The Role of Personality in Sport: The Role of Personality in Sport: Conceptual and Methodological Conceptual and Methodological

ChallengesChallenges

Eugene V. AidmanEugene V. AidmanUniversity of Adelaide, Australia University of Adelaide, Australia

The Science of Personality we are:

– different from anyone else (uniqueness)

– remain ourselves across situations (consistency) These differences are measurable Thurstone’s law: if something exists, it exists in some

amount and can therefore be measured Personality research: study of measurable individual differences –

but what are they? Situation-free dispositions (i.e. aggregated across time) vs

situationally hedged dispositions = conditional and interactive with the situations in which they are expressed (Mischel, 2004)

Personality & Sport Compared to non-sport playing controls on 16PF,

national level competitors are (Williams, 1985):– higher emotional stability– greater mental toughness– more self-assured– more trusting

Getting into an Olympic squad in wrestling (Silva et al., 1985) linked to (16PF) sociability, boldness, emotional stability and apprehension

Mood States and Performance

Morgan & Hammer (1974) - Terry (2000) better performing athletes display more positive mental states:– less anxious– less depressed– less fatigued– less confused – more vigorous (and extroverted)

Mental health profile

Positive Mental Health Profile: (Morgan & Johnson, 1978) found lower levels of psychopathology (MMPI) in more successful University oarsmen

However: hardly any replication– e.g. Brown, Morgan & Kihlstrom (1989) found

no significant associations between MMPI profiles of collegiate athletes and their athletic success

Anxiety and Performance

Levels - high vs low - are insufficient state - trait anxiety (Spielberger) cognitive appraisal of threat:

– facilitative anxiety: stress response as excitement

– debilitative anxiety: stress response as threatening

Personality & Achievement

Davis & Mogk (1994) compared elite, sub-elite, non-elite and non-athletes on EPQ, Sensation-seeking and Achievieng Tendency scales:– the key factors linked to the level of competitive

achievment: • emotional stability • and achievment motivation

Personality and success

Piedmont, Hill & Blanco (1999): coach ratings of performance and game stats linked to the Big Five profiles of elite soccer players:– Neuroticism / emotional stability– Conscientiousness / «will to achieve»– acceptance of criticism: «coachability», in

turn linked to higher self-esteem

Personality and Performance

Origins in Org- and Ed- psychology:selecting for success

Personality-Related Position Requirements Form (PPRF; Raymark & Schmidt, 1997):– based on the Big Five model (McRae & Costa, 1992)– found personality factors predictive of job

performance based on specific competencies (job needs analysis)

Sport Psychology is yet to follow PPRF’s lead

Personality and Sport Performance

sceptical vs credulos debate (Morgan, 1980)– Personality is a weak predictor of Sport Performance– but it is a Predictor

Weak theory - wrong place to look for connections Weak method - hopeless in catching a connection

even if there was one (insufficient design) The connection is unlikely to be DIRECT and

IMMEDIATE

The Role of Personality in Sport & ExerciseThe Role of Personality in Sport & Exercise

in the long run:converting ability into achievement

from promice to delivery– sub-elite to elite sport transition

«here and now»:moderating the effects of circumstances on performance

• stress tolerance -vs- anxiety volatile• motivated -vs- slack: e.g. winning from behind• focused -vs- all over the place• injury pronene - hardy

Example 1: Personality in Long Term Achievement Elite Juniors’ transition to Senior AFL (Aidman, 2004)

Method 32 elite junior players from a leading Australian Football

League (AFL) club: mean age 17.8 (1.1) players profiled with Cattell’s 16PF (Form A) at the peak of

their junior playing career – immediately after the season where they won the National Championship in their age group.

Head Coach rated players’ performance and physical potential (5-point Likert scales)

7-year follow-up: has the player made it to senior AFL(drafted+played at least one season) or not ?

