c consult author(s) regarding copyright matters notice ... · integrating personality in sport and...

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 [email protected]

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

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/view/person/Coulter,_Tristan.html

https://eprints.qut.edu.au/91406/

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; [email protected] 8

Clifford J. Mallett; The University of Queensland, School of Human Movement and Nutrition 9

Sciences; [email protected] 10

Jefferson A. Singer; Connecticut College, Department of Psychology; [email protected] 11

and 12

Daniel F. Gucciardi; Curtin University, School of Physiotherapy and Exercise Science; 13

[email protected] 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: [email protected] 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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-


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:


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.


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.


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


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).


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


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.


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

c consult author(s) regarding copyright matters notice ... · integrating personality in sport and...

Documents