Downloaded from http://bjsm.bmj.com/ on April 20, 2016 - Published by group.bmj.

com
958

REVIEW

Personality correlates of physical activity: a review and

meta-analysis
R E Rhodes, N E I Smith
...............................................................................................................................

Br J Sports Med 2006;40:958–965. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2006.028860

This review aimed to combine the literature on major encompass the concepts that traits are enduring
and consistent individual-level differences in
personality traits and physical activity alongside providing tendencies to show consistent patterns of
some meta-analytic summaries of the findings. Overall, 33 thoughts, feelings and actions.7 Many research-
studies containing 35 independent samples, ranging from ers further theorise that personality has a
biological or genetic basis.7–9 The recent interest
1969 to 2006, met the inclusion criteria. Extraversion in personality research stems from improved
(r = 0.23), neuroticism (r = 20.11) and conscientiousness psychometric instrumentation9 and growing evi-
(r = 0.20) were identified as correlates of physical activity dence showing that personality is heritable,
structured similarly across cultures, has high
using random effects meta-analytic procedures correcting temporal (rank order) stability and does not
for sampling bias and attenuation of measurement error. relate strongly to parental rearing style.7
The five-factor model traits of openness to experience/ One of the other advances in personality trait
psychology is the move towards a common
intellect and agreeableness, as well as Eysenck’s higher-order trait taxonomy.5 10 Common taxo-
psychoticism trait, were not associated with physical nomies range from two to seven basic factors,
activity. Potential moderators of personality and physical but the most popular personality model is a five-
factor taxonomy. This model suggests that
activity relationships such as sex, age, culture/country, neuroticism (ie, tendency to be emotionally
design and instrumentation were inconclusive given the unstable, anxious, self-conscious and vulner-
small number of studies. Still, the existing evidence was able), extraversion (ie, tendency to be sociable,
assertive, energetic, seek excitement and experi-
suggestive that personality and physical activity ence positive affect), openness to experience/
relationships are relatively invariant to these factors. intellect (ie, tendency to be perceptive, creative,
Studies examining personality and different physical reflective and appreciate fantasy, and aesthetics),
agreeableness (ie, tendency to be kind, coopera-
activity modes suggested differences by traits such as tive, altruistic, trustworthy and generous) and
extraversion, but more research is needed to make any conscientiousness (ie, tendency to be ordered,
conclusions. Future research using multivariate analyses, dutiful, self-disciplined and achievement
oriented) are the basic factors of personality
personality-channelled physical activity interventions, structure. The second most popular, and more
longitudinal designs and objective physical activity established, model of personality is Eysenck’s8
measurement is recommended. three-factor model, which includes similar extra-
version and neuroticism traits as the five-factor
...........................................................................
model and a psychoticism trait (ie, risk taking,
impulsiveness, irresponsibility, manipulative-

T
he health benefits of regular moderate ness, sensation seeking, tough-mindedness and
physical activity have been well-established,1 pragmatism). Most research on personality and
yet participation rates across the population physical activity apply one of these two models.11
are generally too low to accrue these benefits.2 3 Although several pathways for how person-
Thus, promotion of physical activity is a public ality interacts with health have been postulated,
health priority. Understanding the antecedent personality traits are hypothesised to influence
correlates of participation in physical activity is physical activity through a health-behaviour
considered a useful first-stage endeavour to model.12 This model suggests that the principal
focus on intervention efforts. This large body of effect of personality on health-oriented beha-
research has provided evidence that physical viours is through the quality of our health
activity participation is related to many factors, practices. More specifically, personality is
See end of article for
authors’ affiliations spanning personal, social and environmental hypothesised to affect social cognitions (ie,
....................... categories.4 A personal factor that has received perceptions, attitudes, norms and self-efficacy)
continued, albeit modest, attention in exercise towards a behaviour, which in turn influence the
Correspondence to:
R E Rhodes, University of and health psychology across the years is health behaviour itself.6 11 13
Victoria, PO Box 3010, personality. This study aimed to review the available
STN CSC Victoria, Canada Personality trait psychology has a long and evidence for a relationship between personality
V8W 3N4; rhodes@ tumultuous history,5 6 but a re-emergence of and physical activity. Complementary to the
uvic.ca
interest over the past 20 years has resulted in a
Accepted 9 October 2006 proliferation of research. Overall, personality Abbreviations: EPI, Eysenck personality inventory; NEO-
....................... itself has numerous definitions, but most FFI, Neo-five factor inventory

www.bjsportmed.com
 Downloaded from http://bjsm.bmj.com/ on April 20, 2016 - Published by group.bmj.com
Personality correlates of physical activity 959