Results 13 players made it into senior AFL competition 19 others ended up playing minor leagues or dropped out

of the game altogether MANOVA showed no significant differences between

these two groups of players on primary personality factor profiles

when the players’ physical potential rated by their junior head coach was controlled for in an MANCOVA, the differences between the groups became highly significant: both on multivariate estimates (F (16, 14) = 3.506; p = .012) and on a number of

individual factors

Results: Group Differences

ELITE JUNIOR AFL PLAYER PROFILE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

A B C E F G H I L M N O Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

16PF primary factors

sten

s

Mean

Results: Group Differences

did not make it to seniorAFL

Successful transitionto senior AFL

MANCOVAdifferences

Mean SD Mean SD pG 11.74 2.86 13.38 3.20 .08

Q1 10.16 3.72 8.00 3.58 .018Q2 8.84 2.03 6.92 2.29 .003Q4 12.53 5.65 9.23 2.71 .048

Personality in Long Term AFL Success: Elite Juniors’ transition to Senior AFL

Coach Ratings ONLY:

Compare with flipping a coin

16 Personality Factors Profile ONLY

16 Personality Factors Profile +

ONE Coach Rating (physical potential)::

Aidman (1999, 2000)

Predicting senior AFL performance from personality

11

61

99

0

25

50

75

100

1 2 3

Prediction targets

% v

ari

an

ce

ex

pla

ine

d

Prediction targets:

1. performance in junior championship at the time of testing

2. aggregate of senior achievement over the last 5 seasons (Alpha=.96)

3. coach rating on a 5-point scale: "struggling vs cruising through senior league ranks"

Conclusions: Conclusions:

Confirmed the influence of Personality factors on sub-elite to elite sport transition in AFL

however, this influence is– indirect– observable only in the long term

Interaction with Ability:– Ability (physique in AFL) = entry ticket– Personality acts as a means of converting

ability into achievement (from a promicing junior to an accomplished athlete)

Example 2: Personality and on-the-day performance prediction

(Aidman & Beckerman, 2001)

Specific personality characteristics implicated:– Emotional stability– Achievement orientation– Conscientiousness (e.g., discipline)– Self-concept (e.g., confidence)– Anxiety

Method Participants: 48 Australian Rules football players (M = 21.40 years,

SD = 3.11 years) who played a full season with a successful Victorian Football League (VFL) club

Instruments:– Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; McCrae & Costa, 1992)– Self-Apperception Test (SAT-2; Aidman, 1997, 1999)– Self-Liking/Self-Competence Scale (SLCS; Tafarodi & Swann, 1995)– Stress Appraisal Questionnaire: Threatening versus Exciting

Procedure – Aggregated game statistics across a complete season – ‘Credits’ score representing the effort and quality of performance for each

player in every game

Results Three distinct groups of

players identified:– elite (senior players)– non-elite (reserves)– sub-elite (“swingers” – players

who played at both levels) groups were found to be

predictably different on:– Self-discipline– Achievement Striving– Neuroticism (Fig. 1)

self-disciplineachievementdutifulnessneuroticism

me

an

sco

res

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

player group:

seniors

swingers

reserves

Results: Interaction between personality and situation in the prediction of effort

Three categories of games identified: – ‘Close Games” - in dispute for almost the entirety of the game– ‘Easy Wins’ - where the result was well in the team’s favour

most of the way and no longer in dispute– ‘Bad Losses’ - where the team was well beaten most of the

way and no longer in the contest Hierarchical Regression predicting game performance:

– “easy win” games predictors: Self-discipline and Neuroticism– “close” games predictors: Neuroticism and Self-esteem– “bad losses” - no connection

Table 1. Game performance (‘Credits’) (SD) Across Three Game types, by Stress Appraisal

Threatened

Appraisal

ExcitementAppraisal

Close Game Easy Win Bad Loss

Low Low 4.762 (0.811) 5.452 (0.818) 5.590 (0.823)

High 4.217 (0.796) 4.383 (0.803) 4.376 (0.808)

High Low 3.744 (0.817) 3.950 (0.824) 2.756 (0.829)

high 4.696 (0.513) 4.592 (0.517) 4.385 (0.520)

Stress appraisal and game performance

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Close Game Easy Win Bad Loss

Low threatening LowExciting

Low threatening HighExciting

Low threatening HighExciting

High threatening LowExciting

High threatening HighExciting

Three aspects of Self: Cognitive: self-attributions

• bright, attractive, athletic, slow etc.

