Post on 17-Mar-2020
transcript
This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:
Coulter, Tristan, Mallett, Clifford, Singer, Jefferson, & Gucciardi, Daniel(2016)Personality in sport and exercise psychology: Integrating a whole personperspective.International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 14(1), pp. 23-41.
This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/91406/
c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters
This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au
Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2015.1016085
Running Head: INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
1
2
3
4
Personality in Sport and Exercise Psychology: Integrating a Whole Person Perspective 5
6
Tristan J. Coulter*; Queensland University of Technology, School of Exercise and Nutrition 7
Sciences; tristan.coulter@qut.edu.au 8
Clifford J. Mallett; The University of Queensland, School of Human Movement and Nutrition 9
Sciences; cmallett@uq.edu.au 10
Jefferson A. Singer; Connecticut College, Department of Psychology; jasin@conncoll.edu 11
and 12
Daniel F. Gucciardi; Curtin University, School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science; 13
d.gucciardi@curtin.edu.au 14
15
Author Notes 16
*Address correspondence to Tristan Coulter, School of Exercise and Nutrition 17
Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia, 4059. 18
Phone: +61 7 31383522, Email: tristan.coulter@qut.edu.au 19
20
Submitted: 18th December 2013 21
Revised Submission: 2nd April 2014 22
2nd Revised Submission: 6th August 2014 23
3rd Revised Submission: 19th January 2015 24
Accepted: 19th January 2015 25
26
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
2
Abstract 1
This paper draws on contemporary views in personality psychology as a means for 2
understanding people participating in sport and physical activity. Specifically, we focus on 3
McAdams’ integrative framework (McAdams, 2013; McAdams & Pals, 2006) and suggest 4
this framework as potentially generative in the field of sport and exercise psychology. 5
McAdams indicates that people can be defined through three layers of understanding, 6
incorporating (a) dispositional traits, (b) characteristic adaptations, and (c) narrative identities. 7
Together these layers provide a vision of the whole person – a perspective of personality 8
rarely adopted by the sport and exercise community. The aim of this paper is to introduce 9
scholars and practitioners to the potential benefits of embracing this whole person outlook, 10
and to discuss the potential opportunities and challenges McAdams’ framework may have for 11
advancing scholarship in sport and exercise psychology. 12
Keywords: integrative theorizing; holism; dispositional traits; characteristic 13
adaptations; narrative identity 14
15
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
3
Personality in Sport and Exercise Psychology: Integrating a Whole Person Perspective 1
Why do some people participate in sport or exercise more frequently than others? 2
What is it about certain individuals that seemingly allow them to adhere in these activities 3
despite the barriers (e.g., personal, social, environmental, financial)? How are people shaped 4
(if at all) by their sport or exercise-related experiences? For decades, scholars have sought 5
answers to these and other questions with the apparent goal of making psychological sense of 6
athletes and exercisers. Many paradigms and theories have been used to guide understanding 7
and practice, the outcomes of which have contributed to what is known about these cohorts 8
(for reviews, see Buckworth, Dishman, O’Connor, & Tomporowski, 2013; Hanrahan & 9
Andersen, 2010). Adopting different paradigms and theories emphasizing certain constructs 10
and principles for describing people speaks to the complexity of the individual (Harwood, 11
Beutler, & Groth-Marnat, 2012). However, in a sport and exercise field, there is no agreed 12
conception about what should be psychologically known about people, or how to integrate 13
different types of knowledge in a coherent and meaningful manner. This paper aims to 14
advance research and practice in this regard. Specifically, we draw on integrative 15
developments in personality psychology and use McAdams’ multilayered framework (1995; 16
2013; McAdams & Pals, 2006) to make a case for a holistic investigation of sport and 17
exercise participants. 18
This paper comprises three parts: (a) prevalent trends in personality psychology and 19
how these trends broadly relate to sport and exercise psychology research; (b) an overview of 20
McAdams’ personality framework and a case study demonstrating the potential utility of this 21
integrative model; and (c) discussion of the opportunities and challenges this framework may 22
have for advancing an understanding of athlete and exercise-related behaviors. 23
Personality Psychology and Trends in Sport and Exercise Research 24
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
4
Personality psychologists seek to understand peoples’ major psychological patterns 1
and how those patterns are expressed in each individual’s life (Mayer, 2005). To paraphrase 2
an iconic passage in the history of the discipline, personality psychologists attend to the study 3
of how every person is (a) like all other persons, (b) like some other persons, and (c) like no 4
other person (Kluckhohn & Murray, 1953). These foci reflect dimensions ranging from what 5
is universal in human nature to those unique patterns of psychological individuality. 6
Amongst the major trends typical of the work conducted by personality psychologists 7
is the importance placed on three distinctions: individual differences, motivation, and holism 8
(McAdams, 1997; McAdams & Pals, 2007). The most common of these is individual 9
differences, involving the study of how people are each like some, but not all others. The 10
second highlights factors that energize and give direction to human behavior (McAdams & 11
Pals, 2007) – aspects of personality that motivate people to do what they do (e.g., Freud’s 12
drives, Murray’s needs, Roger’s self-actualizing tendencies; McAdams & Pals, 2007). Lastly, 13
a third tradition highlights the study of the whole person, which is of special interest here and 14
will be explained further below. This tradition reflects an emphasis by personality 15
psychologists to understand how different aspects of human individuality are organized and 16
integrated to reveal the complexity of the single person’s life (McAdams & Pals, 2007). 17
Broadly relating these three trends to sport and exercise research, we suggest that the 18
focus has mainly been on the areas of individual differences and motivation, with limited 19
attention given to the whole person. For instance, sport and exercise psychologists have been 20
attracted to describing an exercise or athletic personality. This has involved studying 21
variables (i.e., traits, types, constructs) that predict individual differences in areas such as 22
participation, group dynamics, choice of activity, and performance (for reviews, see Allen & 23
Laborde, 2014; Allen, Greenlees, & Jones, 2013; Morris, 2011; Rhodes & Pfaeffli, 2012). 24
The study of motivation is also a prominent feature in sport and exercise research. For 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
5
example, scholars have focused on the role of social-contextual factors in shaping 1
motivational orientations (cf. Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2009; Hein 2
& Hagger, 2007) or in identifying individual differences in motivation (cf. Chantal, Guay, 3
Dobreva-Martinova, & Vallerand, 1996; Crocker, Hoar, McDonough, Kowalski, & Niefer, 4
2004; Fox & Wilson, 2008; Mallett & Hanrahan, 2004). 5
Despite valuable outcomes linked to these topics, a concern for individual difference 6
and motivational research has arguably detracted from the goal of integrating what we know 7
about people from a whole person perspective. Two trends have prevented this goal. First, 8
sport and exercise scholars’ have been attracted to behavioral tendencies (i.e., traits) in their 9
attempt to classify individual differences. As useful as this has been, it is proposed that this 10
investment reflects a narrow view of personality and a preemptive definition of this term as a 11
trait science (Block, 1995; Mischel & Shoda, 2008). Understanding people primarily through 12
their traits also highlights a possible reluctance by sport and exercise scholars to embrace 13
other personality paradigms (Wiggins, 2003) – for instance, contextually-based patterns of 14
functioning (e.g., behavioral signatures; Smith, 2006; Vanden Auweele, Nys, Rzewnicki, & 15
Van Mele, 2001) or the reality of peoples’ lives understood through humanistic, existential, 16
or transpersonal lenses (cf. Gilbourne & Andersen, 2011; Nesti, 2007). 17
Second, scholars have become used to dismantling athletes and exercisers into a series 18
of detached and testable constructs. A strength of studying isolated constructs helps develop a 19
broad understanding of how and why one variable impacts behavior without any other 20
variables confounding this relationship (Tenenbaum, Eklund, & Kamata, 2012). However, 21
disconnected constructs tell us little about the conceptual whole (Harwood et al., 2012), or 22
how different theories might be integrated to provide a holistic concept of the individual. For 23
example, knowing that a person scores high in self-esteem, conscientiousness, or extraversion 24
says little about how this individual places exercise in the context of one’s life, or how this 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
6
activity connects to his or her cultural background, formative memories, or spiritual affinities. 1
Similarly, knowing that an athlete might persist under a certain kind of performance 2
condition does not suggest why he or she competes in the first place or what the meaning of a 3
victory or loss might be in one’s life or to the values held close to this person’s heart. 4
Integrated Perspectives of Personality 5
In the 1990's and early 2000's one of the main obstacles to progressing personality 6