increase in general personality research in the past 20 years is Meta-analytical procedures were used where sufficient
a growing number of studies focusing on personality and samples for comparisons and summary were available.
physical activity. At present, this literature has not been Although no minimum number of studies is recommended
combined and systematically appraised despite some position in meta-analysis, we considered at least eight samples as a
pieces on the topic.11 14 15 This review provides preliminary general rule of thumb in this review. Topics with less than
meta-analytical information on the relationship between eight samples were discussed using narrative review and
personality and physical activity and present future directions vote-counting procedures. Our meta-analysis procedures
for this research topic. were based on random-effects models with correction for
sampling error and measurement attenuation using the
procedures recommended by Hunter and Schmidt64 for
METHOD correlations. Studies with mean differences (ie, effect size
This review, completed in July 2006, includes a total of 36 d) were converted to r for these analyses.
peer-reviewed studies obtained systematically through data-
base searches, and manual cross-referencing of bibliogra-
phies. Three of these studies used redundant samples for RESULTS
other research questions16–18 and two incorporated two Neuroticism
samples within each paper19 20; thus, the final review included Twenty one samples were available to evaluate neuroticism
33 peer-reviewed studies and 35 independent samples19–50 (N) in meta-analysis19–22 25–27 30–33 35 38–43 46 for a total of 48 049
(table 1). The databases searched included the following: participants. The summary r was 20.11, with an observed
Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO and Medline. Search variance of 0.002 and a sampling error of 0. Further, the 95%
terms included various combinations of the key words credibility interval of population r was 20.02 to 20.20. The
personality, disposition, extraversion, neuroticism, introver- results suggest that N is a correlate of physical activity with a
sion, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientious- small effect, but some moderators across studies may be
ness, Eysenck, Cattell, psychoticism, individual difference, present. One concern in this analysis was the heavy
emotional stability, pessimism, optimism, sociability, hardi- weighting of summary r from two very large samples.26 32 In
ness, intellect and physical activity, exercise, activity, physi- cases such as this, Hunter and Schmidt64 advise that the
cally active and active living. This initial electronic search meta-analysis be performed both with and without the large
samples. Thus, without these two samples, the summary
technique yielded 10 337 potential articles, although many
r = 20.17; the difference is not substantive (ie, below
were duplicates. Articles included in this review are from
Cohen’s q statistic for a small effect size65), nor does it alter
peer-reviewed scholarly English journals, published from
the classification of a small effect size, but it does suggest a
1969 to the time of review completion (July 2006).
slightly higher summary statistic. Instrumentation differ-
The inclusion criteria extended to studies of adults
ences may also be a moderator of the results, but too few
(>18 years), which included a measure of physical activity
studies were available to assess this factor. The most common
behaviour, and a comprehensive personality model or major
measures of N applied either the EPI66 (or variant) or
trait. Studies that included subtraits or facet traits of theNEO-FFI.67 Preliminary vote counting suggests that six
personality, such as type A behaviours,51 sensation seek- of nine studies supported a negative relationship between
ing52 53 or activity,16 were excluded because they might be physical activity and N using the EPI, and eight of 11 samples
construct redundant and do not form the basis for under- supported this relationship using the NEO-FFI. These results
standing comprehensive personality and physical activity.11 12 do not suggest a marked difference. Overall, it seems that N is
Studies that used dependent variables such as physiological negatively associated with physical activity but the effect is
markers,54 55 preferences of physical activity or related small.
factors,56 stages of change57 or social cognitive constructs58 59
rather than physical activity behaviour were excluded Extraversion
because these are less direct indicators of actual physical Twenty three samples were available to evaluate extraversion
activity. In addition, included studies measured physical (E) in meta-analysis (total n = 50 721).19–22 25–28 30–32 34 35 38–44 46
activity as a discrete or continuous variable, comparing The summary r was 0.23 (95% credibility interval 0.08–0.38),
groups who were active with those who were inactive. with an observed variance of 0.006 and a sampling error of 0.
Studies that measured the physical activity of athletes60 or The results suggest that E is a correlate of physical activity
compared different groups of athletes61–63 were not included with a small–medium effect, but some moderators across
because the baseline does not include the absence of physical studies may be present. Still, the population standard
activity. deviation (SD) of r was only 30% of the summary r; thus
Existing literature has focused on several subtopics and the population variance of r is quite small in terms of
correlates of personality and physical activity. We created absolute value. Similar to the analysis of N, we also
subtopics where at least three studies were present that dealt performed the meta-analysis without two very large stu-
with a given factor. Thus, subtopics in this review included dies26 32 because these are such heavy weights on the results.
extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness, openness to experi- Without these two samples, the summary r = 0.17. Like N,
ence/intellect, conscientiousness, psychoticism, Cattell’s 16 the difference is not substantive and does not alter the
primary factors, sex, age, cultural differences, physical classification of a small effect size, but it does suggest a
activity mode, study design, and personality and social slightly lower summary statistic. Instrumentation differences
cognition models. Of the 35 samples in this review, 18 were did not appear to vary the overall results considerably when
cross-sectional and 17 were prospective/longitudinal. comparing the NEO-FFI with the EPI. Six of eight studies
Included samples used the following personality instru- using the EPI supported a positive relationship between
ments: 10 used the Eysenck personality inventory (EPI) (or physical activity and E, and 10 of 11 samples using the NEO-
variant), 10 used the Neo-five factor inventory (NEO-FFI), 3 FFI supported this relationship.
used Cattell’s 16 primary factors, 3 used Goldberg’s unipolar
markers, 2 used the big five inventory, 2 used the Minnesota Psychoticism
multihasic inventory and 1 sample each used the Maudsley Although psychoticism (P) is a key trait in Eysenck’s8 three-
personality inventory, Karolinska Scale of Personality, 300 factor model of personality, it has not received as much
adjective list and 25 personality aspects. research attention in the physical activity domain as E and N.

www.bjsportmed.com
 960

Table 1 Personality and physical activity behaviour

Personality
Study Participants Design measure PA measure Sig. and ES values
49
Brunner n = 60; male university students, employees and alumni: Cross-sectional 300 Adjective Dichotomous variable: Active participants had higher (p,0.05) intraception, favourability,
(1969) mean age 38 years checklist (24 factors) regular vigorous PA, defensiveness, achievement, dominance, self-confidence; inactive
non-regular vigorous PA participants had higher (p,0.05) succorance, counselling readiness

