You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Is there such a thing as an "athletic personality"? Do the psychological characteristics that make someone a champion wrestler differ from those of a champion gymnast? For a century, sport psychologists have asked whether stable personality traits predict who is drawn to sport, who succeeds, and who suits one sport rather than another — and the answers have been more complicated, and more contested, than the intuitive "winners have winning personalities" would suggest. This topic, the second of the two cognitive topics in the OCR sport option, examines personality, how it is measured, and how it relates to sport. Its prescribed key research is Kroll and Crenshaw's (1970) multivariate personality profile analysis of four athletic groups, which used a standard personality questionnaire to compare the profiles of athletes from different sports. This lesson works through the Background (theories and measurement of personality, and the personality–sport debate), the Key research (Kroll and Crenshaw in full), and an Application (using personality knowledge to improve performance).
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 03, Section B (Sport & exercise) topic | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| Theories of personality and how personality is measured | Personality — Background (Cognitive) | AO1 knowledge; AO3 evaluation |
| The relationship between personality and sport | Personality — Background (Cognitive) | AO1; AO2 applying to athletes |
| Kroll & Crenshaw (1970): personality profiles of four athletic groups | Personality — Key research | AO1 knowledge; AO3 evaluation |
| A strategy using personality knowledge to improve performance | Personality — Application | AO2 applying to a novel situation |
The specification is referenced descriptively; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for exact wording. This lesson develops AO1 (theories and measurement of personality and the key research), AO2 (using personality knowledge in an applied strategy) and AO3 (evaluating personality theories, the trait–situation debate and the key research).
Personality refers to the relatively stable, enduring characteristics that make a person distinctive and that give their behaviour a degree of consistency across situations and time. In sport psychology, three broad theoretical approaches have been influential, and a strong candidate can contrast them.
Trait theories hold that personality consists of stable, measurable dispositions that a person carries from situation to situation. Two frameworks matter most for this topic. Raymond Cattell identified sixteen source traits and built a questionnaire — the Sixteen Personality Factor questionnaire (16PF) — to measure them; this is the very instrument Kroll and Crenshaw used. Hans Eysenck proposed a smaller set of dimensions, principally extraversion–introversion and neuroticism–stability (later adding psychoticism), which he linked to biology (for example, arguing that extraverts are chronically under-aroused and so seek stimulation). Trait approaches promise prediction: if athletes in a given sport share a trait profile, we might select or guide people accordingly. Applied to sport, this generated the search for an "athletic personality" and questions such as whether elite athletes are more extraverted, more emotionally stable, or higher in competitiveness than non-athletes.
The situational approach, rooted in social-learning theory, challenges traits head-on: it argues that behaviour is determined largely by the situation and by learning (reward, punishment, modelling), not by fixed internal dispositions, and points out that people are often strikingly inconsistent across situations (bold on the pitch, shy in the classroom). The interactionist approach — now the dominant view — holds that behaviour is the product of traits and situations together: a disposition (say, high trait anxiety) expresses itself as behaviour only in situations that activate it (a high-pressure final). This is the sophisticated position the exam rewards, and it explains why personality alone predicts sporting behaviour only weakly: what an athlete does depends on their traits and the demands of the moment. It connects directly to the individual–situational debate and to Hanin's individualised-zone idea from the arousal topic.
For completeness, the psychodynamic approach explains personality through unconscious conflict and early experience, and the humanistic approach (Maslow, Rogers) through the drive toward self-actualisation and the importance of self-concept. These are less central to the sporting personality debate but show that "personality" is theorised very differently across psychology, which is itself an evaluation point: findings depend on which theory of personality one adopts.
It is worth dwelling a little on Eysenck's approach, because it illustrates how a trait theory can make testable sporting predictions and thereby connects personality to the biological themes of the option. Eysenck argued that the extraversion dimension has a physiological basis: extraverts, he proposed, have chronically lower cortical arousal than introverts, and so seek out stimulation to raise their arousal to a comfortable level, whereas introverts, already highly aroused, avoid excess stimulation. If this is right, it generates concrete predictions for sport: extraverts might gravitate toward, and cope better with, high-arousal, high-stimulation activities (contact sports, crowds, risk), tolerate pain and monotony differently, and require psyching-up rather than calming before competition — exactly the individualisation the application later exploits. Eysenck also linked neuroticism to emotional lability and a tendency toward anxiety, tying his theory directly to the trait-anxiety construct from the arousal topic. Whether or not the precise physiology holds, the value of Eysenck's framework here is that it makes personality do explanatory work — predicting how different athletes will respond to arousal and stimulation — rather than merely describing them, which is why it recurs in applied sport psychology despite the mixed evidence for its biological claims.
A distinct but important question is whether personality is truly fixed or whether it can change — including through sport itself. Trait theories tend to assume stability, and much of the sporting-personality literature treats personality as a cause that athletes bring to their sport. But there is a long-standing, if contested, claim that participation in sport develops character — discipline, resilience, cooperation, emotional control — the idea that "sport builds character". The evidence is mixed and confounded (people who possess those qualities may be the ones who persist in sport, rather than sport instilling them), and this is precisely the attract-versus-shape ambiguity that Kroll and Crenshaw's cross-sectional design cannot resolve. Holding open the possibility that sport shapes personality, rather than only selecting it, matters for the debates: it bears on nature–nurture (is temperament innate or developed?) and on the usefulness question (can we deliberately develop desirable characteristics through sport, for example in youth-development programmes?). A candidate who notes that the direction of causation is genuinely unresolved — and that this is a feature of the design of most personality–sport research, not a failing peculiar to one study — demonstrates real evaluative maturity.