psychology was the evident fragmentation of the field (Mayer, 2005). In efforts to develop 7
specialized areas of study in personality research, different scholars employed widely 8
different theoretical outlooks with little apparent concern for how their findings, methods, 9
and experimentation might fit together with those of others. While accepting specialization as 10
an important strength to personality psychology, some warned its emphasis in the absence of 11
integrative perspectives presented potential difficulties to advancing knowledge in the 12
discipline (cf. Mayer & Allen 2013). 13
To resolve this issue of fragmentation, the past two decades have witnessed 14
personality psychologists move towards integrative theorizing. Integrative perspectives in 15
personality psychology have re-introduced broad conceptual systems as a generative trend for 16
understanding people. This trend aligns with approaches conceived by the field’s intellectual 17
ancestors (e.g., Allport, Murray, Eysenck) and an emphasis on how diverse constructs 18
derived from various personality theories might complement each other. Examples of 19
integrative frameworks evident in personality psychology include Mayer’s personality 20
systems framework (2005), McCrae and Costa’s five-factor theory personality system (1996), 21
and McAdams’ three-layered framework of personality (1995; 2013; McAdams & Pals, 22
2006). Of these frameworks, McAdams’ approach has arguably been the most well-received 23
(Campbell, 2008; Singer, 2005) especially given its appealing simplicity and tolerance 24
towards any particular ideology of personality. 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
7
In sport and exercise psychology, talk of personality in terms of different layers of 1
understanding is not new. For example, introductory texts on the subject often explain 2
personality using Hollander’s (1967) structural model (e.g., Weinberg & Gould, 2015). 3
Similar to McAdams, Hollander theorized personality as comprising a set of separate yet 4
related layers (featuring one’s psychological core, typical responses, and role-related 5
behaviors). However, McAdams’ integrated framework represents a modern take on 6
personality; it moves beyond understanding people along an imaginary trait-state continuum, 7
also embracing contrasting personality paradigms. 8
McAdams formulated an integrated model combining all three of Kluckhohn and 9
Murray’s (1953) levels – and the connections between these levels (Campbell, 2008) – for 10
understanding people as whole persons (McAdams, 1997). While sport and exercise literature 11
does evidence cases of embracing a holistic perspective (cf. Dale, 1996; 2000; Singer, 1994), 12
this is not widely adopted in the field. Also, in contrast to the apparent emphasis with 13
individual difference and motivational research in sport and exercise, considering integrative 14
approaches towards studying the whole person is broadly lacking. In this regard, we suggest 15
that approving an integrative view of personality might broaden horizons in sport and 16
exercise psychology. Making this decision may allow scholars adopting certain approaches 17
for studying the psychology of people to better appreciate how their endorsed principles and 18
methods complement those with different outlooks. An integrative approach can also help 19
reinforce the link between sport and exercise psychology and contemporary thinking in 20
personality psychology. To this end, we consider the potential integrative theorizing has for 21
the discipline, drawing specifically on McAdams’ three-tiered personality framework. 22
The Whole Person: An Overview of McAdams’ Integrated Personality Framework 23
McAdams theorized personality in terms of different and emerging layers of 24
understanding (McAdams & Manczak, 2011) that are complexly situated in culture and 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
8
shaped by human nature (McAdams & Pals, 2006). Each layer denotes a branch of 1
personality theory, the function of which is to propose measurable constructs of human 2
variation. McAdams argued that to know a person and account for psychological 3
individuality, we must draw information from three different discourses, namely (a) 4
dispositional traits; (b) one’s conscious goals and purposes; (c) unfolding identities and self-5
stories. This layered perspective emphasizes the different ways that people might understand 6
both themselves and others (McAdams, 2013) – an account that says what a person is 7
generally like, how he or she adapts to the different demands of social life, and what he or 8
she believes one’s life means as a psychosocially constructed narrative evolving over time 9
(McAdams, 2006). 10
The Social Actor: A Dispositional Perspective 11
Layer 1 entails dispositional traits representing a set of broad and comparative 12
tendencies. These tendencies indicate peoples’ behavior, thought, and feeling in consistent 13
ways across context and time. Traits are the most stable and basic aspect of personality that 14
give a broad outline of people’s behavioral signature. Based largely on the transaction 15
between genes and early life experiences, traits capture general individual differences among 16
social actors (McAdams, 2013); they emphasize variances in people’s behavioral and 17
emotional adjustment to, and engagement with, the social world. They also act as a major 18
source of information in making comparative assessments of peoples’ social performances. 19
Embracing Eysenckian, Cattelian, and Big Five schools of thought, McAdams (1995) 20
emphasized that the strength of the trait approach is as a decontextualized and non-21
conditional indicator of overall behavioral trends. Peoples’ traits progressively stabilize from 22
early adolescence (Roberts, Wood, & Caspi, 2008), and by early adulthood they have 23
established a profile that defines the kind of person they are: as parent, partner, worker – 24
athlete or exerciser (McAdams, 2013). Typically assessed via self-report questionnaires or 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
9
observer ratings, traits position a person on a series of bipolar, linear continua that describe 1
the basic dimensions upon which he or she is typically perceived to differ (McAdams & 2
Manczak, 2011); how one is like some (but not all) others. This layer of personality is where 3
sport and exercise scholars have invested heavily in wanting to determine comparative and 4
distinguishing trait patterns of athletes or exercisers (Allen & Laborde, 2014; Rhodes & 5
Pfaeffli, 2012). Overall, traits say much about peoples’ abilities to regulate themselves across 6
context and time, and their effectiveness to get along with (social acceptance) and ahead of 7
(social status) those around them (Hogan, 1982). However, to capture the personality of the 8
whole person, traits are limited and can only go so far (McAdams, 2009). 9
The Motivated Agent: Characteristic Adaptations 10
For a more detailed and nuanced portrait of personality, McAdams emphasized a 11
second layer of understanding consisting of various characteristic adaptations. This aspect of 12
personality specifies that people differ in a wide range of motivational (e.g., motives, goals, 13
strivings), social-cognitive (e.g., values, beliefs, expectancies, schemas), and developmental 14
ways (e.g., ego and identity stages; McAdams & Pals, 2006). More so than traits, these 15
adaptations are activated and shaped by social demands and speak to what people want and 16
value (McAdams, 2006). Human agency is at the heart of McAdams’ second layer 17
(McAdams & Olsen, 2010) – one also highlighting the life methods people employ to meet 18
their intentions, and how they each respond to events in predictable ways across the different 19
contexts, roles, and stages of their lives. 20
A major share of behavior is oriented by goal-directed wants and desires (Bandura, 21
1989). By mid-childhood onwards, people become motivated agents; they slowly emerge as 22
human beings who define themselves in terms of personal and culturally emphasised goals 23
and values (McAdams, 2013). Developing alongside their traits – albeit along a different 24
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
10
course (McAdams & Olsen, 2010) – people eventually commit to a set of values, ideologies, 1
and goals that reflect both their agency and society’s constraints (McAdams, 2013). 2
Understanding people by McAdams’ social actor (layer 1) speaks of personality in 3
terms of structure and broad performance style; it theorizes people in terms of their traits and 4
the sense that these traits have been bestowed upon them – people have their traits (‘I am 5
agreeable’; ‘she is optimistic; McAdams, 2013). Conceptually separate, conceiving people as 6
motivated agents (layer 2) emphasizes behavior expressed in terms of future ends, personality 7
dynamics, and the idea that people plan their lives (McAdams & Olsen, 2010). Quite 8
different from traits, people choose their goals in light of the social contingencies afforded to 9
them (‘I want to be world number one’; ‘I value my health above all else’). So, while people 10
can be understood in terms of their dispositional traits, they can also be defined through their 11
goals, values, and other characteristic adaptations – each developing differently over time 12
(McAdams & Olsen, 2010). However, people are not known well enough unless a third layer 13
of personality is considered and integrated (McAdams, 1995). 14
The Autobiographical Author: A Self-Narrative Perspective 15
Representing the final layer of personality, McAdams recognized that people vary in 16
respect of the personal narratives they construct to define what their lives mean. This 17
suggests that seeing people by their traits and characteristic adaptations falls short of fully 18
understanding them; specifically, these constructs are unable to depict people’s self-19
construction or life story – an internalized narrative that integrates the past, present, and 20
future shaping their a sense of identity. People’s self-authorship begins early in life with the 21
emergence of autobiographical memory in childhood (Fivush, 2011), an understanding of 22