www.bjsportmed.com
22
Massie n = 49; middle-aged business men: aged 29–56 years 28-week prospective MPI Attendance to exercise N sig. associated with PA (d = 0.33; p,0.05). E neg associated with PA
(1971) programme (d = 0.38; p,0.05)
24
Renfrow n = 46; male faculty members: aged 29–70 years Cross-sectional Cattell 16 PF Dichotomous variable: Following were sig. associated with active , inactive (p,0.05) outgoing
(1979) active, inactive (d = 0.76), conscientious (d = 0.93), shrewd (d = 0.64). Sig. associated
with active . inactive (d,0.05): suspicious (d = 0.57), liberal (d = 1.05)
and self-sufficient (d = 1.00)
23
Bolton n = 52; young adult female joggers and non-joggers: Cross-sectional Cattell 16 PF Dichotomous variable: Active subjects were more stable, less tense and less anxious (p,0.05)
(1979) aged 24–57 years active, inactive
48
Blumenthal n = 35; patients with myocardial infarctions (32M, 3F): 1-year longitudinal MMPI Dichotomous variable: Compliers scored higher on scales L and K and lower on scale F; drop-
(1982) mage 53.7 complier, drop-out outs scored sig. higher on scales O and A (p,0.05)
45
Howard n = 121; middle-aged managerial and professional 5-year longitudinal Cattell 16PF Self-report questionnaire Introverts scored higher on (p,0.10) gardening and home improvement;
(1987) males: mean age 44 years created for the study extroverts scored higher on (p,0.10) fishing, swimming, dancing,
aerobic exercise and tennis
50
Schnurr n = 204; male university graduates: mean age 64 years 46-year prospective 25 personality Self-report questionnaire Positive associations with exercise: vital, integrated, political—
(1990) aspects created for the study associations with exercise: unstable autonomic function, sensitive, shy,
creative, science interest, cultural interest
21
Kirkcaldy n = 306; mature college and university students Cross-sectional EPQ Self-report questionnaire E sig. associated with active participants (d = 0.34; p,0.05), N sig.
(1991) (114M, 192F): mean age 26.41 years created for the study associated with inactive participants (d = 0.21; p,0.05)
29
Szabo n = 35; students (20F, 15M): mage 23.1, 24.2 Cross-sectional EPI Dichotomous variable: Sig. diff. with E (p,0.01); non-exercising females scored higher on N
(1992) exercising, non-exercising than exercising females and males and non-exercising males (p,0.05)
25
Potgieter n = 116; student and faculty members (61M, 55F): 12-month prospective EPI Dichotomous variable: More Ns dropped out (d = 0.46; p,0.05). No diff. in groups with E
(1995) mean age 21.5 years adherers, drop-outs (d = 0.14)
27
Yeung n = 252; physically active adults (204F, 48M): Cross-sectional EPQ-R PAS: self-report Sig. association with N (r = 20.23; p,0.001); no association (p.0.05)
(1997) mean age 33.69 years questionnaire with P (r = 0.02) and E (r = 0.10)
28
Yeung n = 46; females: mean age 31.9 years 8-week prospective EPQ-R Exercise programme Sig. association between E and exercise adherence (r = 20.4; p,0.013)
(1997) adherence
37
Siegler n = 4426; students (3630M, 796F): mean age Cross-sectional MMPI Self-report questionnaire All personality variables sig. values; none reached small ES
(1997) btwn 43–45 years created for the study
26
Arai n = 22448; Japanese adults (8745M, 13703F): Cross-sectional EPQ-R Self-report questionnaire N—assoc. (p,0.05) with PA (d = 0.22), P (d = 0.15) and E (d = 0.43) and
(1998) mean age 50.4 years created for the study associated with PA
35
Courneya n = 264; undergraduate students (164F, 100M): Cross-sectional NEO-FFI GLTEQ—split into moderate PA was associated with (p,0.05) N (r = 20.12), E (r = 0.13), and C
(1998) mean age 21.3 years and strenuous exercise (r = 0.18)
47
Droomers n = 2598; adult males and females: aged Cross-sectional EPQ – N only Self-report questionnaire Highly inactive people were 2.2 X more likely to be N
(1998) 15–74 years created for the study
33
Marks n = 97; older adults (29M, 68F): mean age 77 years Cross-sectional BFI: measures for C PLQ Sig. value for C: (r = 0.21; p,0.05) No sig. value for N
(1999) and N
20
Courneya n1 = 300; female university students: mean age n1 = cross-sectional NEO-FFI n1 = GLTEQ n1 = sig. associations for N (r = -0.13; p,0.05), E (r = 0.28; p,0.01) and
(1999) 19.6 yearsand n2 = 67; females in exercise classes: n2 = 112week n2 = attendance to aerobic C (r = 0.23; p,0.01)
mean age 25 years prospective exercise classes n2 = sig. associations for N (r = 20.03; p,0.05), E (r = 0.29; p,0.01),
and C (r = 0.21; p,0.05)
46
Sale n = 187; young adults (80M, 107F): mean age Cross-sectional EPI Self-report questionnaire E sig. associated with PA (r = 0.19; p,0.01)
Downloaded from http://bjsm.bmj.com/ on April 20, 2016 - Published by group.bmj.com

(2000) 24 years created for the study

34
Van Loon n = 2514; Dutch adults (1083M, 1431F): mean Cross-sectional EPQ Modified Baecke list—PA split Sig. diff. in E with males btwn low and high (d = 0.29; p,0.05)
(2001) ages 42.6, 41.5 years into low, medium and high
43
Rhodes n = 175; non-metastatic breast cancer survivors: Cross-sectional NEO-FFI GLTEQ Sig. association (p,0.05) for N (r = 20.17) E (r = 0.24) and C (r = 0.19)
(2001) mean age 52.3 years
39
Conner n = 123; university students (104F, 19M): 2-week prospective BFI+NEO-FFI: C Self-report questionnaire Sig. association with C (r = 0.32; p,0.001)
(2001) mean age 21.8 years created for the study
44
Bryan n = 210; undergraduate students (147F, 63M): 3-month prospective Goldberg unipolar Self-report questionnaire E associated (p,0.10) with both aerobic exercise (r = 0.12) and strength
(2002) mean age 18.59 years markers—E only created for the study training (r = 0.21)
Rhodes, Smith
 Downloaded from http://bjsm.bmj.com/ on April 20, 2016 - Published by group.bmj.com
Personality correlates of physical activity 961

Still, this may be largely due to a consistency of null effects.

A, agreeableness; BFI, Big Five Inventory; btwn, between; C, conscientiousness; d, effect size; diff., difference; E, extraversion; EPI, Eysenck personality inventory; EPQ, Eysenck personality questionnaire; EPQ-R, Eysenck personality questionnaire—revised; F,
Sig. relationship (p,0.05) btwn exercise adherence and N (r = 20.27), E

Sig. associations (p,0.05) for N (r = 20.16), E (r = 0.25) and C (r = 0.16)

Sig. association (p,0.05) with E (r = 0.34), O (r = 0.21) and C (r = 0.15)

female; KSP, Karolinska Scale of Personality; M, male; MMPI, Minnesota multiphasic inventory; MPI, Maudsley personality inventory; O, openness to experience; N, neuroticism; NEO-FFI, -five factor inventory; P, psychoticism; PA, physical activity; PAS, physical
All the five studies to assess this trait report no relationship

Sig. values for weekly hours of PA (p,0.01): E: (std. b = 0.09) and N:

n1 = Sig. associations (p,0.05) for N(r = 20.19), E (r = 0.24), and C

Exercisers scored higher on E (d = 0.32). and lower on N (d = 0.14)

between P and physical activity.21 26–28 36 This includes two
large sample studies, suggesting that continued work with P
and physical activity may be unnecessary.

Sig. values (p,0.001) for N (r = 20.13) and E (r = 0.09)

Openness to experience/intellect
Twelve samples included the openness to experience/intellect

n2 = Sig. association with E (r = 0.14; p,0.05)

(O) factor found in the five-factor model of personality (total

Sig. association with E: (r = 0.16; p,0.01)

n = 2651).19 20 30 31 35 39–43 This factor is generally named open-
ness to experience,5 but some theorists who use adjective

No sig. values reported; (p.0.05)

descriptors to assess personality refer to this factor as
intellect.10 Of these 12 studies in the exercise domain, only
(r = 0.25), and O (r = 0.24).

two found this trait to be a significant correlate of physical

activity.40 41 More telling, however, was the meta-analytical
Sig. and ES values

summary r = 0.08, with an observed variance of 0.01 and a

population sampling error of 0.01. Because the system error
(std. b = 0.21)

was negligible after accounting for population sampling

(r = 0.16)

error, the presence of moderators across studies is unlikely.