Affective: how we feel about these self-attributions (evaluation)

• self-esteem = affective avaluation of self (Martens, 1975)

Behavioural: our tendencies to behave in accordance with self-image

• Self-concept as self-fulfillling prophecy: self-concept is more than self-descriptions, its a commitment to continue being oneself “as described”

Example 3: Self-esteem and Performance(Meagher & Aidman, 2004)

Rationale for Indirect Measurement of SelfRationale for Indirect Measurement of Self

Global self-attitudes vs self-descriptions self-presentation distortions

– deliberate (faking, impression management)

– self-deceptions (genuine)

affective / implicit elements of Self– displaced self-esteem (Cialdini, 1993)– self-positivity bias (Taylor & Brown, 1988)– implicit affiliation / rejection

(Tesser, 1988; Suls & Wills, 1991)

Indirect Measurement of Self-Attitudes:Indirect Measurement of Self-Attitudes:Essential IngredientsEssential Ingredients

Responce latencies in mixed category discrimination tasks (IAT; Greenwald et al. 1998)

(semi) projective stimulation relevant to Self-image – fuzzy images (Ligett, 1959) / facial sketches (Aidman, 1999)

replicable procedure:– semantic differential (Snider &Osgood, 1969)

Relevant self-attitude scales:– global (self-worth, self-competence)– specific (ability, attractiveness, strength...)

Self-reported vs indirect self-appraisal and elite swimmers’ performance (Aidman & Perry, 2000)

Method: Participants

38 elite Australian swimmers (15 females and 23 males, mean age 20.1 years, SD = 2.84) participated as part of their preparation program for the 1998 World Championship

Method: Instruments

Self-Liking/Self-Competence Scale (Tafarodi & Swann, 1995) Cronbach’s alphas: .92 for self-liking

.89 for self-competence Self-Apperception Test (SAT; Aidman, 1999) –

measuring implicit self-appraisal (ISA) Cronbach’s alpha: .83-.90 for Global ISA (retest reliability 0.57 - 0.84)

Method: Procedure Self-appraisal measures taken 3 months and

1 week prior to the competition (time 1) ISP (international performance ratings

devised by FINA) recorded at time 1 and immediately after the competition

implicit self-attitudes hypothesised to predict ISP change (positive self-affect to be associated with gains in ISP)

Declared and Implicit Self-Appraisal: correlations with World ranknings (ISP)

Implicit self-strength r = .33 p < .05

Declared self-liking r = .02 Ns

Declared self-competence r = .04 Ns

Declared and Implicit Self-Appraisal: correlations with pre-post competition change

in swimmers’ ISP

Implicit self-appraisal of ability (combined with its valence)

r = .59 R2=.35

p < .01

Declared self-liking

r = -.2

Ns

Declared self-competence r = .12 Ns

Conclusions Declared self-attitudes DID NOT predict

performance improvement at World Championship

Implict self-appraisal of ability DID, consistent with the theoretical prediction

Implict self-appraisal of strength was directly (although weakly) associated with ISP

none of declared self-esteem scores were

Conclusions cont’d Self-affect is conceptually and meaningfully

linked to athletes’ ability to perform at their best Self-affect measurement may play an important

role in predicting athletic performance at elite level

But in order to fulfill this role, predictions should be (a) specific, (b) conceptually driven, and (c) matched to an adequate method of measurement (i.e. implicit rather than declared)

Overall Conclusions personality effects are likely to be

– Long term (e.g. converting ability into achievement)– Moderating rather than direct (e.g., moderating the effects

of circumstances on performance) Situation is more than a source of noise in

personality measurement – it is a key ingredient of it: “if… then…” behavioural signatures (Mischel, 2004)

Types of situations with psychologically equivalent meaning (e.g., frustration)– Must be very specific– Theory driven

Epilogue: behavioural signatures of aggression not an aggregate aggression score, but a profile of

aggressive responding

“if… then…” (Mischel, 2004) Unprovoked attacks - Aggression as an

intrinsic choice Retaliatory attacks - i.e. «tooth for tooth» Frustration-driven attacks - lashing out at an

obstacle escalation: mastering an aggressive response

may / may not translate to its greater use

Computer-game-embedded assessment (Aidman & Shmelyov, 2002)