features in story telling (Mandler, 1984), and the development of autobiographical reasoning 23
skills from late childhood (Habermas & Bluck, 2000). By the time people reach late 24
adolescence and their early 20s, combined with the social expectation to form an identity, 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
11
they become autobiographical authors (McAdams, 2013) able to derive meaning, unity, and 1
purpose from life events that define who they are; that is, how each came to be and where 2
each may be headed (McAdams, 2008). 3
Much more than the actor’s traits or agent’s characteristic adaptations, the author’s 4
stories are strongly shaped by culture, reflecting themes prevalent in the culture wherein the 5
person’s life is experienced and from which it derives a sense of coherence and order 6
(Wiggins, 2003). Therefore, while traits suggest the type of person somebody is, and 7
characteristic adaptations concern what people want and value, and how they might respond 8
to events in given contexts, periods, or roles, narrative identities give lives their unique and 9
culturally anchored meanings (McAdams & Pals, 2006) – a reflection of how every person is 10
like no other. The importance of studying narrative identities is well established in 11
personality psychology, for instance, with researchers identifying the content themes and 12
structural characteristics of life stories, and the role personal memories have for 13
psychological health and personal growth (McAdams, 2008; Singer, Blagov, Berry & Oost, 14
2013; Smith, 2000). In sport and exercise psychology, narrative identity has only recently 15
begun to attract scholarly attention (cf. Douglas & Carless, 2015; Smith & Sparkes, 2009). 16
Case Example: Integrating McAdams Three Layers 17
To appreciate how McAdams’ actor-agent-author framework might apply in a sport 18
and exercise context, we use a hypothetical example of an elite adult (male) athlete who 19
dopes in sport to emphasize how each personality layer might differently contribute to 20
understanding this individual’s behavior from a whole person perspective. To start, we might 21
choose to inspect this athlete from the outlook of social actor. Here we are interested in how 22
this person compares with others by locating him along a continuum that specifies particular 23
dimensions; these might reflect dispositions of risk-taking, self-esteem, integrity, or 24
vulnerability to peer pressure, for instance – constructs that give some insight to the 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
12
susceptible nature of this athlete (Petróczi & Aidman, 2008). By focusing on trait constructs, 1
we can be reasonably sure this individual is likely to show a consistent pattern on these 2
dimensions across situation, time, and role. For example, if scoring high in vulnerability to 3
peer pressure, this person is more likely than most to consistently succumb to a group’s wants 4
or desires regardless of context. If he also scores high in risk taking and low in both self-5
esteem and integrity, we might tentatively speculate he could be prone (more so than others) 6
to engage in doping practices in sport. 7
However, traits or habitual constructs represent only one paradigm (and layer) for 8
considering peoples’ personalities. In this case, they are useful and necessary to explain the 9
behavior of somebody that may dope in sport – but only to an extent. Explaining sport dopers 10
in terms of integrity, risk taking, vulnerability, and so forth, is not sufficient to explain their 11
behavior more fully. To understand a particular athlete’s decision to engage in doping 12
practices, we would need to know much more. For example, does this person’s strong 13
willingness to take risks (if scoring high for risk taking, for instance) manifest itself in his 14
role as an athlete in sport? In what sporting situations does he take risks, or what defenses or 15
coping strategies are employed when faced with this choice? What are his goals and 16
aspirations in sport that may emphasize the need for this person to take chances, such as to 17
influence the decision to dope in sport? How might this decision be impacted by the phase of 18
this athlete’s career, or the cultural context in which he trains and competes? These are 19
questions that traits cannot answer. The job of traits is to provide data about the primary ways 20
people operate – the ‘what’ of personality – and the type of person this elite individual is 21
from a broad and decontextualized perspective. 22
For a more conditional understanding of this person, and to explore why, when, and 23
how he might decide to dope in sport, information must be drawn from McAdams’ second 24
layer, which views personality from the perspective of motivated agent. Here we might 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
13
investigate what this athlete is trying to accomplish by his doping behavior; for instance, 1
what he needs, values, or wants to avoid by making this commitment at this particular time in 2
his sporting life. Perhaps this athlete wants to avoid falling below the competitive standard 3
recently set by his peers, thus overlooking the risks doping may have to personal health, 4
career, and reputation. Perhaps his values do not conceive doping as particularly problematic 5
in sport, or is someone who operates in a culture that normalizes this behavior (e.g., 6
coach/teammate pressure to conform to doping). Or maybe this athlete justifies any moral 7
dilemma in this regard given the prestige or fame acquired through one’s performances that 8
would conceivably not be possible without any artificial influence. Posing these issues, 9
according to McAdams, enables us to learn about how this elite performer generates 10
characteristic adaptations that fit his personality to the demands of time, situation, and role. 11
They also help fill in some of details about personality, adding in intentional and contextual 12
richness to complement this individual’s trait profile. 13
To understand this athlete’s decision to dope in sport, there is much to be gained from 14
considering him through the lens of McAdams’ social actor and motivated agent. However, 15
the third domain of McAdams’ framework concerns how this elite performer finds meaning 16
in his needs and role in life and sport. Specifically, this third domain concerns how this 17
individual constructs a narrative of his life; how he tells the story of who he is, and what 18
meanings he assigns to this story. Honing in on how this person constructs his identity as an 19
elite sportsman, we might discover that he sees himself as someone engaged in a struggle to 20
live up to expectations; these expectations might relate to fulfilling the potential placed on 21
him since childhood (e.g., by an overly dominant parent) or as a talented youngster (whose 22
ability was exaggerated). We may learn that winning, for this athlete, acts as an antidote for 23
such deep-rooted anxieties where being unable to compete with the best signals a perception 24
of weakness or a notion of being dominated by others. This athlete’s understanding of self, 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
14
and the manner in which he reflects on the past, present, and future may tell of a person 1
seeking conditional regard that justifies the decision to dope; a person who lives through a 2
rulebook of past memories and linked emotions where victory and remaining competitive, by 3
whatever means, has become a psychological imperative (not choice) marking a desire for 4
control and admiration. He may identify with particular archetypes, such as wanting to see 5
himself as the “the hero” in his own story: The competent sportsman who proves his self-6
worth through outstanding performances and an ability to display expert mastery. However, 7
in reality maybe an inability to live out this fantasy – for instance, due to persistent injuries, 8
personal circumstances, or in the end, just not being quite good enough comparatively – 9
drives this person to turn to doping as a necessary and defensible measure. 10
By exploring this individual’s personal narratives, we can gain an appreciation of how 11
he sees himself as fitting into a sporting world. Crucially, we have an insight of this athlete’s 12
personality within the context of the actual events of his life. Specifically, we can learn about 13
the events, experiences, and relationships he perceives as pivotal, and the meaning attached 14
to them, and how this individual uniquely (like no other person) turns these memories into an 15
overarching self-narrative that may inform us of why he has turned to doping. Overall, by 16
applying McAdams’ framework to understand the personality of this individual case, we 17
might start with the fundamental building blocks of this athlete – the descriptive traits. Traits 18
are likely to have their foundation in the underlying temperamental disposition of the 19
individual and in his most stable cognitive and socioemotional responses to the world. Next, 20
contextualized motives, values, and other characteristic adaptations reflect this individual’s 21
efforts to regulate his pursuit of certain sporting goals in the context of achievement 22
demands, developmental challenges, relationships, and particular role demands. Lastly, 23
attempting to understand how this performer makes sense of his life through the construction 24
of a narrative identity speaks to how he crafts meaning and purpose to his existence. 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
15
Integrative Theorizing In Sport and Exercise Psychology: Opportunities and 1
Challenges 2
McAdams defined personality as “an individual’s unique variation on the general 3
evolutionary design for human nature, expressed as a complex pattern of dispositional traits, 4
characteristic adaptations, and self-defining life narratives, complexly and differentially 5
situated in culture and social context” (McAdams & Pals, 2006, p. 204). We now discuss 6
some opportunities and challenges for conceiving personality in this way in sport and 7
exercise psychology. Specifically, we emphasize the potential this perspective of personality 8
