training, which is a precondition of later success.
Which trait shows the most consistent protective association with continuing physical activity, according to the table, and why?
Suggest why self-reported physical activity might weaken the conclusions of the study.
Discuss how a fitness centre could use knowledge of the Big Five to reduce the number of members who stop attending, and what ethical issues this would raise.
Sources: Caille et al., Psychology and Health, 2024 (published online 2022).
Personality appears in Paper 1A multiple-choice questions (definitions of traits, matching behaviour to a trait), in Paper 1B as data from a questionnaire study, and in Paper 2 as short definitions, descriptions of the Big Five and extended evaluations of the trait approach or of research methods.
Definitions of research terms are often tested by asking which statement is correct, so read every option before choosing.
Questions on measurement often test whether you can name a specific weakness of self-report rather than a vague one.
Paper 1B: Researchers investigated whether conscientiousness is related to adherence to rehabilitation after a sports injury. Forty recreational athletes with ankle sprains completed the Big Five Inventory. Their physiotherapists recorded the percentage of prescribed home-exercise sessions they completed over six weeks. Athletes were divided into a high-adherence group (≥ 80% of sessions) and a low-adherence group (< 80%). Scores are on a 1–5 scale (hypothetical data).
Trait | High adherence (n = 20) mean ± SD | Low adherence (n = 20) mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|
Conscientiousness | 4.1 ± 0.5 | 3.4 ± 0.6 |
Neuroticism | 3.0 ± 0.7 | 3.3 ± 0.8 |
Extraversion | 3.5 ± 0.6 | 3.5 ± 0.7 |
A “describe” question on the Big Five needs a definition and an application for each trait named.
Questions on prediction usually expect the iceberg profile as evidence and a judgment about selection.
Personality is the individual differences in characteristic patterns of thinking, feeling and behaving; it is relatively stable over time and across situations.
Personality results from an interaction between genes and environment; twin and family studies estimate heritability at about 40%.
The trait approach describes personality as stable, measurable traits; it predicts broad tendencies better than specific behaviour.
The Big Five traits are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion (vs introversion), agreeableness and neuroticism (vs emotional stability), each a continuum.
Traits are measured with validated self-report questionnaires (NEO-PI-3, BFI, TIPI), which are limited by social desirability bias, self-awareness and cultural bias.
Athletes differ from non-athletes on some traits on average, but the evidence is correlational and the differences are small.
Social learning theory explains behaviour as learned through attention, retention, motor reproduction and motivation, with direct, vicarious and self reinforcement; high-status, similar role models are imitated most (HL).
Personality can change slowly over long periods; no personality profile, including the iceberg profile, predicts sport performance (HL).
Behaviour is an interaction of traits and the situation, including social learning: B = f(P × E).
I can define personality and trait, and distinguish a trait from a state.
I can explain why personality is an interaction of genes and environment, and what a heritability of about 40% means.
I can evaluate the trait approach with strengths and limitations.
I can describe each Big Five trait with its poles and an example from sport or exercise.
I can explain how self-report questionnaires measure traits and why social desirability bias reduces their validity.
I can interpret research on the personality of athletes without claiming causation.
I can explain the four processes of observational learning and the role of vicarious reinforcement (HL).
I can explain why a role model’s status affects imitation (HL).
I can discuss evidence that personality changes and why no profile predicts performance (HL).
I can apply the interactionist approach, B = f(P × E), to a sporting example.