Ying Shuai
Shaoshen Wang1,2
Xian Liu
Yee Cheng Kueh
Garry Kuan- 1School of Sports Management, Shandong Sport University, Shandong, China
- 2Unit of Biostatistics and Research Methodology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kota Bharu, Malaysia
- 3Exercise and Sports Science Programme, School of Health Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kota Bharu, Malaysia
Personality is considered to be a factor affecting athletic performance. However, inconsistency in the research results regarding size and even direction of the relationship. An evaluation of the evidence of the relationship between personality and athletic performance was conducted in order to summarize the evidence available. A systematic literature search was conducted in March 2023. Sport performance and the Big Five personality model were identified in our research. We used PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wang Fang (Chinese), Wei Pu (Chinese), and CNKI (Chinese) databases for the systematic literature search (Prospero registration number: CRD42022364000), screened 4,300 studies, and found 23 cross-sectional studies eligible for inclusion in this review. The results of this systematic analysis show that, besides neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness are all positively correlated with sports performance. Conscientiousness and extraversion are the two main personalities in team sports. Openness and agreeableness show different results in different sports, and it is not clear to which project they are beneficial. The value of personality as a possible predictor of athletic performance is generally positive. Therefore, professionals such as applied sports psychologists, coaching personnel, athletes, and sports administrators must comprehensively grasp the significance of personality’s role in achieving success in major competitions. Considering these facts, sports practitioners should promote personality screening and personality development programs.
Introduction
The complex interplay between personality and sport has captivated the attention of researchers, coaches, and athletes for decades. Central to this discourse are two conflicting perspectives: the skeptical view, which argues that personality has a minimal effect on athletic ability, and the gullible perspective, which asserts a substantial influence of personality traits on sports performance. Recent studies, however, have introduced more nuanced theories, aiming to capture the multifaceted nature of this relationship. A comprehensive meta-analysis by Sutin et al. (2016) stands as a testament to this, offering compelling evidence regarding the association between personality and physical activity patterns. The study revealed that individuals with higher neuroticism levels were inclined toward inactivity, while those possessing elevated levels of extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness displayed reduced inactivity. These correlations remained significant, even when considering the shared variance between these traits. Remarkably, factors like age and sex did not alter these relationships, emphasizing the significant role of inherent tendencies in determining one’s engagement in physical activity. From the skeptical viewpoint, Davis, when assessing the personality traits of elite hockey players, found no correlation with their performance levels (Davis, 1991). In contrast, a large volume of literature spanning thousands of articles highlights the significance of personality within sports. Yet, it’s crucial to note that many of these studies employ different personality theories and testing methods, adding complexity to the interpretation of findings. For instance, an analysis of 42 British athletic groups’ mean scores on Cattell’s 16-PF questionnaire shed light on how personality traits might impact athletic performance. Interestingly, while top athletes showed lower anxiety levels than their less skilled peers, their anxiety was still above the population average, challenging the common notion that sports personalities are stable extraverts (Knapp, 1974). A crucial factor that differentiates one person from another is their unique personality (Karageorghis et al., 2021).
Indeed, while personality differences between individuals might appear subtle, their implications can be profound. Personality, as defined by Burger (2011), refers to consistent patterns of behavior and internal processes stemming from the individual. Historical work by E. W. Scripture at Yale University underscores the potential for cultivating certain personality traits through sports (Franz, 1898), emphasizing that sports success is, to a considerable extent, influenced by personality (Allen et al., 2013). Notably, Hartung and Farge’s assessment of middle-aged male runners revealed these athletes scored higher than the general populace in areas like intelligence, imagination, and self-sufficiency, among others (Hartung and Farge, 1977). Meanwhile, Cui Guofu’s research on elite Chinese race walkers found that introverted athletes outperformed extroverted ones, particularly among male participants (Cui, 1989).
In the sports domain, a longstanding question remains: is an athlete’s behavior primarily determined by the situation they find themselves in, or by their inherent personality? One intriguing study explored whether personality differences attracted individuals to sports, termed the “gravity hypothesis,” or if participation in sports molded an individual’s personality, the “developmental hypothesis.” Early findings suggested that team sport participants consistently scored higher on extroverted sport scales compared to individual sport participants and non-participants, thereby lending credence to the gravity hypothesis (Eagleton et al., 2007). Another significant theory to consider is the “performance hypothesis” posited by García-Naveira and Ruiz-Barquín (2013) (see also García-Naveira and Ruiz-Barquín, 2016; Garcia-Naveira and Ruiz-Barquín, 2020). This hypothesis emphasizes that certain personality traits are intrinsically linked with enhanced sports performance. It posits that these traits, to a certain degree, assimilate into the high-performance sports context, implying that athletes with these traits might naturally align better with the demands and rigors of elite sports competition. Instead of adhering to fixed notions of personality types, such as the Myers–Briggs typology, theories of person–environment fit (PEFT) advocate for a dimensional approach. This perspective views personality traits as influenced by and reflective of specific environments (Levy and Ruggieri, 2019).
Yet, the discussion extends beyond simply determining if personality affects sports participation and performance. It’s essential to highlight, as pointed out by multiple authors, including García Naveira (2010), García-Naveira et al. (2011), García-Naveira and Ruiz-Barquín (2016), and Piedmont et al. (1999), that personality’s influence is twofold. On one hand, it can directly affect the sporting action itself, and on the other, it can exert an indirect influence on the surrounding context and actions intimately tied to an individual’s sports performance. It’s crucial to discern the nature of this influence. Distinguishing between the direct and indirect effects of personality on sports behavior introduces additional complexity. A direct effect implies that personality traits linearly impact athletic performance. Conversely, an indirect effect suggests that personality traits shape other variables—like motivation or resilience—which subsequently affect sports outcomes. Allen et al. (2013) delved into this, investigating how personality shaped organized sports, its implications for athletic achievement, individual differences, and team dynamics. Their findings highlighted the interplay of both genetic and environmental factors, providing pivotal insights for applied sports psychology. Further exploring this theme, Allen and Laborde (2014) emphasized the predictive power of personality traits for both sports performance and broader physical activity. Their work uncovered connections between personality traits and various determinants, including the psychological state of athletes, harmful exercise behaviors, and even factors like strength and flexibility in older populations. Roberts and Woodman (2017) expanded the scope, focusing on the role of traits like narcissism and alexithymia in sports performance. Their call for an interactionist perspective underscores the intricate dance between personality and performance. Finally, a landmark study by Laborde et al. (2019) embarked on a sweeping overview of trait-based research in sports and exercise psychology. Analyzing a vast array of abstracts, they identified 64 unique traits clustered into 15 overarching themes, with traits like anxiety, self-efficacy, and perfectionism emerging as recurrent focal points. Their rigorous analysis linked many of these traits to the Big Five personality dimensions, although not all associations were straightforward.