may have for understanding the whole person in the discipline. 9
Opportunities 10
Broadening personality. Arguably the most important opportunity McAdams’ 11
framework has for sport and exercise psychology is the emphasis placed on defining 12
personality from a broader perspective than has been customary in the sport and exercise 13
domains – a view merging how people are each the same, similar, but also unique 14
(Kluckhohn & Murray, 1953). Researchers in this discipline have generally defined 15
personality in terms of peoples’ habitual traits. The offer to embrace a more integrative 16
perspective should not suggest that we view understanding personality through trait theory or 17
related measures as an inferior exercise. On the contrary, without the aid of trait descriptors 18
(self as social actor), it is hard to imagine how broad differences among athletes or exercisers 19
might be recorded. In sport, for example, elite athletes are usually more extraverted, 20
emotionally stable, conscientious, and agreeable than their sub-elite counterparts (Allen et al., 21
2013); likewise, regular exercisers exhibit traits associated with higher extraversion, 22
conscientiousness, and lower levels of neuroticism (Rhodes & Pfaeffli, 2012). Also, we 23
advocate the potential importance and role of traits as long-term moderators in predicting 24
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
16
behavioral outcomes in sport and physical activity (see Aidman & Schofield, 2004; Allen et 1
al., 2013). 2
However, according to McAdams, traits represent only one aspect for considering the 3
personalities of people (McAdams & Pals, 2006). The great strength of traits is that they are 4
comparative and non-conditional (McAdams, 1995). Nevertheless, to appreciate people from 5
a whole person perspective, scholars and practitioners should not restrict themselves to 6
defining personality from this sole viewpoint. For instance, the more one gets to know any 7
athlete or exerciser, the less concerned one might be for how this person compares with 8
others’ behavioral and emotional tendencies. Considering the conditional, contextual, and 9
dynamic reactions of people may also be important, or gaining insight to how persons create 10
meaning and purpose relative to their sport or exercise activities. To appreciate a holistic 11
vision of people participating (or not) in sport and physical activity, these additional aspects 12
are equally relevant to describing personality; together they point to important aspects of 13
human variation captured by McAdams’s rhetorical actor, agent, and author. 14
Personality-in-context. As people behave in accordance with the constraints of their 15
social lives, it is important to recognize how culture exerts itself on personality. McAdams’ 16
integrative framework gives an opportunity to better understand this complex relationship; in 17
particular, a key feature of this framework is how it accounts for the different ways culture 18
transmits across each of McAdams’ three personality layers (see Table 1). From a sport and 19
exercise perspective, unpacking the relationship between culture and personality may have 20
considerable value; for example, it may improve how investigators appreciate how people 21
come to be influenced by their sport and exercise contexts. 22
From the view of the social actor, due to the significant genetic foundation of traits 23
one might expect these constructs to be largely resistant to social influences (McCrae & 24
Costa, 1997). In particular, the meaning systems and practices that constitute a certain culture 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
17
seem to have little impact on the magnitude or variance of peoples’ trait scores (McAdams & 1
Pals, 2006). While culture may not greatly influence how much of a particular trait (or set of 2
traits) people end up with, McAdams suggested that traits nonetheless have a subtle 3
relationship with culture; he emphasized that cultural forces provide the display rules and 4
demand norms for the behavioral expression of traits (McAdams & Pals, 2006). This assumes 5
that while people embedded in different cultures may score similarly on certain trait 6
dimensions, how these traits are expressed may differ greatly. For example, an athlete’s 7
agreeableness is agreeableness regardless of wherever and whenever it is expressed. 8
However, how athletes from Australia or the USA display their agreeableness may differ to 9
their peers in China (ren qing; moral obligation to maintain relationships), the Philippines 10
(pakikisama; consenting to group desires), or Mexico (simpatía; avoidance of conflict); that 11
is, how their agreeableness (conscientiousness, neuroticism, and so forth) is shown may vary 12
relevant to the ideals and customs prevalent in these different societies (Church, 2000), 13
including those of sport. 14
Compared with the actor’s traits, McAdams suggested that social forces have a larger 15
impact on the content, timing, and importance of different characteristic adaptations 16
(McAdams & Pals, 2006). Different sport or exercise cultures (e.g., sport codes, 17
organizations, various exercise settings) stress different ideals, which subsequently set limits 18
on expected and valued forms of behavior. Such limits contour peoples’ selected 19
commitments to certain goals, motives, values, beliefs, and coping strategies. For instance, in 20
an elite sporting context in the UK a premium may be placed on establishing goals that 21
accentuate autonomy, attainment, and power of the individual over and above others. Such 22
cultural surroundings may influence how an athlete understands oneself as a motivated agent 23
– a separation of self, perhaps, to get ahead of the group, where self-esteem relies on 24
individual achievement (cf. McAdams, 2013); the goal of winning or excelling could be 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
18
placed in the context of material gain or individual status depending on where cultural 1
emphases align. In contrast, high performance athletes from Polynesian or Japanese cultures 2
may emphasize a different pattern of characteristic adaptations; their goals, values, and 3
beliefs stressing more an interdependent and collectivist emphasis, where personal success 4
empowers the group and brings honor to one’s family or tribe. 5
Finally, at the most unique layer of personality the link to culture is most evident 6
(McAdams, 2006). Autobiographical life stories capture and elaborate metaphors and images 7
resonating in a given culture (McAdams & Olsen, 2010). For instance, what any culture 8
emphasizes as success or integrity in sport, or what represents “obesity,” “fitness,” or a mark 9
of “good health” has connotations for how people each construct identity as an athlete or 10
exerciser. From this perspective, culture thus defines what a good sport or exercise story is 11
and should be. It provides people with a menu of stories about how to live their active lives, 12
suggesting what these lives may mean and how they may be valued. It pulls on each person 13
to borrow from these cultural scripts to forge an identity. 14
When it comes to understanding the relationship between culture and personality, 15
McAdams advocates a simple message: “The influence of culture and social environments on 16
personality is complex and multidimensional, and it depends greatly on what aspects of 17
personality are chosen” (McAdams & Pals, 2006, p. 212). For us, conceiving personality via 18
an actor-agent-author framework has potential to advance what is known about people in 19
their sport and physical activity settings. It emphasizes the various ways in which athletes and 20
exercisers can be influenced by the cultural context to a greater or lesser extent. 21
Personality development. One of the most researched topics in sport and exercise 22
psychology concerns the issue of development. The role of sport and physical activity in 23
child and adolescent development has received much of this attention (Wiese-Bjornstal, 24
LaVoi, & Omli, 2009), although notable efforts by some have encouraged the psychological 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
19
study of sport and exercise across the entire human lifespan (cf. Whaley, 2007; Weiss, 2004). 1
McAdams’ integrated framework gives opportunity to complement work in both of these 2
related areas. Specifically, this framework may help to clarify the emergence of personality 3
(and coming together of the whole person) relevant to self-perceptions in youth development. 4
It may also help clarify personality’s stability and change across the adult lifespan given its 5
multilayered emphasis (cf. McAdams & Cox, 2010; McAdams & Olsen, 2010). 6
Examining how children and adolescents understand themselves has been an 7
important research area in sport and exercise psychology. For example, how young people 8
differentiate and integrate perspectives of themselves across various domains or how they 9
perceive their abilities and self-worth – and the social forces at work shaping this perception 10
– has been of interest to developmental scholars (cf. Harter, 2006; Horn, 2004). McAdams’ 11
view regarding the emergence of personality may help consolidate knowledge about people 12
during this early phase of life development (see Table 1). For instance, he suggested that 13
people begin their lives derived from genetically determined temperamental tendencies, and 14
the complex transaction of these tendencies with proximal environmental factors (Caspi, 15
1998; Krueger & Johnson, 2008). Out of this, children build up representations of themselves 16
as social actors. To begin with, these representations are simple and concrete, but by late 17
childhood and early adolescence they are more complex and abstract, expressed in the form 18
of dispositional traits (McAdams & Cox, 2010). These traits begin to show signs of 19
consistency during the preteen years (Roberts et al., 2008), a trend that continues to stabilize 20
into adulthood emphasizing peoples’ typical behavioral and regulatory style on the social 21
stage (McAdams & Pals, 2006). 22