Interaction types in reverse desirability order– Avatar is attacked– Avatar’s path blocked– Avatar is allowed through– Avatar is allowed through with a smiling greeting and extra power)

Objectives of the game:– reach desired destination– score maximum points along the way– can be achieved through any combination of:

– searching for effective expressions– searching for efficient routes– attacking the hosts

– player is free to choose the tactics (may be prompted by instruction)

–

Mimics gameMimics game Stimulus material: schematized

facial universals (Ekman, 1999) Avatar - player controlled

expression Hosts - human-like responding

to the Avatar’s expressions objective = negotiate

a maze-like matrix of hosts for a reward :-)

Controllable elementsof expression:

– mouth– eyes– eybrows

each element can be made:– smiling – neutral– frowning

independently of the other two

hosts

avatar

Mimics measures rate of unprovoked attacks (aggression as an intrinsic choice) rate of retaliatory attacks (aggression mirroring) frustration-driven attacks (aggressive over-reaction to blockings) threatening: choosing a frowning expression intrapunitive / avoidant responding to aggression, e.g. evasion Overall - 26 measures

based on automated standardized observations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

unprovoked retaliatory frustration-driven

psychopath

neurotic

evangelist

balanced

Unprovoked attacks under Peaceful and Open instructions

Self-reported

aggression (Buss-Perry total):

instruction

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

peaceful open

low

high

Retaliatory attacks under Peaceful and Open instructions

Self-reported

aggression (Buss-Perry total):

instruction

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

peaceful open

low

high

Frustration-driven attacks under Peaceful and Open instructions

Self-reported

aggression (Buss-Perry total):

instruction

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

peaceful open

low

high

Correlations between Self-reported Aggression and Changes in Mimics parameters

from Peaceful to Open Instruction (N=37)

Bjorkvist et al., 1993 Buss . & Perry, 1992

Aggression mesures physical verbal Indirect social Indirect ratio physical verbal anger hostility

Mimics measures

Unprovoked attacks .06 .18 .12 .29 .05 .14 -.04 -.19

Retaliatory attacks -.17 -.03 -.08 -.04 -.01 .16 .22 -.17

Aggressive out-reaction .41** .25 .27 .49** .45** .15 .42** .29

Evasion -.22 -.16 .01 -.07 -.14 -.32* -.17 -.14

Aidman, E.V. (1999). Measuring individual differences in implicit self-concept: initial validation of the self-apperception test. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 211-228.

Aidman, E. & Carroll, S. (2003) Implicit Individual Differences: Relationships between Implicit Self-Esteem, Gender Identity and Gender Attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 17 (1), 19-37.

Aidman, E., & Shmelyov, A.(2002). Mimix: a symbolic conflict/cooperation simulation program, with embedded protocol recording and automatic psychometric assessment. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 34 (1), 83-89.

Baumeister, R.F., (1999) Low self-esteem does not cause aggression. APA Monitor, 30 (1) , 7.

Baumeister, R.F., Heatherton, T.F., & Tice, D.M. (1993). When ego threats lead to self-regulation failure: Negative consequences of high self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 141-156.

Selected References Greenwald, A.G., McGhee, D.E., & Schwartz, J.K.L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.

Kihlstrom, J. (1999, September). The discovery of the unconscious. Paper presented at the meeting of the Australian Psychological Society, Hobart, Tasmania.

Meagher, B., & Aidman, E. (2004) Individual Differences in Implicit and Declared Self-Esteem as Predictors of Response to Negative Performance Evaluation: Validating Implicit Association Test as a Measure of Self-Attitudes. International Journal of Testing,4 (1),19-42.

Tafarodi, R.W., & Swann, W.B. (1995). Self-liking and self-competence as dimensionality of global self-esteem: initial validation of a measure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 322-342.

Tallent R., & Aidman E. (1995). The impact of residential status upon quality of life in elderly women. 1995 APS Conference, abstracted: Australian Journal of Psychology, 47 (supplement), p. 119.