Though many studies have explored the impact of personality in sports, it’s important to understand the diverse developmental trajectories of personality theory. Schools of personality development, such as psychoanalysis, behaviorism, social learning, cognitive theory, and humanistic theory, aim to elucidate how personality emerges and evolves over a lifetime (Cloninger, 2009). A vast body of literature, comprising thousands of articles, has examined the sports personality domain (Ruffer, 1976), with numerous investigations underscoring the significance of personality within the realm of sports. Each researcher used a different personality theory and test method, making the results difficult to analyze.
A prominent approach within psychological research, the trait or dispositional theory, seeks to quantify enduring patterns of behavior, cognition, and emotion termed as “traits” (Kassin, 2003). Rooted in this approach, the Big Five Personality Model emerged as a pivotal framework. Historically, by analyzing personality-related terms from dictionaries in the late 1920s, psychologists discovered the inherent structure of personality traits within our language. Factor analyses distilled these traits into five core factors: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to new experiences (Babcock and Wilson, 2020). The consistent appearance of these factors across studies led to the refinement of the Big Five Model (Goldberg, 1981).
According to this model, the terrain of human personality is primarily constituted by five central traits (Vealey, 2002; Allen et al., 2013; Gill et al., 2017):Neuroticism, defined by anxiety and tension vs. emotional stability. Extraversion, characterized by sociability and enthusiasm opposed to introversion. Openness, signified by adaptability and curiosity. Agreeableness, encompassing kindness and cooperativeness. Conscientiousness, marked by discipline and organization. This model posits that individual personalities are composed of varying degrees of these traits, with specific behaviors emerging as a result (McCrae and John, 1992). For instance, while conscientious individuals gravitate toward organization, neurotic individuals might be more self-conscious. The Big Five offers invaluable insights into personality differences, emphasizing the importance of individualized training approaches in sports (Rhodes et al., 2002).
Currently, sports psychologists are fervently exploring the Big Five traits (Lochbaum et al., 2010; Singley et al., 2012; Merritt and Tharp, 2013). Furthermore, they are examining additional traits like tolerance (Sheard and Golby, 2010) and their associations with athletes’ mental states and behaviors. Numerous studies have unveiled significant correlations between these traits, such as neuroticism and self-consciousness, and athletic performance (Piedmont et al., 1999; Wann et al., 2004). Allen et al. (2013) deduced from an extensive review that personality traits correlate with long-term athletic success. Their findings revealed that sports participants typically display greater extraversion than non-athletes. Moreover, team athletes in high-risk sports showed increased extraversion and reduced conscientiousness compared to those in lower-risk individual sports. As evidenced by Rhodes and Smith (2006), extraversion and conscientiousness positively influence physical activity, while neuroticism can serve as a deterrent.
The interaction between personality and sports performance, while multifaceted, undeniably influences the trajectory of sports success. From questioning the centrality of personality in determining athletic performance to drawing insights from the Big Five personality model, opinions vary, but there is a consensus that individual personality traits have a critical impact on athletic outcomes. In the pursuit of a comprehensive review, the objective is to address an evident lacuna in the extant literature. While there are five preceding reviews, the most recent one dating to 2019, a systematic exploration of the subject matter remains absent. Given the burgeoning research in this domain, a current and rigorous review is both relevant and imperative. By focusing on the Big Five personality traits, this review aims to utilize a standardized methodology to systematically assess their influence on sports performance. It is hypothesized that the Big Five traits significantly impact athletic performance, and the findings of this review will amalgamate the prevailing understanding of this association. Furthermore, this investigation will offer recommendations for future research, encompassing a variety of sports disciplines for comparative evaluation.
Methods
The review was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guideline (Page et al., 2021). Methods for conducting this review were pre-specified in a registered protocol on PROSPERO (CRD42022364000).
Search strategy
A systematic literature search was conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wang Fang (Chinese), Wei Pu (Chinese), and CNKI (Chinese) databases in October until December 2022. The search queries were as follows: (“Athletic Performances” OR “Performance, Athletic” OR “Sports Performance” OR “Performance, Sports” OR “Performances, Sports” OR “Sports Performances”) AND (“Personalities” OR “temperament”). Two independent investigators searched databases, identified studies, screened them for eligibility, and compared them to each other. All related articles published from inception up to March 2023 were considered for inclusion.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Inclusion criteria
Study type: cross-sectional studies examining the impact of published personality traits on athletic performance. Subjects: Athletes are assessed solely using the Big Five Personality Type Test, which comprises the Five-Factor Personality Model (FFM), a taxonomy of personality traits including conscientiousness, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and neuroticism (OCEAN or NEOAC). All known personality traits are contained and encompassed within these five general domains, which are thought to represent the structure of all individual differences (O’Connor, 2002). There are no restrictions on gender or age. Exposure measures: the Big Five personality assessment. Outcome indicators: sports performance or performance within specific sports disciplines. Language limitation: Only studies published in Chinese or English, without regional restrictions, will be considered.
Exclusion criteria
Unspecified study type. Inability to extract valid outcome data from the text, absence of statistical analysis for impact results, improper application of statistical methods, or incomplete original data. Duplicate literature. Unavailability of the full text. Utilization of non-Big Five personality assessments. Insufficient sample size. In addition, letters, opinion articles, editorials, reviews, and papers that were not written in English were excluded from the review process. Animal, in vitro, in vivo, and modeling studies were also excluded.