Agreeableness
Eleven samples were available to evaluate the relationship
between agreeableness (A) and physical activity (total
1985 Health Interview Survey
Adapted questions from the

n = 2600).19 20 30 31 35 39 41–43 The summary r was 0.01, with a

Self-report questionnaire

small observed variance and sampling error that resulted in a

Self-report, 7-day PA

created for the study

n1 and n2 = GLTEQ

population variance of 0. This was also similar to traditional

vote counting; none of the 11 studies showed a significant
questionnaire
PA measure

(p,0.05) relationship between A and physical activity. Thus,

no evidence for this relationship is present.
GLTEQ

GLTEQ

GLTEQ

GLTEQ

GLTEQ

Conscientiousness
Of the 12 samples available to evaluate a relationship
n and n = NEO-FFI

EPQ—Dutch Version

between conscientiousness (C) and physical activ-

Goldberg unipolar

ity,19 20 30 31 33 35 39 41–43 nine showed significant positive find-

ings (total n = 2697).19 20 33 35 39 41–43 The summary statistic
Personality

was r = 0.20, and the population variance was small after

measure

NEO-FFI

NEO-FFI

NEO-FFI

NEO-FFI

NEO-FFI
markers

accounting for sampling error (0.005). Still, ,50% of the

KSP
1

observed variance (0.009) was accounted for by sampling

error (0.004), and the 95% credibility interval was r = 0.06 to
0.34, indicating some range in the population r. These
6-year longitudinal (PA/
n = 2-week prospective

personality correlations

findings support a small relationship between C and physical

10-week prospective

11-year longitudinal
1-month prospective

2-week prospective
n2 = cross-sectional

8-day prospective

activity, but suggest that some study moderators may be

activity scale; PF, primary factors; PLQ, personal lifestyle questionnaire; sig., significant; std., standard.
cross-sectional)
Cross-sectional

Cross-sectional

present.
collapsed
Design

Cattell’s 16 primary factors

1

Cattell68 was one of the early users of factor analysis in

personality trait research. Arguing that traits must be
determined empirically, Cattell used the lexical approach of
n = 106; college students (84F, 24M): mean age 20.5 years
n1 = 303; undergraduate students (223F, 80M): mean age
n = 51; cancer survivors (43F, 8M): mean age 52.5 years

personality trait development by looking at commonalties in

n = 6158; seniors (3738F, 2420M): mean age 75 years
n = 1482; Norwegian university students (905F, 577M):

n = 19288; Dutch adolescent and adult twins and their

descriptors in natural language. Using this approach, Cattell68

n = 390; university students (187F, 203M): mean age
n2 = 272; cancer survivors (190F, 82M): mage 60.7
n = 298; university students (212F, 86M): mean age
n = 301; female undergraduate students: mean age

developed the following 16 dimensions as traits that make

families (8773M, 10515F): mean age 33 years

up a model of personality: cool–warm, concrete–abstract

thinking, affected by feelings–emotionally stable, submis-
sive–dominant, sober–enthusiastic, expedient–conscientious,
shy–bold, tough–tender minded, trusting–suspicious,
practical–imaginative, forthright–shrewd, self-assured–
mean ages 23.5, 24.4 years

apprehensive, conservative–experimenting, group-oriented–

self-sufficient, undisciplined–controlled, relaxed–tense.
Further, Cattell68 also included two second-order factors that
encompass these 16 dimensions: extraversion and anxiety/
19.42 years

19.99 years

19.87 years
Participants

neuroticism.
21.8 years

The 16 primary factors have been used in two cross-

sectional23 24 and one prospective study45 in the physical
activity domain. The small number of studies and different
results reported negate a meta-analytical summary. Renfrow
31

and Bolton24 compared male and female regular exercisers

Hausenblas
40

30

32
Courneya

Giacobbi

De Moor
42

19

41

38
36

and non-exercisers in cross-sectional studies. Several trait

Rhodes

Rhodes

Rhodes

Wilson
Kjelsas
(2002)

(2002)

(2003)

(2003)

(2004)

(2004)

(2005)

(2005)

(2006)
Study

differences emerged. For example, in men, higher scores for

non-exercisers (n = 23) were identified in the traits of
conscientiousness, outgoing (bold) and shrewdness. By

www.bjsportmed.com
 Downloaded from http://bjsm.bmj.com/ on April 20, 2016 - Published by group.bmj.com
962 Rhodes, Smith