Because personality is internal, it is inferred from measurement, and each method has characteristic strengths and weaknesses:
| Method | What it is | Strength | Weakness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Questionnaires / inventories (e.g. 16PF, EPI) | Self-report rating scales scored into trait profiles | Standardised, quantifiable, allow large samples and comparison | Social desirability; response sets; assume honest self-insight |
| Interviews | Structured or unstructured conversation | Rich, flexible, can probe | Subjective, hard to quantify, interviewer effects |
| Behavioural observation | Rating behaviour in situ | Captures actual behaviour | Observer bias; behaviour is situation-specific |
| Projective tests | Ambiguous stimuli interpreted (e.g. inkblots) | May access less conscious material | Poor reliability and validity |
The dominant method in trait research — and in Kroll and Crenshaw's study — is the standardised questionnaire, which is practical and quantifiable but rests on athletes reporting honestly and accurately about themselves, and is vulnerable to social desirability: athletes may present themselves as more confident, tougher or more stable than they are. Recognising that a personality "profile" is a product of self-report is a key evaluation move.
A further measurement subtlety is the difference between an instrument's reliability and its validity. A questionnaire like the 16PF may be highly reliable — giving consistent scores on retesting — while its validity for predicting sporting behaviour or success is quite another matter, since consistent measurement of a trait does not guarantee that the trait actually determines what an athlete does on the field. Much of the sceptical case against personality testing in sport is really a validity critique: the tests measure something reliably, but that something predicts performance poorly. Keeping reliability and validity distinct lets a candidate praise the measurement while still doubting the conclusions — a hallmark of careful evaluation.
Research has asked several distinct questions, and it helps to keep them apart:
Two influential ideas are worth naming. Morgan's "iceberg profile" described elite athletes as tending to score above average on the positive mood dimension of vigour and below average on negative dimensions (tension, depression, fatigue, confusion) — a profile shaped like an iceberg when plotted — though this concerns mood states as much as stable personality and, like much of this literature, is debated. And the trait–state distinction from the arousal topic recurs: stable personality traits (e.g. trait anxiety) predispose, but state responses depend on the situation.
The credulous–sceptical debate deserves fuller treatment, because it is the organising controversy of this whole topic and a rich source of AO3. William Morgan framed the two camps. The credulous position holds that personality testing can meaningfully predict and explain sporting behaviour and success — that with the right instruments we could identify future champions or match athletes to sports. The sceptical position holds that the evidence simply does not support such claims: study after study produced weak, inconsistent or contradictory results, effect sizes were small, and personality typically accounted for only a tiny fraction of the variance in performance, which is dwarfed by physical, technical, tactical and situational factors. Several methodological problems fuelled the sceptics' case: many early studies were poorly designed, used different and sometimes invalid instruments, ran large numbers of comparisons that inflated the chance of a "significant" fluke, and were prone to publication bias whereby positive findings were reported and null findings buried. The mainstream verdict today leans firmly sceptical: personality tests are poor predictors of athletic success and should not be used to select athletes. Kroll and Crenshaw's study belongs squarely in this sceptical, cautionary tradition — its failure to find neat sport-specific types is exactly the kind of result that deflated credulous hopes. For the exam, being able to name both camps, explain why the sceptical view prevailed, and connect it to the weakness of personality as a selector is a direct route to top-band evaluation.
Set against the modest and inconsistent findings for stable personality, it is striking how much stronger the evidence is for the more state-like and cognitive constructs met elsewhere in the option — self-efficacy, confidence, anxiety and mood before a specific competition often predict performance better than global personality traits do. This contrast is itself instructive: it suggests that what athletes think and feel in the situation matters more for performance than what they are like in general, reinforcing the interactionist message and explaining why applied sport psychology has largely shifted from measuring fixed personalities toward training changeable psychological skills. A candidate who draws this comparison — weak trait prediction, stronger situational-cognitive prediction — shows exactly the synoptic grasp the specification rewards.
The selection warning. Because personality tests are weak predictors of sporting success, using them to select or reject athletes is both scientifically dubious and ethically fraught — it could exclude talented individuals on the basis of a questionnaire. This "socially sensitive" use is a crucial evaluation and application point: personality knowledge is better used to understand and support athletes than to pick them.
By 1970, researchers were actively asking whether athletes in different sports had distinct personality profiles, but many earlier studies were methodologically weak — small, using varied instruments, and often analysing traits one at a time rather than as a profile. Walter Kroll and Kay Crenshaw set out to compare the personality profiles of athletes from four different sports using a multivariate approach — that is, analysing the whole set of personality traits together as a profile, rather than testing each trait separately, which better reflects that personality is a pattern. The aim was to determine whether athletes in different sports could be distinguished by their multivariate personality profiles — whether, for example, wrestlers differ psychologically from gymnasts.
The study used the Sixteen Personality Factor questionnaire (Cattell's 16PF), a standardised self-report inventory scoring respondents on sixteen personality traits. The participants were male athletes drawn from four athletic groups representing different sports — the groups compared were wrestlers, gymnasts, karate participants and American football players — of a reasonably high (e.g. collegiate/competitive) standard. Each athlete completed the 16PF, yielding a sixteen-trait profile, and the profiles of the four groups were compared using multivariate statistical analysis to see whether the groups' profiles differed significantly from one another.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.