Study selection
Two researchers individually screened titles and abstracts from the databases to determine eligibility using Endnote (version 20.0, Clarivate Analytics). They recorded the number of searches and duplicates for each database. Duplicate entries were eliminated using Endnote’s “check for duplicates” feature. Abstracts meeting the criteria underwent further screening to retrieve full-text articles. These articles were then evaluated against specific inclusion and exclusion standards. The researchers also conducted quality assessments and data extraction. Any disagreements were resolved by consulting a third investigator. References of the confirmed studies were manually checked. The article selection methodology is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Flow chart of the search and selection process of included studies.
Data extraction
Data was gathered using a standardized collection form. For every selected study, details such as the lead author’s surname, year of study, participant demographics, study design, sports disciplines, tools used, and outcomes were documented in Table 1. If any data was absent, the primary authors of those studies were directly approached for clarification.
Table 1. Basic information of included studies.
Quality assessment
We used the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) Statement to evaluate the quality of reporting in each of the 15 cross-sectional studies. The STROBE Statement includes a checklist of 22 items that should be reported in observational studies. Each study was evaluated against each of the 22 items, and each item was scored as “Yes” (if the study reported the item), “No” (if the study did not report the item), or “Not Applicable” (if the item was not relevant to the study design). The STROBE Statement assesses key aspects of cross-sectional studies, including the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and other relevant information, to ensure transparent and comprehensive reporting (Page et al., 2021).
Results
Search result
The database search yielded a total of 4,330 articles, whereof 23 articles were finally included in this review (Figure 1) (Page et al., 2021).
Eligibility of studies
Table 1 displays the particulars of the selected studies. Cross-sectional studies (references) adhered to the review criteria. All included studies received ethical approval from their respective institutions. According to the table, studies have examined how personality traits relate to athletic performance using the Five Factor Model (FFM). It provides information on the authors and year of publication, sample size (N) and demographics, type of sport, athlete level, personality measurement tools, sports performance metrics, and other variables assessed in each study. The studies encompass a diverse range of sports, such as swimming, rock climbing, basketball, soccer, canoeing, boxing, fast walking, computer-based soccer games, motor performance, rowing, and martial arts. Various instruments have been employed to measure the FFM, including the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R), the Big Five Inventory-2 Short Form (BFI-2-S), and the IBM Watson Personality Insights Service. Additionally, the studies utilize different approaches to assess sports performance, such as race wins, competition rankings, and specific performance tests. Some of the investigations also examine other psychological variables, like grit, coping strategies, and subjective well-being.
Among the 23 studies incorporated in the analysis, the earliest publication dates back to 1999 (Piedmont et al., 1999), while the remaining studies were published between 2011 and 2022, with a peak of five articles in 2021 (Fabbricatore et al., 2021; Klatt et al., 2021), three of which were authored by Piepiora (Piepiora et al., 2021; Piepiora and Piepiora, 2021; Piepiora, 2021a). The included research encompasses four studies in Chinese and the rest in English. The investigations span an array of sporting disciplines, comprising individual and team events, fundamental physical fitness assessments, and innovative e-sports. Soccer research features prominently, with four articles dedicated to the subject. The studies encompass a broad age range, from 12 to 96 years, and extend beyond professional athletes to include the general population and individuals with disabilities. In many studies, personality characteristics have a certain impact on the performance of athletes in various sports. Characteristics such as openness, agreeableness, neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness affect the performance of rock climbing, football, canoeing, boxing, and other sports to varying degrees. Moreover, an athlete’s personality traits can influence their emotional and physiological state leading up to a competition, which correlates with psychological aspects like anxiety and self-confidence. The well-being of athletes is related to their personality, and personality characteristics are also different among athletes of different ages. Generally speaking, personality characteristics have a certain reference value in the selection, training, and psychological adjustment of athletes.
Table 2 summarizes the key findings from the 23 reviewed articles, highlighting the outcomes related to the five unique personality traits: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism, as observed across these studies. Though personality traits may not have a direct impact on swimming performance, they can indirectly influence it through mental skills (Fabbricatore et al., 2021). Openness and agreeableness have been linked with climbing performance (Ionel et al., 2022), while neuroticism and conscientiousness are associated with performance in female soccer players (Piedmont et al., 1999). Furthermore, personality traits have been demonstrated to predict the performance of elite Chinese rowers (Lin et al., 2011) and the subjective well-being of Chinese athletes in esthetically demanding and combat sports, with average ages of 14 and 18 years, respectively (Liu, 2011). The five-factor model of personality can distinguish varying levels of sports involvement and pinpoint the coping techniques adopted by athletes (Allen et al., 2011). In the elderly, there’s a notable link between personality traits (like neuroticism, extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness) and energy consumption. This suggests potential impacts on health aspects like weight management and lifespan (Terracciano et al., 2013). Neuroticism has been identified as crucial for comprehending athletes’ emotional and physiological states before competition due to its association with anxiety, arousal, and self-confidence (Balyan et al., 2016). Furthermore, personality attributes have been linked to performance outcomes in diverse sports, rowing being one of them (Stine et al., 2019), Chang Quan, Nan Quan, Taijiquan (Yuan, 2020), and young male soccer players (Kalinowski et al., 2020). In eSports, notable variances in traits like extraversion, agreeableness, and openness were detected between players at lower ranks and those at the higher tiers of the Legendary League (LoL) (Matuszewski et al., 2020). Sports champions typically exhibit lower neuroticism and higher scores in the other five dimensions, suggesting that neuroticism is a determining factor in the level of achievement.
Table 2. Summary of all studies examining Five Factor Model (FFM) and sports performance.
In summary, this comprehensive review of 23 studies emphasizes the importance of accounting for personality traits in the recruitment and training of athletes, as these traits can influence problem-solving skills in sports and result in performance disparities.