contrast, exercisers (n = 23) were identified as more suspi- remaining studies to include this factor in meta-analysis
cious, liberal and self-sufficient than non-exercisers. In but some evaluation of major traits can be made on the
women (27 joggers and 25 non-joggers), active subjects were basis of the age range of studies. The personality and
more stable, less tense and less anxious. physical activity literature is biased towards young
Howard et al45 used the 16 primary factors in a 5-year adults: 15 samples were composed of undergraduate
prospective study of middle management executives enga- students.19–21 25 29–31 35 36 39 41 42 44 46 Of these, 12 found an associa-
ging in a fitness programme to predict physical activities. tion between E and physical activity.19–21 29 31 35 36 41 42 44 46 Of the
Although only the E factor is reported in the behavioural 14 samples to assess N, seven found a negative association with
data, the results indicated that extraverts performed more physical activity.19 20 25 35 36 42 Finally, of the eight samples to
exercise than introverts over the fifth year (42% v 28%; evaluate C, six found a significant positive association with
p,0.05). Still, conclusions for associations of the 16 primary physical activity.19 20 35 39 41 42
factors and physical activity are difficult when summarising Similar findings are apparent in middle-aged and older
these three studies, because of differences in physical activity population samples.19 22 26 33 34 38 40 43 Of the seven samples
measures used, personality factors displayed in the results, that assessed E, six found it positively related to physical
and methodological issues of design and small sample size. activity.19 26 34 38 40 43 Five of eight studies to measure N found
it a negative correlate of physical activity.22 26 38 40 43 Finally,
Sex two of four studies to measure C found a positive association
Seven studies directly compared personality correlations with with physical activity.33 43 Although more population-level
physical activity by sex,26 29 32 34 36 37 46 as well as two research on age, personality and physical activity is needed,
complementary sex studies23 24 and an additional six studies the results of existing studies generally suggest that age is not
that included either female only20 28 42 43 or male only22 45 a moderator of the personality–physical activity relationship.
samples. Unfortunately, information (only one study with This supports the temporal stability inherent in personality
full information for males) was too limited to perform meta- research generally7 and suggests that personality may be a
analysis procedures. Six studies that included males and systematic and continual correlate of activity.
females measured Eysenck’s E and N factors.26 29 32 34 36 46 Sex
variation for E was mixed, with three studies showing no Country/culture
difference26 29 32 and three studies indicating a sex differ- Personality is considered to be cross-cultural,6–8 and thus
ence.34 36 46 Among the sex-discrepant findings, two studies findings between physical activity and personality traits
found E and physical activity relationships to be significant across cultures should be stable. In our review, data are
for females but not males,36 46 whereas the other study found represented from eight countries. Canada has the most
the reverse.34 Studies using the five-factor model with representation,6 7 19 20 22 29 35 40–43 45 with 12 of the possible 27
exclusively female participants have been reliable in this samples of common trait taxonomies that could be used for
positive E and physical activity correlation.20 42 43 Extraversion cross-country evaluation. This is followed by the US
in females may be particularly important to overcome the (n = 5),30 31 33 38 44 UK (n = 4),27 28 39 46 The Netherlands
already discrepant sex difference in physical activity rates.4 (n = 3),32 34 47 Japan (n = 1),26 Norway (n = 1),36 Germany
Still, an exclusive male population sample measuring E with (n = 1)21 and South Africa (n = 1).25 Obviously, the small
Cattell’s 16 primary factors showed a positive relationship number of studies negates meta-analyses using country as a
with vigorous physical activity,45 and, most important, the moderator and limits the cross-cultural conclusions that can
two large-scale population assessments of E by sex have be drawn. Still, E and N were measured in all countries.
indicated no sex differences.26 32 N has less discrepancy than Overall, E was positively related to physical activity in 11 of
the findings of E. Specifically, four studies, including the two 12 Canadian samples,19 20 35 40–43 45 three of four US stu-
large-scale population surveys, have identified no sex dies,31 38 44 one of four UK studies,46 two of two Netherlands
difference across results,26 32 34 46 whereas the other two studies,32 34 and studies from Japan,26 Germany21 and
studies showed a negative association between N and Norway.36 N was negatively associated with physical activity
physical activity for females but not males.29 36 Overall, the for eight of 11 Canadian samples,19 20 22 35 40 42 43 one of four
findings for sex differences in N and E relationships with US studies,38 one of four UK studies,27 two of three studies
physical activity are mixed, but sex does not seem to from The Netherlands,32 47 as well as studies from South
moderate the relationship reliably. Africa,25 Japan26 and Norway.36 Finally, a positive relationship
Research on other major personality traits and physical has been found for C in seven of nine Canadian sam-
activity by sex is even less conclusive than E and N. Small ples,19 20 35 40–43 one of three US studies,33 and in the single UK
samples of males and females comparing Cattell’s 16 primary study to assess this trait.39 Although we could interpret that
factors have shown discrepant findings,23 24 as has a study certain countries (eg UK v Canada) might be different, a more
using the Minnesota multiphasic inventory.37 The one study consistent finding in null results may be due to sample size
to compare P and physical activity relationships by sex found and thus power issues. In general, null results were found in
no significant difference.26 No studies have compared males the smaller samples. As effect sizes for personality and
and females on the five-factor traits of A, O and C. Of these, physical activity are small, this seems a likely reason for the
however, a comparison of C seems the only noteworthy discrepancies. Still, future analyses by countries with
analysis needed given the null results of A and O. No matched sample sizes would be helpful to evaluate the effect
conclusions can be drawn about sex differences in any of of culture on personality and physical activity relationships.
these personality factors, at present, given this limited
information. Physical activity mode
Physical activity is often measured as an omnibus construct,
Age but it is in fact comprised of a collection of behaviours.
Only one study covered a sufficiently wide age spectrum to Evaluation of differences in physical activity correlates by
evaluate young, middle-aged, and older adults.32 No age- modality is sparse; thus it is not surprising that limited
related differences were identified for Eysenck’s E or N traits research is available for evaluating personality and specific
despite the age-related decline in physical activity. This is a physical activities. Five studies specified a more particular
convincing study, given the size of the sample (n = 19 288) mode or modes of physical activity rather than just mode
and the repeated-measures 11-year longitudinal design. preferences.21 35 The most common specific mode was aerobic
Unfortunately, inadequate information is present in the exercise.20 25 28 44 45 Overall, E was positively associated with

www.bjsportmed.com
 Downloaded from http://bjsm.bmj.com/ on April 20, 2016 - Published by group.bmj.com
Personality correlates of physical activity 963