However, by the time children move into and through primary school they are not just 23
social actors; they have become more planful and self-consciously goal-directed signalling 24
the emergence of a motivated agent. Understanding the self as an agent emphasizes a person 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
20
in terms of recurrent wants and desires. By ages 7 or 8, children also define themselves by 1
their most important goals (McAdams & Olsen, 2010) reflecting certain motives (cf. 2
McClelland, 1985) and needs (cf. Deci & Ryan, 1985), and the desires of social influences 3
(e.g., family, school). As children gauge their progress regarding their goal pursuits, 4
individual differences in self-esteem emerge; this may fluctuate considerably through 5
adolescence in various domains depending on the personal achievements made relative to 6
peers, and in line with others’ expectations (e.g., parent, teacher, coach; Harter, 2006). 7
If people begin life as social actors, and by mid-childhood they have also become 8
motivated agents, it is not until late adolescence that they develop as autobiographical authors 9
(McAdams & Olsen, 2010). By this stage, people are able to use their more sophisticated 10
abstract reasoning skills and greater life experiences to put their lives together into purposeful 11
and meaningful narrative identities. They have internalized how a typical life in their culture 12
develops, and they have the cognitive skills to construct causal sequences in life-narrative 13
accounts and to derive overarching life themes (McAdams & Cox, 2010). 14
Taken together, valuing how personality emerges across McAdams’ three layers may 15
allow scholars to appreciate more fully the different aspects of self, and the extent to which 16
each of these require attention for understanding psychological development in the sport and 17
physical activity domains. For instance, to understand the personality of a 5-year old, 18
assessing traits would be enough, “for that is all there is” (McAdams & Walden, 2010, p. 54); 19
by the time he or she becomes a teenager, personality is not just about consistent individual 20
differences in behavioral and emotional tendencies; it is also about the consequential 21
variation associated with how this person understands and pursues one’s sport and exercise 22
goals, and the personal values linked to these activities; when reaching 20 years of age, this 23
person is likely to have already begun to experience the third layer of personality; the 24
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
21
creation of a personal narrative that speaks of one’s identity as an athlete or exerciser, and the 1
meaning physical activity has for this individual (if any) so far in his or her young life. 2
This notion of an actor-, agent-, and author-self may also help clarify the degree of 3
stability and change inherent to personality over time. McAdams suggests that in the adult 4
years, all three guises of personality are fully operative (McAdams & Cox, 2010); as the 5
actor-self, the adult is aware of him or herself as an actor who plays characteristic roles and 6
who expresses characteristic action patterns (“I am self-disciplined”; “I get embarrassed 7
about how I look around others”); as the agent-self, the adult articulates and organizes his or 8
her life according to long-term plans and goals (“I am exercising 4 times a week to lose 9
100lbs”; “I avoid eating every meal because I do not want to get overweight”); as the author-10
self, the adult constructs a self-defining life story to provide a narrative meaning for life (“I 11
am living a story of atonement from my early days of alcohol abuse”; “Being diagnosed with 12
diabetes was a turning point in my life to live a healthier lifestyle”). 13
In terms of change, each layer of personality follows its own trajectory over time; the 14
temporal stability for individual differences in traits increases over the life course, reaching 15
high levels in the middle-adult years; the content, structure, organization, and pursuit of goals 16
may change to reflect normative and idiosyncratic shifts in the social ecology of daily life 17
(e.g., increasing concern with commitments to family and community involvement); life 18
narratives increase in complexity and coherence up through midlife and vary considerably 19
dependent on the different events and experiences people have in their lives, and how they 20
make meaning from these events reflecting cultural themes (McAdams & Olsen, 2010). 21
Overall, peoples’ relationship and connection with sport and physical activity over the 22
lifespan is likely to reflect how these various forms of self – actor, agent, and author – 23
develop and interact with each other from childhood to old age (cf. McAdams & Olsen, 24
2010). Developmental scholars in sport and exercise psychology recognize the importance of 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
22
understanding different aspects of the self (cf. Whaley, 2007); they also understand the 1
importance of utilizing developmental perspectives in mainstream psychology to guide 2
research practice in the sport and exercise domains (Weiss, 2004). We suggest that 3
McAdams’ vision of personality may also contribute considerably in this regard. 4
Advancing research and practice. Employing McAdams’ actor-agent-author lens 5
may also generate opportunities for researchers and applied practitioners in sport and exercise 6
psychology. From a research perspective, for instance, at a basic level McAdams’ framework 7
could act as an overarching conception organizing the many constructs potentially relevant to 8
studying people participating in sport and exercise (cf. McAdams & Pals, 2007). Through his 9
framework, McAdams’ offers a way of capturing the broad landscape of personality. This 10
outlook may be useful for researchers, allowing them to potentially (a) appreciate personality 11
from a whole person standpoint; (b) place their research interests and expertise in a 12
comparative and complimentary framework emphasizing diverse constructs of variation; and 13
(c) acknowledge the different aspects of self – some of which may lie outside their concern or 14
jurisdiction – that may be important to shaping people’s behavior and self-perceptions in 15
sport and physical activity. 16
Equally, examining the relations within and between McAdams’ layers encourages 17
researchers to move beyond unidimensional aspects of personality to a more integrated and 18
interdisciplinary approach. This may allow for increased complementary explanations of 19
sport, exercise, and health-related behaviors and outcomes, and a more effective 20
understanding of the personal, social, and environmental conditions that influence these 21
matters (c.f., Hagger, 2009). Investigators might consider new research questions exploring 22
the interdependencies among constructs relevant to McAdams’ actor, agent, and author; for 23
example: What do dispositional trait patterns (social actor) suggest about the narrative themes 24
inherent to the life stories (autobiographical author) of elite athletes? How does a certain 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
23
exercise culture influence the strivings (motivated agent) of rehabilitating exercisers? How do 1
people’s childhood traits (social actor at Time 1) associate with their exercise goals and 2
values in later life (motivated agent at Time 2)? How might psychological need satisfaction 3
mediate the role of personality traits (actor), goals (agent), and identity (author) in predicting 4
the subjective well-being of older populations? Scholars might use McAdams’ framework as 5
one option for theory creation and empirical model building. They might use multilevel and 6
causal pathway procedures to explore how different layers of personality are organized and 7
regulated relative to certain sport and exercise behaviors. 8
From an applied perspective, McAdams’ framework could be appealing to 9
psychologists working in the field. Acknowledging people as actors, agents, and authors 10
simplifies complex psychological and social theory (McAdams, 2013) – in doing so, 11
potentially helping professionals (and their clients) have a clearer understanding of what is 12
meant by personality, and the various aspects of self related with this term (see Singer, 2005, 13
for an operationalized example of McAdams’ framework in the clinical domain). Using 14
McAdams’ framework may also benefit intervention planning and client formulations for 15
fostering improved performance, self-enhancement, and enjoyment in sport and exercise. A 16
psychologist’s work often aims for changes in personality – for instance, via motivational 17
(e.g., goal-setting, empowerment), social-cognitive (e.g., schema therapy, attribution 18
training), and developmental adaptations (e.g., identity exploration and commitment), or 19
narrative understandings (e.g., co-construction of life events). While traits are rarely the 20
target for intervention, being aware of trait profiles may help a psychologist better relate and 21
interact with his or her clients (Allen et al., 2013) or, at the very least, give an improved 22
understanding of their typical behavioral and emotional tendencies. 23
Also, how psychologists prime features of actor, agent, and author may have 24
psychological and behavioral consequences for their clients (McAdams, 2013). This 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
24
procedure might involve assisting clients to appreciate themselves either by the type of 1
persons they are (actor), what they want and value (agent), or who they are in time (author). 2
From a sport and exercise perspective, this may influence how people engage with physical 3
activity; for example, the way in which people promote or emphasize themselves differently 4
– as actor, agent, and/or author – might influence how they respond to certain exercise 5
barriers. Overall, appreciating differences in the ways that clients define themselves (e.g., by 6
their traits, goals, beliefs, values, self-stories) may lend itself to more person-centered case 7
formulations and intervention planning (cf. McAdams, 2013). 8