Quality assessment and analysis of publication bias
Table 3 displays an evaluation of the methodological integrity and potential bias present in the studies that were reviewed. By using the quality assessment of the 22 items in the STROBE statement, most of the analyses used technical terms in the title or abstract to describe the design of their studies (82.6%; k = 19). All studies presented the background of the survey, participant inclusion criteria, data sources, and evaluation methods for each study variable, and reported the results of the survey (100%, k = 23). Almost all surveys presented key elements of design (95.6%; k = 22) and outcomes that defined all predictors and potential factors (91.3%; k = 21) in the outcomes. Eighty-three percent (k = 19) of the studies listed clear goals and made prior assumptions. Eighty-seven percent (k = 20) of the studies referenced pre-listed objectives and summarized key results. 78.2% (k = 18) of the surveys described the setting of the study, location, and date, including recruitment, contact, follow-up, and time period for data collection, and gave information on participant characteristics (e.g., demographic, clinical, and sociological) and exposure and potential confounders. In addition, subgroup and interaction analyses and sensitivity analyses were reported in 73.9% (k = 17) of the findings. The results of 69.5% (k = 16) of the studies took objectives, limitations, diversity of analyses, results of similar studies, and other relevant evidence into account. 65.2% (k = 15) of the study data gave an unadjusted estimate, giving a confounder-adjusted estimate and its precision (e.g., 95% confidence interval). 60.8% (k = 14) of the studies described the statistical methods used, the number of individuals at each stage, and discussed the limitations of the study at the end of the results, taking into account potential sources of bias or imprecision. More than half of the studies explained how quantitative variables were treated in the analysis (56.5%; k = 13). Only 30% of the studies discussed the generalizability of the findings (k = 7). How the sample size was derived was explained in only 21.7% (k = 5) of the results. Only four studies (17.3%) described methods to address bias in the study and received funding.
Table 3. Quality assessment–individual evaluation of the studies examined.
Discussion
This retrospective analysis provides the most comprehensive statistical review to date of the relationship between personality and athletic performance and confirms that the Big Five personalities are associated with athletic performance. It is clear that the Big Five personality model can provide a practical level of statistical prediction for socially important sports performance standards. Athlete personality traits can be used to predict athletic performance and provide direction for recruiting athletes and preparing for competition. Such as openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, which have been found to predict performance in specific sports (e.g., rock climbing, rowing), neuroticism appears to negatively affect sports performance, and lower levels of neuroticism are associated with higher performance (e.g., soccer, boxing, and martial arts). It is important to note that the personality characteristics of athletes in different sports may vary, highlighting the importance of considering the specific requirements of each sport (e.g., team sports, extreme sports). These findings may vary by sport, level of competition, and other factors such as cultural and social influences. Therefore, future researchers and scholars need further research to better understand the complex relationship between the five-factor model of personality and sports performance in different situations.
Individuals characterized by openness tend to appreciate diversity, pursue novel experiences, and exhibit curiosity and insight regarding their surroundings. These traits align with the characteristics required for rock climbing, which encompass both sport climbers and boulderers. A positive correlation has been observed between openness scores and climbing performance (Ionel et al., 2022). Risk-taking is frequently deemed a crucial subcomponent of openness, resulting in participants in high-risk sports demonstrating significantly elevated levels of extraversion and experiential openness (Tok, 2011). A robust predictive index exists between performance in Nanquan and openness to experience (Yuan, 2020). Similarly, openness is a vital attribute in American football. Consequently, systematic personality testing among athletes is advocated during the selection process for top-tier American football competitions (Piepiora et al., 2021).
A strong correlation exists between conscientiousness and team events. In assessments of football and basketball performance, conscientiousness demonstrates a positive association with sports achievements (Kalinowski et al., 2020; Siemon and Wessels, 2022). In team sports, individual performance substantially influences competition outcomes, indicating that traits such as self-control, diligence, responsibility, and reliability contribute to enhanced performance. In contrast, specific individual exercises, including swimming and aerobic activity, exhibit no relationship with conscientiousness, aligning with earlier research. The incremental validity of researchers’ incapacity to predict endurance athletes’ performance via conscientiousness and motivation has been substantiated (Perry et al., 2017). Notwithstanding that descriptors like “diligence,” “dependability,” and “persistence” encapsulate conscientious traits, and persistence appears essential for endurance sports, the present investigation reveals no association between these elements.
Extroversion, a personality dimension, is typically associated with individuals who exhibit talkativeness, confidence, and affability. In the realm of sports, extroverted athletes are capable of engaging in effective communication with teammates, coaches, and competitors, fostering a conducive atmosphere and enhancing performance. This advantage becomes particularly salient in team sports contexts. For instance, extroverted NBA players exhibit positive correlations with various performance metrics. Basketball athletes displaying pronounced extroversion are more capable of tolerating pain due to the inherent nature of team sports (Siemon and Wessels, 2022). These individuals relish camaraderie, support, and competition while striving toward shared objectives. This notion is substantiated by the mediating effect of extraversion on performance effectiveness in relation to the task-centered approach to stress among football players (Kalinowski et al., 2020). Interestingly, a survey of individual event champions also revealed markedly high extraversion traits (Piepiora, 2021b). This observation aligns with the proclivity of active individuals to exhibit traits such as energetic demeanors, fast-paced lifestyles, confidence, and positive emotions, all of which fall within the domain of extraversion. Moreover, extroversion has been linked to increased aerobic capacity (Terracciano et al., 2013).
Agreeableness, which focuses on qualities like trust, altruism, modesty, compassion, cooperation, and honesty, is distinct from extraversion. Athletes in team sports often score higher in agreeableness compared to those in individual sports. Given its socially-oriented nature, this correlation seems logical (Nia and Besharat, 2010). But studies in beach volleyball, basketball, and American football have not confirmed this result (Klatt et al., 2021; Siemon and Wessels, 2022), in contrast to individual sports such as canoeing. There is a significant relationship between agreeableness and sport performance in rowing, with elite athletes with high agreeableness having better performance (Liu, 2011; Stine et al., 2019).
