6.3: Personality and Physical Activity

Currently the cumulative evidence supports a modest relationship between personality and physical activity (Rhodes & Smith, 2006; Wilson & Dishman, 2015), as well as physical inactivity, and sedentary behavior (Sutin et al., 2016).These relationships appear robust across the lifespan (de Moor et al., 2006), and some evidence suggests that associations are bidirectional (Stephan, Sutin, et al., 2014). Most of the evidence on personality and physical activity is derived from cross-sectional and longitudinal observations.

6.3.1. Cross-sectional Associations

The relationship between personality and physical activity has received intermittent attention over the past 50 years. Since the elaboration of the FFM, several reviews and meta-analyses have summarized the relationship between physical activity and personality (McEachan, 2004; Rhodes & Pfaeffli, 2012; Rhodes & Smith, 2006; Sutin et al., 2016; Wilson & Dishman, 2015). The first meta-analysis in this area reported small positive associations between Extraversion (r= .23) and Conscientiousness (r= .20) and physical activity and a small negative relationship between physical activity and Neuroticism (r= -.11) among 35 samples (Rhodes & Smith, 2006). Though these effect sizes are small based on traditional standards (Cohen, 1988), more recent guidelines for psychological sciences indicate that effects sizes of about .10 should be judged as relatively small, and of .20 to be considered typical (Gignac& Szodorai, 2016). Concurrent narrative analysis of potential effect moderators revealed that sex, age, and study design did not appear to affect the findings, though it was observed that European studies reported weaker associations between Extraversion and physical activity compared to North American studies.

More recent meta-analyses corroborate and extend these findings. Wilson and Dishman (2015) conducted a meta-analysis of 64 studies on the application of the FFM and physical activity, and Sutin andcolleagues (2016) conducted a more selected meta-analysis of 16 population samples. Both studies reported positive associations between physical activity and Extraversion (both r= .11), and Conscientiousness (both r= .10) in the small effect size range. Though statistically significant, all other associations were of a trivial effect size by standards for individual differences research (Cohen, 1992; Gignac & Szodorai, 2016). Formal assessment of study design and sample characteristics as possible effectmoderators revealed that Conscientiousness was linked more to the frequency of activity (r= .21) than other types of assessment such as general quantity (r= .06) or volume (r= .07), and the association between Extraversion and physical activity appearsintensity dependent, as effects were stronger for effects examined for quantity of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (r= .13) than for quantity of mild-to-moderate physical activity (r= .04; Wilson & Dishman, 2015). Moderator analyses also corroborated the narrative review by Rhodes and Smith (2006) such that effects between physical activity and Extraversion, as well as Neuroticism, were significantly stronger in samples from North American compared to samples from Europe (Wilson & Dishman, 2015). Notably, these analyses highlight areas where more work is needed, as most of the work has been limited to healthy, North American adults. Studies are needed to further our understanding of these relationships in population subgroups that have received less attention (e.g., older adults, Central American, South American, and Asian populations, clinical samples).

Based on the cumulative evidence, we can conclude that self-reported physical activity has a reliable, yet small positive association with Extraversion and Conscientiousness. Also, Neuroticism appears to have a negative relationship with self-reported physical activity. Importantly, these analyses indicate that, together, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism account for 7-10% of the variance in physical activity in the population, highlighting the possibility that approaches to physical activity promotion can leverage individual differences to maximize physical activity outcomes, such as adoption and adherence. Consistent relationships between personality and physical activity underscore the possibility of using personality to identify those who may be at risk for inactivity or poor exercise adherence. With respect to the Big Five primary personality traits, Neuroticism appears to signal risk for inactivity, whereas increments of Conscientiousness and Extraversion may protect against inactivity. Studies have yet to determine the degree to which interactions between traits within-subjects influence relationships between traits and activity level. More work is needed to test the utility of personality as a tailoring variable for physical activity interventions and exercise programming.