this activity in three of five possible evaluations, 20 44 45 and N Ten samples have incorporated personality with social
was negatively associated in one of three possible evalua- cognition models to predict physical activity.19 20 28 39 40 42 44
tions.20 An interesting subfactor of aerobic exercise behaviour Nine of these have applied Ajzen’s13 theory of planned
included whether aerobics class attendance or general aerobic behaviour, a model that has excellent predictive validity in
exercise behaviour was used as the dependent variable. When the physical activity domain.71 Seven of these samples have
class attendance was used, the results for E were mixed, with shown the utility of E when predicting physical activity, even
one study showing a positive association,20 one study after considering theory of planned behaviour vari-
showing no association,25 and one study showing a negative ables,19 20 40–42 and one study has found this for C.39 The single
association between E and adherence.28 The results of N and study using Bandura’s72 self-efficacy construct also identified
attendance supported a negative association in only one of E as a unique predictor of physical activity.28 It has been
three possible studies.20 These are all small-sample studies suggested that personality traits such as E and C may act as
which may explain the discrepant findings. No definitive good additional predictors of physical activity, because good
conclusions can be drawn at this time. The remaining intentions and other physical activity cognitions can wane as
physical activity modes were not similar across studies. For the time for action nears,11 but this theorising has never been
example, strength training was associated with higher E.44 tested. Overall, the results of these studies also suggest that E
The most detailed evaluation of physical activity mode and and C are correlates of physical activity attitudes and
personality was conducted by Howard et al.45 Using the 16 perceptions of control/self-efficacy over physical activity.
primary factors to measure E, these researchers found that The implications of these relationships suggest that E and C
individuals with high E were more likely to engage in may influence attitudes and a sense of control over engaging
swimming, aerobic conditioning, dancing and tennis. By in physical activity, which in turn may influence physical
contrast, individuals with less E were more inclined to engage activity through intention. Direct tests for mediation in these
in gardening and home improvement, whereas no differences studies are scarce, however, as they have been primarily
were identified for walking, jogging, golf and cycling. The aimed at augmenting the predictive validity of the theory of
results of these studies are interesting and may have planned behaviour.
implications during physical activity prescription and inter-
vention tailoring.11 More work is needed on this topic to reach Conclusions and future directions
definitive conclusions. This review was intended to combine the literature on major
personality traits and physical activity while providing some
Study design
preliminary meta-analytical summaries of the findings.
Studies ranged from cross-sectional to 46 years prospective.
Overall, 33 studies containing 35 independent samples,
Of the traits that can be compared across several studies, 15
ranging from 1969 to 2006, met our review criteria. E
were cross-sectional and 13 were prospective in nature. The
(r = 0.23), N (r = 20.11) and C (r = 0.20) were identified as
reasonable number of samples for N and E allowed meta-
correlates of physical activity. Five-factor model traits O and
analysis comparisons. For N, 11 samples19–21 26 27 31 33 35 38 43 46
A, and Eysenck’s P trait were not associated with physical
could be used for cross-sectional evaluation (total
activity. E concerns the differences in preference for social
n = 21 187) and 1019 20 22 25 30 32 39–42 could be used for pro-
interaction and lively activity;6 8 the seeking of physical
spective designs (total n = 20 704). The results found a
activity behaviours seems a logical extension for people
summary r of 20.15 (95% credibility 20.03 to 20.27) for the
cross-sectional design and a summary r of 20.10 (95% scoring high in this trait, whereas the disinterest in physical
credibility 20.06 to 20.16) for prospective designs, suggest- activity seems likely for those scoring low in E.15 Individuals
ing some difference between designs. Still, this difference is with high N represent those people with less emotional
negligible considering effect size comparisons (eg, Cohen’s stability and more distress, anxiety and depression than those
q), overall small effect size classification and credibility with lower N. Avoidance of physical activity or cancellation of
intervals of population r. physical activity plans is a logical extension of this trait. The
For E, 11 samples19–21 26 27 31 34 35 38 43 46 could be used for more general relationship between C and health behaviours
cross-sectional evaluation (total n = 29 762), and has also been established.73 High scores of C represents a
1219 20 22 25 28 30 32 39–42 44 could be used for prospective designs purposeful, self-disciplined individual,5 6 suggesting that this
(total n = 20 959). The results found a summary r of 0.24 factor may be important in terms of adherence behaviour.
(95% credibility 0.11–0.37) for the cross-sectional design and The predisposition to maintain physical activity behaviour
a summary r of 0.21 (95% credibility 0.08–0.33) for appears to be logical for individuals who possess higher C
prospective designs, suggesting minimal difference. than their counterparts with low C.
For an evaluation of C, four of six cross-sectional Potential moderators of personality and physical activity
samples20 33 35 43 and five of seven prospective sam- relationships such as sex, age, culture/country, design and
ples19 20 39 41 42 showed positive associations with physical instrumentation were inconclusive given the small number of
activity. Thus, it seems that personality and physical activity studies. Still, the existing evidence was suggestive that
relationships are robust to static or prospective designs. This personality and physical activity relationships are relatively
complements the general literature on psychological corre- invariant to these factors. Studies examining personality and
lates physical activity,69 and personality theory, where traits different physical activity modes have shown differences by
are theorised as predominantly stable over time.7 Still, it traits such as E, but more research is needed to make any
should be noted that only two studies with comparable traits conclusions. Finally, multivariate analyses of full personality
to cross-sectional studies used designs of >5 years.32 45 models with physical activity and the inclusion of personality
Although their findings did not differ from static surveys, with social cognition models is limited, but preliminary
longitudinal studies evaluating personality and physical results suggest that E may be the most important factor
activity across the lifespan are needed. associated with physical activity. Most studies using E with
social cognition studies also found that it may account for
Personality and social cognition models additional independent variance in physical activity.
Personality theorists and social psychologists generally agree It is important to note that personality correlates of
that behavioural action is unlikely to arise directly from physical activity, such as N, E and C, are within the small
personality.6–8 11 13 70 Instead, personality is thought to influ- effect size range.65 Small effect sizes are still important
ence behavioural perceptions, expectations and cognitions. considerations for public health initiatives.74 Interestingly,

www.bjsportmed.com
 Downloaded from http://bjsm.bmj.com/ on April 20, 2016 - Published by group.bmj.com
964 Rhodes, Smith