Among the “Big Five” personality dimensions, neuroticism stands out as the sole attribute with an inherently negative implication. This trait is intrinsically linked to the autonomic nervous system’s excitation levels, with neurotic individuals possessing highly unstable systems characterized by rapid agitation onset and a prolonged return to baseline (Eysenck, 1967). A plethora of research findings demonstrate that athletes exhibiting lower neuroticism levels exhibit superior sports performance, with team sports champions displaying reduced neuroticism relative to their counterparts (Piepiora, 2021a). Additionally, elite athletes exhibit lower neuroticism levels compared to non-elite athletes (Vealey, 1992), and those participating in exercise display lower neuroticism scores than non-exercise participants (McKelvie et al., 2003). Concurrently, certain studies reveal that female athletes generally possess higher neuroticism levels compared to their male counterparts (Allen et al., 2011; Lin et al., 2011), though this observation is contextually specific to Nanquan (Yuan, 2020).
The relationship between personality and performance varies across athlete levels. Studies focusing on high-level athletes, such as those aiming for the NBA, elite canoeists, or national team members, frequently highlight traits like conscientiousness, neuroticism, and agreeableness as predictive of performance outcomes (Liu, 2011; Siemon and Wessels, 2022). Notably, low neuroticism and high conscientiousness often correlate with better performance in these elite settings. This is consistent with the results of a study conducted by Steca et al. (2018), who found that more successful athletes displayed higher levels of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability compared to those who were less successful. In non-elite athletes, the Five Factor Model of personality shows a complex relationship with sports performance. Unlike elite counterparts with distinct profiles, these athletes exhibit a wide personality range, where traits like agreeableness can predict climbing prowess (Ionel et al., 2022), while neuroticism might influence outcomes in computer-based soccer (Balyan et al., 2016) and martial arts (Yuan, 2020). It’s imperative, as underscored by García Naveira (2010), Garcia-Naveira and Ruiz-Barquín (2020), and Piedmont et al. (1999), to make a clear distinction between studies. Some research focuses on disparities grounded in the athletes’ competitive tiers, while others delve into the intricate relationships between personality traits and performance metrics.
Other studies have shown a correlation between personality traits and energy expenditure in elderly individuals, and found a significant correlation between neuroticism, extroversion, openness, and conscientiousness with energy expenditure during peak walking speed (Terracciano et al., 2013). But this is contrary to the latest study, Personality traits did not moderate intervention effects on physical functioning (Kekäläinen et al., 2023). It’s evident that the influence of personality on performance can be multifaceted and may vary based on the sport, the competitive tier, and individual factors. When considering differences among sports, athletes in high-risk sports may be characterized by their thrill-seeking nature and openness to experiences. Meanwhile, those in team sports, like soccer, often display more extroversion but may be less emotionally stable compared to individual sport athletes. Furthermore, team sport participants tend to balance personal and group needs, whereas those in individual sports lean more toward individualism (García Naveira, 2010). In essence, the intricate interplay between personality and performance underscores the importance of considering both the individual’s psychological makeup and the unique demands of their chosen sport when evaluating and predicting athletic success.
Study strengths and limitations
By compiling and analyzing an extensive array of pertinent literature, this review offers a thorough and insightful examination of the associations between the five personality traits and athletic performance. The investigation encompasses not only the overarching connections between these traits and performance but also delves into the impacts of various sport types, athletic populations, and athletes’ ages on these relationships. The findings hold substantial relevance for sports psychologists, coaches, athletes, and sports administrators, furnishing valuable guidance for selection processes, training, and psychological interventions.
However, the comprehensive nature of the research domains addressed and the diverse characteristics of sports and populations could introduce heterogeneity into the study, potentially affecting the results’ robustness and precision. Additionally, distinct cultural backgrounds may exert differential influences on personality traits and athletic performance, thereby constraining the applicability of the findings across diverse cultural contexts. In summary, while this review sheds light on the interplay between the five personality traits and sports performance, further meticulous and exhaustive research is necessary to surmount existing limitations and furnish more reliable evidence for practitioners.
Recommendations for future research
We suggest the following directions for future research: Utilize longitudinal study designs to establish causal relationships between the Big Five personality traits and athletic performance more effectively. Perform cross-cultural investigations to assess how the connections between personality traits and sports performance might differ in various cultural settings, thereby increasing the applicability of research findings. Examine the relationships between personality traits and athletic performance in specific sports and populations, such as team sports, individual sports, aerobic sports, and among professional, amateur, and youth athletes, offering tailored guidance for practitioners. Evaluate the impact of targeted psychological interventions focusing on personality traits in enhancing sports performance, assisting sports psychologists and coaches in designing effective approaches. Apply advanced statistical methods like structural equation modeling and multilevel analysis to deepen our understanding of the relationships between personality traits and sports performance while accounting for potential interactions and moderating variables. Investigate the interplay between personality traits and other psychological aspects, including motivation, self-efficacy, and emotion regulation, to gain a more comprehensive perspective on the psychological mechanisms driving sports performance. By addressing these suggestions, future research can contribute to a richer understanding of the links between the Big Five personality traits and athletic performance, ultimately providing valuable support for practitioners in the field.
Conclusion
This systematic analysis reveals that the relationship between personality and sports performance is influenced by various factors, including the type of sport, the athletic population, and the athletes’ age. The analysis indicates that, aside from neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness display positive correlations with sports performance. Conscientiousness and extraversion emerge as predominant personality traits in team sports, contributing to team cohesion and, ultimately, improved outcomes. The influence of openness and agreeableness varies across different sports, with no definitive consensus on the specific sports they benefit. Overall, the findings offer promising insights into the potential of personality as a predictor of athletic performance. As a result, stakeholders such as applied sports psychologists, coaching staff, athletes, and sports administrators must adequately comprehend the role of personality and its pertinence to success in major competitions. Practitioners should advocate for the integration of personality assessment and development programs within the training process. To achieve this, a more profound understanding and utilization of personality concepts in physical education and sports are required, along with the development of effective, user-friendly personality tools and well-founded, easily implemented training programs.
Author contributions
YS: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SW: Conceptualization, Data curation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. XL: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. YK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. GK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. This research was supported by the Shandong Province Social Science Planning Research Project with project code: 17CTYJ13.