Though relationships between personality and self-reported physical activity are highly consistent, there is relative paucity of evidence reporting onthese relationships using objective measures (e.g., pedometers, accelerometers) of physical activity. Considering the modest relationships between self-reported and objectively measured physical activity in general, it is important to examine whether physical activity measurement impacts observed relationships between personality and physical activity. For example, one study examining cross-sectional relationships between personality factors and physical activity ina sample (n = 298) of female undergraduates reported differential relationships dependent on physical activity measurement (Wilson et al., 2015). Specifically, Wilson and colleagues observed Extraversion to be significantly related to self-reported physical activity only, while Neuroticism was related to objectively measured physical activity only. These results were recently corroborated in a large sample (n = 1,098) of middle-aged women; Neuroticism was negatively associated with leisure time moderate-to-vigorous physical activity as measured by both self-report and accelerometry, whereas Extraversion was positively related to self-reported physical activity only (Kekäläinen et al., 2020). Such discrepanciesalsoappear present in older adult samples. Onesample (n = 3,094) of older adults (age > 65 years) responded to self-report items for personality and physical activity conceptualized as participating in exercise for more than 30 minutes at least twice per week (Takatori et al., 2019). Significant, butsmall (r= .08 to .13), correlations were reported for physical activity and Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness. Another study of older adults (n = 271; age > 79 years) used the activPAL activity monitor (a tri-axial inclinometer) to assess sedentary time and physical activity relative to personality traits, and found no significant associations between personality and physical activity measured as step count, but significant negative associations between sedentary time and Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness (Čukić et al., 2019). Observations in these and other studies (e.g., Hearon & Harrison, 2020) contrast with bivariate relationships reported in meta-analyses. This might be due to differences in physical activity assessment, as direct measures (e.g., accelerometers) capture all types of physical activity, including incidental movement throughout the day, whereas indirect measures (i.e., physical activity self-reports) are more likely to capture purposeful exercise and memorable bouts of physical activity (Troiano et al., 2014). Another possibility is the presence of a common method bias favoring self-report assessments in the observed associations with personality. Consequently, these inconsistent observations highlight the need to use direct and indirect measures of physical activity concurrently to understand what portion of the covariance may be related to response bias versus true association.

6.3.2. Correlational Associations: Personality and Physical Inactivity

In addition to association between personality and physical activity, the focused meta-analysis by Sutin and colleagues (2016) estimated population effect sizes relationships between personality and physical inactivity, and sedentary behavior (e.g., time spent sitting, hours watching TV). In examining relationships between traits and a dichotomous inactivity variable (i.e. inactive or not inactive), data suggest that for every standard deviation (SD) unit increase in Extraversion, Conscientiousness, or Openness, there is about a 10-15% decrease in risk for inactivity. In contrast, for every SDincrease in Neuroticism, there is a 10% increase in risk for inactivity. Further, Neuroticism appears consistently positively related, and Conscientiousness consistently negatively related, with total time spent sedentary. Finally, Sutin et al. report that evidence for associations between sedentary behaviors and Extraversion and Openness is mixed, and Agreeableness appears unrelated to sedentary behavior. However, additional work highlights the mixed nature of theseeffects. For example, Extraversion is observed to be negatively associated with total sitting time and, along with Conscientiousness, total leisure screen time in a large sample of young adults in Australia (Burnett et al., 2016). A more recent report indicated that among a sample (n = 64) of young adults, sedentary time measured by accelerometrywas not significantly related to any of the Big Five personality traits (Hearon & Harrison, 2020). Conversely, self-reported time spent sitting was inversely related to Extraversion and Conscientiousness cross-sectionally, but positively associated with Openness prospectively with follow-up measures taken at 5-months in a sample (n = 126) of young adults (mean age = 21.6 years; Joyner et al., 2019). Overall, the associated evidence on personality and sedentary behavior is still in its infancy. Continued work in this area is needed to support our understanding of how personality relates to sedentary behaviors, and whether any of the covariance significantly explains relevant health outcomes.

6.3.3. Longitudinal Associations

Most of the evidence linking physical activity and personality describes bivariate associations observed in cross-sectional or very brief longitudinal investigations (e.g., 8 weeks). Overall, results from subgroup analyses in the Wilson & Dishman meta-analysis indicate that relationships betweenpersonality and physical activity from prospective studies are similar to those from cross-sectional studies. The exception to this was observed for effects between Conscientiousness and physical activity; associations from prospective studies were nearlytwice as large as those from cross-sectional studies (Wilson & Dishman, 2015). This was later corroborated in a sample (n = 126) of college students in which Conscientiousness was observed to significantly predict moderate-to-vigorous physical activity ata 5-month follow-up assessment; no relationships were observed for the other four primary personality traits (Joyner & Loprinzi, 2018). These observations may reflect the propensity of individuals with increasing levels of Conscientiousness to possess a greater aptitude for developing and sticking with a plan. Individuals with higher scores for Conscientiousness demonstrate greater self-discipline and sense of duty for executing plans and reaching goals than those who score low for Conscientiousness. Otherprimary traits are characterized by qualities that speak to their propensity for behaviors in the present, rather than the likelihood of engaging in future behavior. This quality may explain why longitudinal associations between physical activity and Conscientiousness are statistically significant, while those of other traits are not.