these effect sizes are slightly larger than built environment independent samples from which to draw conclusions.
correlates of physical activity.75 Thus, ‘‘nature’’ and ‘‘nurture’’ N (2), E (+) and C (+) were reliable correlates of physical
are perhaps relatively equal correlates of physical activity activity with small effect sizes, whereas O, A and P were not
despite their diametrically opposed foundation in human associated with physical activity. Personality moderators of
action. Clearly, intermediary constructs (attitudes, social physical activity mode seem possible, but research is limited.
influences and efficacy appraisals) are correlates with larger Research is also too limited to draw definitive conclusions
overall effect sizes with physical activity than either about sex, age and culture interactions with personality and
personality or the environment.11 physical activity, but preliminary research suggests relative
Although this review helps summarise the existing invariance. Future research using multivariate analyses,
research on personality correlates and physical activity, it personality-channelled physical activity interventions, long-
also paves the way for future directions. Indeed, research itudinal designs, and objective physical activity measurement
with personality and physical activity has remained fairly is recommended.
basic across the past 30 years, focusing largely on bivariate
correlations or univariate analyses of variance. Eysenck et al15 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
made this same commentary in 1982. Major personality traits RER is supported by a scholar award from the Michael Smith
are theorised as orthogonal to one another, but study results Foundation for Health Research, a new investigator award from the
often suggest otherwise.76 Thus, multivariate analyses of Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and with funds from the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the
personality models and physical activity are helpful to delimit Human Early Learning Partnership. NEIS is supported by a junior
trait overlap. Limited analyses have been conducted with full trainee award from the Michael Smith Foundation for Health
personality models in regression equations. Rhodes and Research.
Courneya found E to be the most important predictor of
physical activity when applying the five-factor model in two .....................
samples,19 and stepwise analyses have often shown similar Authors’ affiliations
findings.28 36 40 Yet, more multivariate analyses will be helpful R E Rhodes, N E I Smith, University of Victoria, Victoria, Canada
in future work. Competing interests: None declared.
One of the more interesting applications of personality is
its interaction with other constructs and physical activity.
Most notable is the effect of C and E as moderators of the REFERENCES
physical activity intention–behaviour gap.17 18 41 Other 1 Warburton DE, Nicol CW, Bredin SS. Health benefits of physical activity: the
research showing personality as a moderator of physical evidence. Can Med Assoc J 2006;174:801–9.
2 USDHHS. Physical activity and health: a report of the surgeon general.
activity-affect30 or physical activity-social cognition18 77 has Atlanta, GA: National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health
also been interesting, as have studies that evaluate prefer- Promotion, 1996.
ences for physical activity based on personality.21 35 3 CFLRI. 2002 physical activity monitor. Available at: http://www.cflri.ca/cflri/
pa/surveys/2002survey/2002survey.html (accessed 26 Oct 2004).
Evaluation of personality and physical activity intensity has
4 Trost SG, Owen N, Bauman A, et al. Correlates of adult’s participation in
also been scant, but limited research suggests some differ- physical activity: review and update. Med Sci Sports Exerc
ences.35 These studies all aid in moving towards personality 2002;34:1996–2001.
channelled interventions, a research endeavour with advo- 5 Digman JM. Personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model. Annu
Rev Psychol 1990;41:417–40.
cacy11 14 but no actual evaluation. 6 McCrae RR, Costa PT. Trait explanations in personality psychology. Eur J Pers
Focusing on finer personality traits, or facet traits, may also 1995;9:231–52.
hold utility. Although starting out with broad traits and 7 McCrae RR, Costa PT, Ostendorf F, et al. Nature over nurture: temperament,
personality, and life-span development. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000;78:173–86.
health behaviour is recommended to reduce trait redundan- 8 Eysenck HJ. The structure of human personality, 3rd edn. London: Methuen,
cies,11 12 facet traits may provide a clearer understanding of 1970.
personality and physical activity relations. For example, E’s 9 Funder DC. Personality. Annu Rev Psychol 2001;52:197–221.
facet traits of activity16 19 42 and sensation seeking32 52 53 have 10 Goldberg LR. The structure of phenotypic personality traits. Am Psychol
1993;48:26–34.
received support as key correlates of physical activity. This 11 Rhodes RE. The built-in environment: The role of personality with physical
suggests that individuals with high E may seek out physical activity. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2006;34:83–8.
activity as a way to achieve their needs to be excited, lively 12 Wiebe DJ, Smith TW. Personality and health: progress and problems in
psychosomatics. In: Hogan R, Johnson J, Briggs S, eds. Handbook of
and adventurous, whereas those with low E may avoid personality psychology. San Diego: Academic Press, 1997.
physical activity because of opposite dispositions. 13 Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process
Longitudinal studies across the life span are also needed. 1991;50:179–211.
14 Gavin J. Pairing personality with activity: New tool for inspiring active
These studies would be critical in ascertaining personality lifestyles. Physician Sports Med 2004;32:17–24.
development and physical activity, as well as the symmetry 15 Eysenck HJ, Nias DKB, Cox DN. Sport and personality. Adv Behav Res Ther
and asymmetry of personality and physical activity-related 1982;4:1–56.
decline with ageing. For example, E tends to decline with 16 Rhodes RE, Courneya KS, Jones LW. Personality and social cognitive
influences on exercise behavior: adding the activity trait to the theory of
age,7 and whether this matches declines in physical activity planned behavior. Psychol Sport Exerc 2004;5:243–54.
has yet to be investigated. Similarly, C has been able to 17 Rhodes RE, Courneya KS, Jones LW. The theory of planned behavior and
predict longevity and health behaviour from childhood.78 Its lower-order personality traits: Interaction effects in the exercise domain. Pers
Individ Differences 2005;38:251–65.
association with physical activity across this life span and 18 Rhodes RE, Courneya KS, Hayduk LA. Does personality moderate the theory
mediation via physical activity would add to this interesting of planned behavior in the exercise domain? J Sport Exerc Psychol
finding. 2002;24:120–32.
19 Rhodes RE, Courneya KS. Relationships between personality, an extended
Finally, objective assessment of physical activity will theory of planned behaviour model, and exercise behaviour. Br J Health
undoubtedly aid in the assessment of personality research. Psychol 2003;8:19–36.
Thus far, most studies on personality and physical activity 20 Courneya KS, Bobick TM, Schinke RJ. Does the theory of planned behavior
mediate the relation between personality and exercise behavior? Basic Appl
behaviour have used self-report instrumentation that ranges Soc Psychol 1999;21:317–24.
in validity, and studies using more objective means such as 21 Kirkcaldy B, Furnham A. Extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and
programme attendance have relied on very small sample recreational choice. Pers Individ Differences 1991;12:737–45.
sizes. 22 Massie JF, Shephard RJ. Physiological and psychological effects of training.
Med Sci Sports 1971;3:110–17.
In summary, this review of the major domains of 23 Bolton B, Renfrow NE. Personality characteristics associated with aerobic
personality and physical activity yielded 33 studies and 35 exercise in adult females. J Pers Assess 1979;43:504–8.

www.bjsportmed.com
 Downloaded from http://bjsm.bmj.com/ on April 20, 2016 - Published by group.bmj.com
Personality correlates of physical activity 965