Challenges 9
To this point, we have focused on the potential conceptual and practical advantages of 10
adopting McAdams’ framework as a means for understanding people in sport and exercise 11
settings. However, adopting this approach may also pose notable challenges. 12
Multivariate designs. How much converging evidence is necessary to 13
comprehensively say we know an athlete or exerciser? The scope and depth encompassing 14
McAdams’ framework, and the potential complexity in translating how to make sense of 15
assembling data sets spanning various paradigms, presents a practical and empirical 16
challenge for sport and exercise psychologists. Personality concerns itself with the collective 17
function of numerous psychological subsystems that contribute to people’s expression of 18
psychological individuality (Mayer, 2005). Although converging multiple constructs may 19
seem intuitively attractive to understanding the sport or exercise participant, sheer breadth 20
should not be gained at the expense of other, equally valuable, research goals. 21
The benefits and challenges of employing multivariate research have been reported in 22
previous sport and exercise literature (e.g., Vanden Auweele et al., 2001). A major challenge 23
of including numerous variables to endorsing an integrated approach is the need for very 24
large sample sizes. This may be a problem, especially when attempting to gather sizable elite 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
25
athletic samples. It also invites statistical issues with data analyses (e.g., multicollinearity). 1
Although certain analytical techniques can help compensate for some of these challenges, 2
other concerns also require consideration, such as the burden placed on participants. 3
While researchers may want to measure multiple variables across McAdams’ 4
framework, taking note of potential practical issues regarding what is realistic and 5
reasonable, and being aware of the restricting factors in doing so, is advisable. The solution 6
may depend on the knowledge of the research team, their thoughts about what is most 7
important on conceptual grounds, and the resources available for gathering different sorts of 8
personality data (Sheldon, 2011). The challenge may be to balance what is relevant (i.e., the 9
major predictors of variance), efficient, and optimal when considering a comprehensive 10
understanding of athletes and exercisers, and providing a compelling rationale. Ultimately, 11
support for McAdams’ framework as a scheme for guiding personality research in sport and 12
exercise psychology will become evident through empirical examination. Researchers in this 13
discipline are yet to test its applicability, although evidence of its utility in mainstream 14
personality literature exists. Recent examples include examining self-regulation (Manczak, 15
Zapata-Gietl, & McAdams, 2014), self-concept (Dunlop, Walker, & Wiens, 2013), moral 16
action (Walker & Frimer, 2007), and psychological well-being (Adler, 2012; Sheldon, 17
Cheng, & Hilpert, 2011) across McAdams’ three-layer framework. Sport and exercise 18
scholars might also find Sheldon et al.’s guidelines for designing multidisciplinary studies 19
incorporating McAdams’ framework as a good starting point for generating contemporary 20
research questions and integrative study designs through this lens. 21
Explanatory constraints. There may more to understanding an athlete or exerciser 22
than providing a full description of characteristics residing at the three layers presented in 23
McAdams' framework. In his own words, McAdams (1995) noted that descriptive models in 24
both science and social life “may and often should lead to attempts at explanation” (p. 387). 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
26
Beyond describing people in trait, adaptation, and life story terms, scholars are more likely to 1
know people in sport and physical activity better if they can explain why they are the way 2
they are; for example, why a person develops strong neurotic and perfectionistic traits that 3
energize his or her need for exercise addiction; why an athlete’s life story emphasizes 4
performance success as a means for gaining conditional parental regard. 5
To understand personality more fully, it may be important to recognize the 6
determining factors at work that influence the three domains of McAdams’ framework, and 7
the constructs embedded in each of these domains. As a descriptive model of personality, 8
McAdams makes no claims that his framework acts as an overarching explanatory theory of 9
personality. It neither explains why a person shows the characteristics of each of the three 10
domains nor how these domains might account for each other (Singer, 2005). Instead, 11
McAdams has focused purposely on the structure and function of personality – the “what is” 12
of personality (McAdams, 1995 p. 368). He argued that to make sense of any individual one 13
must first be able to provide a good understanding and description of what his or her 14
personality is in the present – after which explanations regarding how personality came to be, 15
or how it may be changed, can be debated (McAdams, 1995). This makes good sense, and it 16
underscores the point that to know any athlete or exerciser is first and foremost to be able to 17
describe him or her fully to another – a translation of this person’s observed behaviors in a 18
communicable form (cf. McAdams, 1995). Nevertheless, this leaves decisions regarding how 19
to explain personality in the hands of researchers and practitioners, and the varying 20
epistemologies (cultural, neuronal, biological, cognitive, etc.; cf. Sheldon, 2004) each 21
endorses emphasizing what is meaningful or most useful in this regard (Deci & Ryan, 2011). 22
Beyond actor, agent, and author. Do any personality dimensions lie outside of 23
McAdams’ actor, agent, and author? For example: Where are psychological needs in this 24
broad portrayal of personality (Sheldon et al., 2011)? Or what about dimensions exploring 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
27
peoples ‘true selves’ (cf. Harter, 2002)? In reply to these questions, McAdams might point 1
towards psychological universals – how people are the same as all others – as offering little 2
regarding idiosyncrasies in group life, while matters about psychological authenticity are 3
more relevant to endorsements of social and cultural romanticism (see McAdams, 2006). 4
However, while dimensions of actor, agent, and author are highly descriptive of people, some 5
have pointed out that they lack an important relative component (Thorne & Latzke, 1996; 6
Singer, 2005; 2013) – specifically, an “ability to capture the dynamic nature of the individual 7
in relationship with others” (Singer, 2013, p. 2). This additional self-with-other perspective 8
stresses that people cannot be fully understood if assessed in isolation (Singer, 2005). It 9
indicates that how people are is inseparably interwoven with who they are with (Back et al., 10
2011), in doing so questioning the relevancy of personality if there are no social 11
relationships. Thus beyond the notion of traits, adaptations, and life stories, McAdams’ 12
model may require a fourth layer of relational understanding (Singer, 2005). 13
Demarcating personality. Perhaps the main challenge for endorsing the McAdams 14
framework in sport and exercise psychology lies in gaining support for a broader 15
conceptualization of personality. For instance, traditionalists may prefer to capture athlete 16
and exerciser personalities through a discourse of habitual traits – a fondness maybe for 17
defining people in general terms or a preference for genetically influenced tendencies partly 18
determining peoples’ typical behavior. As outlined in this paper, integrative theorists 19
acknowledge but also go beyond trait dimensions as important constructs for describing 20
people; they also embrace features of human variation saturated with meaning and 21
motivational energy. McAdams’ account of personality is only one integrative approach that 22
has caught our attention. Regardless of the perspective taken, however, we suggest that a shift 23
by sport and exercise psychologists towards attitudes of integrative theorizing – as grounds 24
for redefining personality in the field – could be profitable. If the broader discipline of 25
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
28
personality psychology has begun to re-orient toward these more integrative outlooks, 1
sampling the theoretical and predictive value of a three-layer integrative approach to the 2
study of athletes and exercisers may be a productive course for future research in our field. 3
Conclusion 4
Perhaps inviting more questions than can be currently answered, we have called for a 5
reconceptualization of personality in sport and exercise psychology using McAdams’ 6
integrative framework. We believe this framework has potential for considering the complex 7
nature of athletes and exercisers – a view emphasizing how individual differences in traits 8
(social actor), characteristic adaptations (motivated agent), and life narratives 9
(autobiographical author) may converge to give a holistic understanding of people associated 10
with these cohorts. Broadly, our hope is that integrative theorizing may be considered a new 11
topic of interest in sport and exercise psychology, one that is also timely given current debate 12
regarding the role of mixed-methods research in the field (cf. Sparkes, 2015). We also 13
emphasize that McAdams’ vision of personality may act as a good starting point for scholars 14
and practitioners wanting to know more in this regard – a framework widely endorsed in the 15
field of personality psychology.16
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
29
References
Adler, J. M. (2012). Living into the story: Agency and coherence in a longitudinal study of
narrative identity development and mental health over the course of psychotherapy.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 367-389. doi: 10.1037/a0025289
Aidman, E., & Schofield, G. (2004). Personality and individual differences in sport. In T.