Acknowledgments
The research team wishes to thank Shandong Sport University and Universiti Sains Malaysia for their assistance in this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Allen, M. S., Greenlees, I., and Jones, M. (2011). An investigation of the five-factor model of personality and coping behaviour in sport. J. Sports Sci. 29, 841–850. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2011.565064
Allen, M. S., Greenlees, I., and Jones, M. (2013). Personality in sport: a comprehensive review. Int. Rev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 6, 184–208. doi: 10.1080/1750984x.2013.769614
Allen, M. S., and Laborde, S. (2014). The role of personality in sport and physical activity. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23, 460–465. doi: 10.1177/0963721414550705
Azita, H., Mousavi, M. V., Shahla, P., and Hamidreza, T. (2019). Effectiveness of psychological preparation program on sport performance of futsal girl players: mediating role of personality. J. Res. Med. Dental Sci. 7, 92–101.
Babcock, S. E., and Wilson, C. A. (2020). “Big five model of personality” in The Wiley Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences: Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 55–60.
Balyan, K. Y., Tok, S., Tatar, A., Binboga, E., and Balyan, M. (2016). The relationship among personality, cognitive anxiety, somatic anxiety, physiological arousal, and performance in male athletes. J. Clin. Sport Psychol. 10, 48–58. doi: 10.1123/jcsp.2015-0013
Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M., and Fraley, C. R. (2007). Voters’ personality traits in presidential elections. Person. Indivi. Diff. 42, 1199–1208. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.029
Bös, K., Schlenker, L., Büsch, D., Lämmle, L., Müller, H., Oberger, J., et al. (2009). Deutscher Motorik Test. Czwalina. 186, 6–18.
Brandstätter, H. (2009). Persönlichkeits-Adjektiv-Skalen (PASK5). Fünf Faktoren Modell [Personality Adjective Scales—PASK 5. Five Factor Model]. Zusammenstellung sozialwissenschaftlicher Items und Skalen. ZIS.
Caprara, G. V., and Perugini, M. (1994). Personality described by adjectives: The generalizability of the Big Five to the Italian lexical context. Europ. Jo. Person. 8, 357–369. doi: 10.1002/per.2410080502
Cloninger, S. (2009). “Conceptual issues in personality theory” in The Cambridge handbook of personality psychology, vol. 4, 3–26.
Costa Jr, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (1987). Neuroticism, somatic complaints, 563 and disease: is the bark worse than the bite? J. Person. 55, 299–316. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1987.tb00438.x
Costa Jr, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Person. Indiv. Diff. 13, 653–665. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I
Costa, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (2008). The revised neo personality inventory (neo-pi-r). The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment, London: Sage Publications. 2, 179–198.
Costa, P., and McCrae, R. (2007). NEO-FFI Personality Inventory. Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych: Warsaw, Poland.
Costa, P. T., and McCrae, R. R. (1989). NEO PI/FFI manual supplement for use with the NEO Personality Inventory and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cui, F. (1989). Research on the introversion and extroversion of elite race Walkers' personality. Phys. Educ., 1, 89–93 (in Chinese).
Davis, H. (1991). Criterion validity of the athletic motivation inventory: issues in professional sport. J. Appl. Sport Psychol. 3, 176–182. doi: 10.1080/10413209108406442
Draper, N., Giles, D., Schoffl, V., Konstantin Fuss, F., Watts, P., Wolf, P., et al. (2015). Comparative grading scales, statistical analyses, climber descriptors and ability grouping: International Rock Climbing Research Association position statement. Sports Technol. 8, 88–94. doi: 10.1080/19346182.2015.1107081
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., and Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: perseverance and passion for long-term goals. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 92, 1087. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
Eagleton, J. R., McKelvie, S. J., and De Man, A. (2007). Extra version and neuroticism in team sport participants, individual sport participants, and nonparticipants. Percept. Mot. Skills 105, 265–275. doi: 10.2466/pms.105.1.265-275
Fabbricatore, R., Iannario, M., Romano, R., and Vistocco, D. (2021). Component-based structural equation modeling for the assessment of psycho-social aspects and performance of athletes. AStA Adv. Stat. Anal. 107, 343–367. doi: 10.1007/s10182-021-00417-5
Fasold, F., Inzenhofer, V., Lingner, K., Noël, B., and Hüttermann, S. (2019). Personality traits of handball goalkeepers. J. Hum. Sport Exerc. 15, 283–293. doi: 10.14198/jhse.2020.152.04
Ferrucci, D. A. (2012). Introduction to “this is watson”. IBM J. Res. Develo. 56, 1–15. doi: 10.1147/JRD.2012.2184356
Franz, S. I. (1898). Review of studies from the Yale psychological laboratory. Psychol. Rev. 5, 431–433. doi: 10.1037/h0068727
García Naveira, A. (2010). Diferencias individuales en Estilos de Personalidad y rendimiento en deportistas. Ene 16:4.
García-Naveira, A., Ruiz Barquín, R., and Pujals, C. (2011). Diferencias en personalidad en función de la práctica o no deportiva, nivel de competición y categoría por edad en jugadores de fútbol desde el modelo de Costa y McCrae. Revista de Psicología del Deporte 20, 0029–0044.
García-Naveira, A., and Ruiz-Barquín, R. (2013). La personalidad del deportista: una revisión teórica desde la perspectiva de rasgos. Int. J. Med. Sci. Phys. Activity Sport 13, 627–645.
García-Naveira, A., and Ruiz-Barquín, R. (2016). Diferencias en personalidad en función de la práctica o no deportiva y categoría por edad en jugadores de fútbol de rendimiento desde el modelo de Costa y McCrae. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología del Ejercicio y el Deporte 11, 23–29.
Garcia-Naveira, A., and Ruiz-Barquín, R. (2020). Personalidad y rendimiento deportivo en jugadores de fútbol desde el modelo de Millón. UB J. Psychol. 50, 135–148.
Gill, D. L., Williams, L., and Reifsteck, E. J. (2017). Psychological dynamics of sport and exercise. Champaign: Human Kinetics.
Graser, J., Bohn, C., Kelava, A., Schreiber, F., Hofmann, S. G., and Stangier, U. (2012). The “Affective Style Questionnaire (ASQ)”: German Adaptation and Validity. Diagnostica, 58, 100–111.
Goldberg, L. R. (1981). Language and individual differences: the search for universals in personality lexicons. Rev. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2, 141–165.