24 Renfrow NE, Bolton B. Personality characteristics associated with aerobic 50 Schnurr PP, Vaillant CO, Vaillant GE. Predicting exercise in late midlife from
exercise in adult males. J Pers Assess 1979;43:261–6. young adult personality characteristics. Int J Aging Hum Dev
25 Potgieter JR, Venter RE. Relationship between adherence to exercise and 1990;30:153–60.
scores on extraversion and neuroticism. Percept Mot Skills 1995;81:520–2. 51 Milligan R, Beilin B, Dunbar R, et al. Health-related behaviors and psycho-
26 Arai Y, Hisamichi S. Self-reported exercise frequency and personality: a social characteristics of 18 year-old Australians. Soc Sci Med
population-based study in Japan. Percept Mot Skills 1998;87:1371–5. 1997;45:1549–62.
27 Yeung RR, Hemsley DR. Personality, exercise, and psychological well-being: 52 Jack SJ, Ronan KR. Sensation seeking among high- and low-risk sports
static relationships in the community. Pers Individ Differences 1997;22:47–53. participants. Pers Individ Differences 1998;25:1063–83.
28 Yeung RR, Hemsley DR. Exercise behaviour in an aerobics class: the impact of 53 Potgieter JR, Bisschoff F. Sensation seeking among medium- and low-risk
personality traits and efficacy cognitions. Pers Individ Differences sports participants. Percept Mot Skills 1990;71:1203–6.
1997;23:425–31. 54 Hogan J. Personality correlates of physical fitness. J Pers Soc Psychol
29 Szabo A. Habitual participation in exercise and personality. Percept Mot Skills 1989;56:284–8.
1992;74:978. 55 Sharp M, Reilley R. The relationship of aerobic physical fitness to selected
30 Giacobbi PR, Hausenblas HA, Frye N. A naturalistic assessment of the personality traits. J Clin Psychol 1975;31:428–30.
relationship between personality, daily life events, leisure-time exercise, and 56 Kirkcaldy B. Personality profiles at various levels of athletic participation. Pers
mood. Psychol Sport Exerc 2005;6:67–81. Individ Differences 1982;3:321–6.
31 Hausenblas HA, Giacobbi PR. Relationship between exercise dependence 57 Buckworth J, Granello D, Belmore J. Incorporating personality assessment
symptoms and personality. Pers Individ Differences 2004;36:1265–73. into counseling to help college students adopt and maintain exercise
32 DeMoor MHM, Beem AL, Stubbe JH, et al. Regular exercise, anxiety, behaviors. J Coll Couns 2002;5:15–25.
depression and personality: A population-based study. Prev Med 58 Ingledew D, Markland D, Sheppard K. Personality and self-determination of
2006;42:273–9. exercise behavior. Pers Individ Differences 2004;36:1921–32.
33 Marks GR, Lutgendorf SK. Perceived health competence and personality 59 Davis C, Fox J, Brewer H, et al. Motivations to exercise as a function of
factors differentially predict health behaviors in older adults. J Aging Health personality characteristics, age, and gender. Pers Individ Differences
1999;11:221–39. 1995;19:165–74.
34 van Loon AJM, Tijhuis M, Surtees P, et al. Personality and coping: their 60 Hughes S, Case S, Stuempfle K, et al. Personality profiles of iditasport ultra-
relationship with lifestyle risk factors for cancer. Pers Individ Differences marathon participants. J Appl Sport Psychol 2003;15:256–61.
2001;31:541–53. 61 Watson A, Pulford B. Personality differences in high risk sports amateurs and
35 Courneya KS, Hellsten LA. Personality correlates of exercise behavior, instructors. Percept Mot Skills 2004;99:83–94.
motives, barriers and preferences: an application of the five-factor model. Pers 62 Egan S, Stelmack R. A personality profile of mount everest climbers. Pers
Individ Differences 1998;24:625–33. Individ Differences 2003;34:1491–4.
36 Kjelsas E, Augestad LB. Gender, eating behavior, and personality 63 Backmand H, Kaprio J, Kujala U, et al. Personality and mood of former male
characteristics in physically active students. Scand J Med Sci Sports athletes—a descriptive study. Int J Sports Med 2001;22:215–21.
2004;14:258–68. 64 Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Methods of meta-analysis: correcting for error and bias
37 Siegler IC, Blumenthal JA, Barefoot JC, et al. Personality factors differentially in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2004.
predict exercise behavior in men and women. Womens Health 65 Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992;112:155–9.
1997;3:61–70. 66 Eysenck HJ, Eysenck SBJ. Manual for the Eysenck personality inventory. San
38 Wilson RS, Krueger KR, Gu L, et al. Neuroticism, extraversion, and mortality Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1963.
in a defined population. Psychosom Med 2005;67:841–5. 67 Costa PT, McCrae RR. Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R) and
39 Conner M, Abraham C. Conscientiousness and the theory of planned NEO five factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL:
behavior: toward a more complete model of the antecedents of intentions and Psychological Assessment Resources, 1992.
behavior. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2001;27:1547–61. 68 Cattell RB. Confirmation and clarification of primary personality factors.
40 Courneya KS, Friedenreich CM, Sela R, et al. Correlates of adherence and Psychometrica 1947;12:197–220.
contamination in a randomized controlled trial of exercise in cancer survivors: 69 Rhodes RE, Plotnikoff RC. Can current physical activity act as a reasonable
an application of the theory of planned behavior and the five factor model of proxy measure of future physical activity? Evaluating cross-sectional and
personality. Ann Behav Med 2002;24:257–68. passive prospective designs with the use of social cognition models. Prev Med
41 Rhodes RE, Courneya KS, Jones LW. Translating exercise intentions into 2005;40:547–55.
behavior: personality and social cognitive correlates. J Health Psychol 70 Bandura A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory.
2003;8:447–58. Psychol Health 1998;13:623–49.
42 Rhodes RE, Courneya KS, Jones LW. Personality, the theory of planned 71 Hagger M, Chatzisarantis NLD, Biddle SJH. A meta-analytic review of the
behavior, and exercise: the unique role of extroversion’s activity facet. J Appl theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical activity:
Soc Psychol 2002;32:1721–36. predictive validity and the contribution of additional variables. J Sport Exerc
43 Rhodes RE, Courneya KS, Bobick TM. Personality and exercise participation Psychol 2002;24:1–12.
across the breast cancer experience. Psychooncology 2001;10:380–8. 72 Bandura A. Self-efficacy, the exercise of control. New York: Freeman, 1997.
44 Bryan AD, Rocheleau CA. Predicting aerobic versus resistance exercise using 73 Booth-Kewley S, Vickers RR. Associations between major domains of
the theory of planned behavior. Am J Health Behav 2002;26:83–94. personality and health behavior. J Pers 1994;62:281–98.
45 Howard JH, Cunningham DA, Rechnitzer PA. Personality and fitness decline 74 Rutledge T, Loh C. Effect sizes and statistical testing in the determination of
in middle-aged men. Int J Sport Psychol 1987;18:100–11. clinical significance in behavioral medicine. Ann Behav Med
46 Sale C, Guppy A, El-Sayed M. Individual differences, exercise and leisure 2004;27:138–45.
activity in predicting affective well-being in young adults. Ergonomics 75 Duncan MJ, Spence JC, Mummery WK. Perceived environment and physical
2000;43:1689–97. activity: a meta-analysis of selected environmental characteristics. http://
47 Droomers M, Schrijvers CTM, Van de Mheen H, et al. Educational differences www.ijbnpa.org/content/2/1/11, 2 (accessed 26 Oct 2006).
in leisure-time physical inactivity: A descriptive and explanatory study. Soc Sci 76 Vassend O, Skrondal A. Validation of the NEO personality inventory and the
Med 1998;47:1665–76. five-factor model. Can findings from exploratory and confirmatory factor
48 Blumenthal JA, Sanders_Williams R, Wallace AG, et al. Physiological and analysis be reconciled? Eur J Pers 1997;11:147–66.
psychological variables predict compliance to prescribed exercise therapy in 77 Latimer AE, Martin-Ginnis KA. The importance of subjective norms for people
patients recovering from myocardial infarction. Psychosom Med who care what others think of them. Psychol Health 2005;20:53–62.
1982;44:519–27. 78 Friedman HS, Tucker JS, Tomlinson-Keasey C, et al. Childhood
49 Brunner BC. Personality and motivating factors influencing adult participation conscientiousness and longevity: health behaviors and cause of death. J Pers
in vigorous physical activity. Res Q Exerc Sport 1969;40:464–9. Soc Psychol 1995;65:176–85.

www.bjsportmed.com
 Downloaded from http://bjsm.bmj.com/ on April 20, 2016 - Published by group.bmj.com

Personality correlates of physical activity: a

review and meta-analysis
R E Rhodes and N E I Smith

Br J Sports Med 2006 40: 958-965

doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2006.028860

Updated information and services can be found at:

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/40/12/958

These include:

References This article cites 60 articles, 7 of which you can access for free at:
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/40/12/958#BIBL

Email alerting Receive free email alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up in the
service box at the top right corner of the online article.

Topic Articles on similar topics can be found in the following collections

Collections Statistics and research methods (50)

Notes

To request permissions go to:

http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

To order reprints go to:

http://journals.bmj.com/cgi/reprintform

To subscribe to BMJ go to:

http://group.bmj.com/subscribe/