Morris, & J. Summers (Eds.), Sport psychology: Theory, applications and issues (pp.
22-47). Brisbane, Qld: Wiley.
Allen, M. S., Greenlees, I., & Jones, M. (2013). Personality in sport: A comprehensive
review. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6, 184-208. doi:
10.1080/1750984X.2013.769614
Allen, M. S. & Laborde, S. (2014). The role of personality in sport and physical activity.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 460-465. doi:
10.1177/0963721414550705
Back, M. D., Baumert, A., Denissen, J. J. A., Hartung, R-M., Penke, L., Schmukle, S. C.,
…Wrzus, C. (2011). PERSOC: A unified framework for understanding the dynamic
interplay of personality and social relationships. European Journal of Personality, 25,
90-107. doi: 10.1002/per.811
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social-cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44,
1175–1184. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.44.9.1175
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2009). A review of
controlling motivational strategies from a self-determination theory perspective:
Implications for sports coaches. International Review of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, 2, 215-233. doi: 10.1080/17509840903235330
Block, J. (1995). A contrarian view of the five-factor approach to personality description.
Psychological Bulletin, 117, 187-215. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.117.2.187
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
30
Buckworth, J., Dishman, R. K., O’Connor, P. J., & Tomporowski, P. (2013). Exercise
psychology (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Campbell, J. B. (2008). Modern personality theories: What have we gained? What have we
lost? In G. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. Saklofske (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
personality theory and assessment. Vol. 1. Personality theories and models (pp. 190-
212). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publishers.
Caspi, A. (1998). Personality development across the life course. In W. Damon (Series Ed.),
& N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional,
and personality development (5th ed., pp. 311–388). New York, NY: Wiley.
Chantal, Y., Guay, F., Dobreva-Martinova, T., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996). Motivation and
elite performance: An exploratory investigation with Bulgarian athletes. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 27, 173-182.
Church, A. T. (2000). Culture and personality: Toward an integrated cultural trait
psychology. Journal of Personality, 68, 651-703. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.00112
Crocker, P. R. E., Hoar, S. D., McDonough, M. H., Kowalski, K. C., & Niefer, C. B. (2004).
Emotional experience in youth sport. In M. R. Weiss (Ed.), Developmental sport and
exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective (pp. 197-221). Morgantown, WV: Fitness
Information Technology.
Dale, G. A. (1996). Existential phenomenology: Emphasizing the experience of the athlete in
sport psychology research. The Sport Psychologist, 10, 307-321.
Dale, G. A. (2000). Distractions and coping strategies of elite decathletes during their
memorable performances. The Sport Psychologist, 14, 17-41.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). Levels of analysis, regnant causes of behavior and well-
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
31
being: The role of psychological needs. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 17-22.
doi:10.1080/1047840X.2011.545978
Douglas K., & Carless, D. (2015). Life story research in sport: Understanding the
experiences of elite and professional athletes through narrative. Abingdon, Oxon:
Routledge.
Dunlop, W. L., Walker, L. J., & Wiens, T. K. (2013). What do we know when we know a
person across contexts? Examining self-concept differentiation at the three levels of
personality. Journal of Personality, 81, 376-389. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12018
Fivush, R. (2011). The development of autobiographical memory. In S. T. Fiske, D. L.
Schacter, & S. E. Taylor (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 62, pp. 559–582).
Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Fox, K. R., & Wilson, P. M. (2008). Self-perceptual systems and physical activity. In T. S.
Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 49-64). Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics.
Gilbourne, D., & Andersen, M. B. (2011). Critical essays in applied sport psychology.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Habermas, T., & Bluck, S. (2000). Getting a life: The emergence of the life story in
adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 748–769. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.126.5.748
Harter, S. (2006). Developmental and individual difference perspectives on self-esteem. In D.
K. Mroczek, & T. D. Little (Eds.), Handbook of personality development (pp. 311–
334). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hagger, M. S. (2009). Theoretical integration in health psychology: Unifying ideas and
complementary explanations. British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 189-194. doi:
10.1348/135910708X397034
Hanrahan, S. J., & Andersen, M. B (2010). Routledge handbook of applied sport psychology:
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
32
A comprehensive guide for students and practitioners. New York, NY: Routledge.
Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder, & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 382–394). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Harwood, T. M., Beutler, L. E., & Groth-Marnat, G. (2012). Integrative assessment of adult
personality (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Hein, V., & Hagger, M. S. (2007). Global self-esteem, goal achievement orientations and
self-determined behavioural regulations in physical education setting. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 25, 149-259. doi: 10.1080/02640410600598315
Hogan, R. (1982). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. Paige (Ed.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation (Vol. 29, pp. 55-89). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
Hollander, E. P. (1967). Principles and methods of social psychology. New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Horn, T. S. (2004). Developmental perspectives on self-perceptions in children. In M. R.
Weiss (Ed), Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective
(pp. 101-144). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Kluckhohn, C., & Murray, H. A. (1953). Personality formation: The determinants. In C.
Kluckhohn, H. A., Murray, & D. Schneider (Eds.), Personality in nature, society, and
culture (pp. 53-67). New York, NY: Knopf.
Krueger, R. F., & Johnson, W. (2008). Behavioral genetics and personality: A new look at
the integration of nature and nurture. In L. A. Pervin, O. P. John, & R. W. Robins
(Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research. (3rd ed., pp. 287-310). New
York, NY: The Guildford Press.
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
33
Mallett, C. J., & Hanrahan, S. J. (2004). Elite athletes: What makes the "fire" burn so
brightly? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 5, 183-200. doi:10.1016/S1469-
0292(02)00043-2
Manczak, E. M., Zapata-Gietl, C., & McAdams, D. P. (2014). Regulatory focus in the life
story: Prevention and promotion as expressed in three layers of personality. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 169-181. doi: 10.1037/a0034951
Mandler, J. M. (1984). Stories, scripts, and scenes: Aspects of schema therapy. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Mayer, J. D. (2005). A tale of two visions: Can a new view of personality help integrate
psychology? American Psychologist, 60, 294-307. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.60.4.294
Mayer, J. D., & Allen, J. L. (2013). A personality framework for the unification of
psychology. Review of General Psychology, 17, 196-202. doi: 10.1037/a0032934
McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of Personality,
63, 365-396. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00500.x
McAdams, D. P. (1997). A conceptual history of personality psychology. In R. Hogan, J.
Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 3-39). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
McAdams, D. P. (2006). The person: A new introduction to personality psychology (4th ed.).
New York, NY: Wiley.
McAdams, D. P. (2008). Personal narratives and the life story. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins,
& L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 242-
262). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
McAdams, D. P. (2009). The moral personality. In D. Narvaez, & D. K. Lapsley (Eds.),
Personality, identity, and character: Explorations in moral psychology (pp. 11-29).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
34
McAdams, D. P. (2013). The psychological self as actor, agent, and author. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 8, 272-295. doi: 10.1177/1745691612464657
McAdams, D. P., & Manczak, E. (2011). What is a “level” of personality? Psychological
Inquiry, 22, 40-44. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2011.544026
McAdams, D. P., & Olson, B. D. (2010). Personality development: Continuity and change
over the life course. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 517-542. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100507
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new big five: Fundamental principles for an
integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204-217. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.204
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2007). The role of theory in personality research. In R.
Robins, C. Fraley, & R. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality
psychology (pp. 3-20). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
McAdams, D. P., & Walden, K. (2010). Jack Block, the Big Five, and personality from the
standpoint of the actor, agent, and author. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 50-56.
doi:10.1080/10478401003648740
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenwood, IL: Scott Foresman.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories:
Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor
model of personality (pp. 51-87). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal.
American Psychologist, 52, 509-516. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.52.5.509
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (2008). Towards a unified theory of personality: Integrating
dispositions and processing dynamics within the cognitive-affective processing system.
In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
35
and research (3rd., pp. 208-241). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Morris, T. (2011). Personality and individual differences. In T. Morris, & P. C. Terry (Eds.),
The new sport and exercise psychology companion (pp. 11-36). Morgantown, WV:
Fitness Information Technology.
Nesti, M. (2007). Persons and players. In J. Parry, M. S. Nesti, S. Robinson, & N. Watson
(Eds.), Sport and spirituality: An introduction (pp. 135-150). London: Routledge.
Petróczi, A., & Aidman, E. (2008). Psychological drivers in doping: The life-cycle model of
performance enhancement. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 3, 7.
doi: 10.1186/1747-597X-3-7
Rhodes, R. E., & Pfaeffli, L. A. (2012). Personality and physical activity. In E. O. Acevedo
(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of exercise psychology (pp. 195-223). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Roberts, B. W., Wood, D., & Caspi (2008). The development of personality traits in
adulthood. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of
personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 375-398). New York, NY: Guildford
Press.
Sheldon, K. M. (2004). Optimal human being: An integrated multi-level perspective.
Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sheldon, K. M. (2011). Consilience within the biopsychosocial system. Psychological
Inquiry, 22, 52-65. doi: 10:1080/1047840X.2011.551105
Sheldon, K. M., Cheng, C., & Hilpert, J. (2011). Understanding well-being and optimal
functioning: Applying the multilevel personality in context (MPIC) model.
Psychological Inquiry, 22, 1-16. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2011.532477
Singer, R. N. (1994). Sport psychology: An integrated approach. In S. Serpa, J. Alves, & V.
Pataco (Eds.), International perspectives on sport and exercise psychology (pp. 1-20).
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
36
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Singer, J. A. (2005). Personality and psychotherapy: Treating the whole person. New York,
NY: Guildford Press.
Singer, J. A. (2013). Lost in translation? Finding the person in the emerging paradigm of
clinical science: Introduction to a special issue on personality psychology and
psychotherapy. Journal of Personality, 81, 511-514. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12017
Singer, J. A., Blagov, P., Berry, M., & Oost, K. M. (2013). Self-defining memories, scripts,
and the life story: Narrative identity in personality and psychotherapy. Journal of
Personality, 81, 569-582. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12005
Smith, B., & Sparkes, A. C. (2009). Narrative inquiry in sport and exercise psychology: What
can it mean, and why might we do it? Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10, 1-11.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.01.004
Smith, C. P. (2000). Content analysis and narrative analysis. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd
(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality Psychology (pp. 313-
338). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, R. E. (2006). Understanding sport behavior: A cognitive-affective processing systems
approach. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 18, 1-27. doi: 10.
1080/10413200500471293
Sparkes, A. C. (2015). Developing mixed methods research in sport and exercise psychology:
Critical reflections on five points of controversy. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
16, 49-59. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.014
Tenenbaum, G., Eklund, R. C., & Kamata, A. (2012). Measurement in sport and exercise
psychology. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Thorne, A., & Latzke, M. (1996). Contextualizing the storied self. Psychological Inquiry, 7,
372–376. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0704_15
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
37
Vanden Auweele, Y., Nys, K., Rzewnicki, R., & Van Mele, V. (2001). Personality and the
athlete. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sport
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 239–268). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Walker, L. J., & Frimer, J. A. (2007). Moral personality of brave and caring exemplars.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 845-860. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.93.5.845
Weinberg, R. S., & Gould, D. (2015). Personality and sport. In R. S. Weinberg, & D. Gould
(Eds.), Foundations of sport and exercise psychology (pp. 27-50). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Wiese-Bjornstal, D. M., LaVoi, N. M., & Omli, J. (2009). Child and adolescent development
and sport participation. In B. Brewer (Ed.), International Olympic Committee (IOC)
medical commission handbook of sports medicine and science: Sport psychology
volume (pp. 97-112). West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Weiss, M. R. (2004). Developmental sport and exercise psychology: A lifespan perspective.
Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.
Whaley, D. E. (2007). A life span developmental approach to studying sport and exercise
behavior. In G. Tenenbaum, & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology
(3rd ed., pp. 645–661). Hoboken, NJ: John Wylie and Sons.
Wiggins, J. S. (2003). Paradigms of personality assessment. New York, NY: Guildford
Press.
INTEGRATING PERSONALITY IN SPORT AND EXERCISE
38
Table 1. McAdams’ three layers of personality
Defining Question(s) Description Function Developmental Trajectory
Cultural Impact Sample Constructs Sample Assessments
Layer 1 Dispositional Traits: Self as Social Actor
What kind of person is a person? Stable, basic, and most recognisable aspects of psychological individuality
Traits sketch a behavioural outline and shape the style of peoples’ action tendencies
Appear early childhood (2-3yrs) and account for consistency in functioning across situations and time from mid-adolescence
Behavioural constraints and expression of traits via norms and display rules
The Big Five 16 Personality Traits Ego resiliency & control
NEO-PI-3 16PF California Personality Inventory California Q-Set
Layer 2 Characteristic Adaptations: Self as Motivated Agent
What do people want and value? What cognitive style do people draw on in efforts to meet social demands? What stages of development have people reached?
Features of individuality that describe personal adaptations to motivational, social-cognitive, and developmental challenges and tasks contextualised in time, place, situation, or social role
Fill in the details of human individuality, and reflect dynamics of personality
Appear mid-late childhood (7-9yrs) and may change noticeably over the life course
Motivational constraints influencing expectations and investment for behaviour
Motives, goals, projects Values, beliefs Cognitive schemas Ego and psychosocial stages Relational modes Coping strategies Defence mechanisms
Picture Story Exercise Personal Strivings Inventory Personal Project Analysis Young Schema Questionnaire Response Evaluation Measure Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced Integrated Self-Discrepancy Index Attributional Style Questionnaire
Layer 3 Narrative Identity: Self as Autobiographical Author
Who does a person consider oneself to be?
Internalised and evolving self-narratives integrating the past, present, and future giving life a sense of unity, purpose, and meaning
Tell what lives mean in time and culture
Appear in adolescence and emerging adulthood (15-25yrs); life stories change substantially over time
Narrative constraints providing a menu of stories, metaphors, and images that specify what a good story is and should be
Self-defining memories Nuclear scripts Recurrent themes (agency and communion; power and intimacy)
Self-Defining Memory Tasks Life-Story Interviews