Hartung, G. H., and Farge, E. J. (1977). Personality and physiological traits in middle-aged runners and joggers. J. Gerontol. 32, 541–548. doi: 10.1093/geronj/32.5.541
Ionel, M. S., Ion, A., and Visu-Petra, L. (2022). Personality, grit, and performance in rock-climbing: down to the nitty-gritty. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 21, 306–328. doi: 10.1080/1612197x.2022.2044368
Kalinowski, P., Bojkowski, Ł., Śliwowski, R., Wieczorek, A., Konarski, J., and Tomczak, M. (2020). Mediational role of coping with stress in relationship between personality and effectiveness of performance of soccer players. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 15, 354–363. doi: 10.1177/1747954120915190
Karageorghis, C. I., Mouchlianitis, E., Payre, W., Kuan, G., Howard, L. W., Reed, N., et al. (2021). Psychological, psychophysiological and behavioural effects of participant-selected vs. researcher-selected music in simulated urban driving. Appl. Ergon. 96:103436. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103436
Kekäläinen, T., Terracciano, A., Tirkkonen, A., Savikangas, T., Hänninen, T., Neely, A. S., et al. (2023). Does personality moderate the efficacy of physical and cognitive training interventions? A 12-month randomized controlled trial in older adults. Personal. Individ. Differ. 202:111957. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2022.111957
Khormaee, F., and Khayer, M. (2006). Investigating the causal model of personality traits, motivational orientations and cognitive learning strategies. Social Sci. Human Shiraz University 25, 79–97.
Klatt, S., Rückel, L.-M., Wagener, S., and Noël, B. (2021). Personality traits and emotion regulation styles of Elite Beach volleyball dyads: examination of intra-team differences, performance and satisfaction levels. Front. Psychol. 12:719572. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.719572
Klein, M., Fröhlich, M., and Emrich, E. (2017). Self-concept in adolescents—relationship between sport participation, motor performance and personality traits. Sports 5:22. doi: 10.3390/sports5020022
Knapp, B. N. (1974). Review of: “Personality and performance in physical education and sport”. Ergonomics 17, 290–291. doi: 10.1080/00140137408931353
Knittel, M., and Guszkowska, M. (2016). Strategies of coping with stress and the sport results of alpine skiers and tennis players. Bio. Human Kinetics 8, 44–50. doi: 10.1515/bhk-2016-0007
Kowalski, K. C., and Crocker, P. R. (2001). Development and validation of the Coping Function Questionnaire for adolescents in sport. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 23, 136–155. doi: 10.1123/jsep.23.2.136
Laborde, S., Allen, M. S., Katschak, K., Mattonet, K., and Lachner, N. (2019). Trait personality in sport and exercise psychology: a mapping review and research agenda. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 18, 701–716. doi: 10.1080/1612197x.2019.1570536
Levy, J. J., and Ruggieri, J. (2019). “Personality, styles, and orientations in sport: pros, cons, and guidelines for predicting sport performance” in APA handbook of sport and exercise psychology, volume 1: Sport psychology, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association), 79–98.
Li, J. (2009). Research on Mental Toughness of Excellent Male Athletes from Event Group in China. The 11th China Association for Science and Technology Annual Conference - Seminar on Sustainable Development of Competitive Sports in China, Chongqing China.
Lin, L., Lu, X., and Sun, Y. (2011). Personality traits of Chinese elite canoeists. J. Shandong Inst. Phys. Educ. Sports, 27 (in Chinese). doi: 10.14104/j.cnki.1006-2076.2011.03.011
Liu, Y. (2011). Active athletes in Liaoning province personality and subjective well-being study, China.
Lochbaum, M. R., Rhodes, R. E., Stevenson, S. J., Surles, J., Stevens, T., and Wang, C. K. J. (2010). Does gender moderate the exercising personality? An examination of continuous and stage-based exercise. Psychol. Health Med. 15, 50–60. doi: 10.1080/13548500903443449
Martens, R., Burton, D., Vealey, R. S., Bump, L. A., and Smith, D. E. (1990). Development and validation of the competitive state anxiety inventory-2. Comp Anxiety Sport 3, 117–190.
Matuszewski, P., Dobrowolski, P., and Zawadzki, B. (2020). The association between personality traits and eSports performance. Front. Psychol. 11:1490. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01490
McCrae, R. R., and John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications. J. Pers. 60, 175–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x
McCrae, R. R., and Costa Jr, P. T. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Person. Indiv. Diff.. 36, 587–596. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00118-1
McKelvie, S. J., Lemieux, P., and Stout, D. (2003). Extraversion and neuroticism in contact athletes, no contact athletes and non-athletes: a research note. Athletic Insight 5, 19–27.
Merritt, C. J., and Tharp, I. J. (2013). Personality, self-efficacy and risk-taking in parkour (free-running). Psychol. Sport Exerc. 14, 608–611. doi: 10.1016/j.psychsport.2013.03.001
Nia, M. E., and Besharat, M. A. (2010). Comparison of athletes’ personality characteristics in individual and team sports. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 5, 808–812. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.189
O’Connor, B. P. (2002). A quantitative review of the comprehensiveness of the five-factor model in relation to popular personality inventories. Assessment 9, 188–203. doi: 10.1177/1073191102092010
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
Perry, J., Ross, M., Weinstock, J., and Gfeller, J. (2017). Examining the interrelationships between motivation, conscientiousness, and individual endurance sport performance. J. Sports Sci. 5, 146–156. doi: 10.17265/2332-7839/2017.03.002
Piedmont, R. L. (1995). Big-Five Adjective Marker Scales for Use with College Students. Psychol Reports 77, 160–162. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.77.1.160
Piedmont, R. L., Hill, D. C., and Blanco, S. (1999). Predicting athletic performance using the five-factormodel of personality. Personal. Individ. Differ. 27, 769–777. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00280-3
Piepiora, P. (2021a). Assessment of personality traits influencing the performance of men in team sports in terms of the big five. Front. Psychol. 12:679724. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.679724
Piepiora, P. (2021b). Personality profile of individual sports champions. Brain Behav. 11:e02145. doi: 10.1002/brb3.2145
Piepiora, P., Kwiatkowski, D., Bagińska, J., and Agouridas, D. (2021). Sports level and the personality of American football players in Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:13026. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182413026
Piepiora, P., and Piepiora, Z. (2021). Personality determinants of success in Men’s sports in the light of the big five. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18:6297. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18126297
Rammstedt, B., and John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. J. Res. Person. 41, 203–212.
Rhodes, R. E., Courneya, K. S., and Hayduk, L. A. (2002). Does personality moderate the theory of planned behavior in the exercise domain? J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 24, 120–132. doi: 10.1123/jsep.24.2.120
Rhodes, R. E., and Smith, N. E. I. (2006). Personality correlates of physical activity: a review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 40, 958–965. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2006.028860
Robazza, C., Bortoli, L., and Gramaccioni, G. (2009). L’Inventario Psicologico della Prestazione Sportiva (IPPS-48). Il Giornale Italiano Di Psicologia Dello Sport, 4, 14–20.
Roberts, R., and Woodman, T. (2017). Personality and performance: moving beyond the big 5. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 16, 104–108. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.033
Rosenthal, R., and Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Ruffer, W. A. (1976). Updated bibliographies: personality traits of athletes: part V. Phys. Educator 33, 211–214.
Ruiz-Barquín, R., and García-Naveira, A. (2013). Personalidad, edad y rendimiento deportivo en jugadores de fútbol desde el modelo de Costa y McCrae. Anales de Psicología 29, 642–655. doi: 10.6018/analesps.29.3.175771
Sheard, M., and Golby, J. (2010). Personality hardiness differentiates elite-level sport performers. Int. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 8, 160–169. doi: 10.1080/1612197x.2010.9671940
Siemon, D., and Wessels, J. (2022). Performance prediction of basketball players using automated personality mining with twitter data. Sport Bus. Manag. Int. J. 13, 228–247. doi: 10.1108/sbm-10-2021-0119
Singley, K. I., Hale, B. D., and Russell, D. M. (2012). Heart rate, anxiety, and hardiness in novice (tandem) and experienced (solo) skydivers. J. Sport Behav. 35, 453–469.
Soto, C. J., and John, O. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a 739 hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. J. 740 Person. Social Psychol. 113:117. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000096
Steca, P., Baretta, D., Greco, A., D'Addario, M., and Monzani, D. (2018). Associations between personality, sports participation and athletic success. A comparison of big five in sporting and non-sporting adults. Personal. Individ. Differ. 121, 176–183. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.040
Stine, K. A., Moxey, J. R., Gilbertson, N. M., Malin, S. K., and Weltman, A. L. (2019). Effects of feedback type and personality on 2,000-m ergometer performance in female varsity collegiate rowers. J. Strength Cond. Res. 33, 2170–2176. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002376
Sutin, A. R., Stephan, Y., Luchetti, M., Artese, A., Oshio, A., and Terracciano, A. (2016). The five-factor model of personality and physical inactivity: a meta-analysis of 16 samples. J. Res. Pers. 63, 22–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2016.05.001
Szwarc, A. (2002). A method of assessing the efficacy of soccer players’ technical-tactical capabilities. Sport Wyczynowy, 40, 21–32.
Tatar, A. (2005). Çok Boyutlu Kişilik Envanteri’nin Madde-Cevap Kuramına göre kısa formunun geliştirilmesi ve psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi.
Terracciano, A., Schrack, J. A., Sutin, A. R., Chan, W., Simonsick, E. M., and Ferrucci, L. (2013). Personality, metabolic rate and aerobic capacity. PLoS One 8:e54746. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054746
Tok, S. (2011). The big five personality traits and risky sport participation. Soc. Behav. Personal. Int. J. 39, 1105–1111. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2011.39.8.1105
Vealey, R. S. (1992). “Personality and sport: a comprehensive view” in Advances in Sport Psychology, 25–60.
Vealey, R. S. (2002). “Personality and sport behavior” in Advances in sport psychology. 2nd ed (Champaigns: Human Kinetics), 43–74.
Wann, D. L., Dunham, M. D., Byrd, M. L., and Keenan, B. L. (2004). The five factor model of personality and the psychological health of highly identified sport fans. Int. Sports J. 8:28.
Xu, S., Wu, Z., and Wu, Z. (1996). A study of the age differences of some personality characteristics in adults. Psychol. Sci. 1-5+63. doi: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.1996.01.001
Yao, R., and Liang, L. (2010). Analysis of the Application of Simplified NEO-FFI to Undergraduates. Chinese J. Clinical Psychol. 18, 457–459. doi: 10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2010.04.024
Yin, X. (1985). Research and establishment of a diagnostic and monitoring system for the competitive ability status of outstanding Chinese athletes. Beijing: People’s Sports Publishing House.
Yuan, X. (2020). Research on the relationship between personality characteristics and sports performance of athletes with the routine of martial arts in National Sports Universities, China.
Zar, A., Reza, S. H., Ahmadi, F., Nikolaidis, P. T., Safari, M. A., Keshazarz, M. H., et al. (2022). Investigating the relationship between big five personality traits and sports performance among disabled athletes. Biomed. Res. Int. 2022, 1–7. doi: 10.1155/2022/8072824
Zawadzki, B., Strelau, J., Szczepaniak, P., and Śliwińska, M. (1998). Inwentarz osobowości NEO-FFI Costy i McCrae. Adaptacja polska. Podręcznik. Warszawa: Pracownia Testów Psychologicznych PTP.
Keywords: personality, five-factor model, sport performance, systematic review, competitive sports
Citation: Shuai Y, Wang S, Liu X, Kueh YC and Kuan G (2023) The influence of the five-factor model of personality on performance in competitive sports: a review. Front. Psychol. 14:1284378. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1284378
Edited by:
Marianna Alesi, University of Palermo, ItalyReviewed by:
Alejo García Naveira, Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid, SpainBogdan Włodzimierz Zawadzki, University of Warsaw, Poland
Copyright © 2023 Shuai, Wang, Liu, Kueh and Kuan. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Xian Liu, liuxian@sdpei.edu.cn; Garry Kuan, garry@usm.my