A few studies have examined the interconnected relationship between personalityand physical activity across extended periods of time. Repeated measures over time allow foran assessment of the direction of effects between variables, and the stability of these effects over time. Indeed, the existing longitudinal evidence indicates that relationships between personality and physical activity are, for the most part, stable across the lifespan. A population based study using the Netherlands Twin Registry assessed survey data from adolescent and adult twins and their families collected every two years from 1991 to 2002 and demonstrated that regular exercisers were significantly more extroverted and generally more emotionally stable (low Neuroticism) than non-exercisers across age categories from early adolescence (10–15 years) to old age (>60 years; de Moor et al., 2006). Overall, this provides strong evidence for the stability of associations between personality and physical activity across adulthood.

Repeated measures also provide the opportunity to distinguish between-person from within-person effects.In other words, we are better able to understand differences in how personality differences between people impact change in physical activity over time, and also how the natural flux of personality over time within an individual impacts change in physical activity over time. For example, Mõttus et al. (2017) showed that while Extraversion and Conscientiousness predict between-person physical activity, differences in Neuroticism within-people over time were also predictive of physical activity. This is important preliminary evidence for investigators aiming to adjust behavioral techniques according to personality traits to enhance physical activity interventions or utilize physical activity as a therapeutic tool for individuals according to personality. This is an area ripe for investigation, as scholars are just now beginning to apply personality to focused efforts in health promotion (Ferguson, 2013; Wilson, 2019).

Evidence also exists to suggest that the relationships between personality and physical activity behavior may be bidirectional. It has been observed that personality is predictive of changes in physical activity levels across several decades (Kern et al., 2010), and conversely, that physical activity levels are predictive of the stability (or instability) of personality as we age (Stephan, Boiché, et al., 2014; Stephan et al., 2018; Stephan, Sutin, et al., 2014). One longitudinal trial spanning 40 years revealed predictive qualities of Extraversion and Neuroticism on physical activity changes,specifically, though over time higher physical activity was associated with higher levels of Extraversion and lower levels of Neuroticism. However,these personality traits were associated with a greater decline in physical activity among adult males compared to those who scored low for Extraversion and/or high for Neuroticism at baseline (Kern et al., 2010). This effect between personality and change in physical activity over time was not observed in females. Longitudinal associations between Openness and Agreeableness with physical activity change were not significant.

Interestingly, some evidence supports a beneficial effect of physical activity on personality change over time. A recent report showed that lower physical activity was associated with declines in Conscientiousness, Openness, Extraversion, and Agreeableness over the course of 20 years, although the effect sizes were very small (Stephan et al., 2018). Similarly, change in personality traits was reduced among adults classified as physically activeintwo large longitudinal cohort studies. Specifically, adults in the Health and Retirement study (n = 3,774) and the Midlife in the United States study (n = 3,758) were followed for 4 and 10 years, respectively. Those who were physically active at baseline had significantly greater intra-individual stability of primary personality traits in both studies (Stephan, Sutin, et al., 2014). Further, research examining lower level personality traits has demonstrated a beneficial effect of physicalactivity on sub-traits of Neuroticism, possibly due to the documented anxiolytic and anti-depressive effect of activity.

Despite these compelling observations, more work is needed to test plausible biological and cognitive mechanisms of these relationships. Additionally, little has been done to understand the impact of trait-trait interactions on physical activity behavior within people using multivariate techniques to understand these relationships more comprehensively. Though the existing longitudinal research is encouraging, the hypothesis of bidirectionality has mixed support, highlighting the need for further investigation (Allen et al., 2017).

6.3.4. Genetic Links between Personality and Physical Activity

The cumulative associative evidence begs the question of genetic overlap between personality and physical activity level. Heritability estimates for the Big Five traits range from 41% to 61% (Jang et al., 1996; Riemann et al., 1997; Vukasovic & Bratko, 2015), and physical activity is heritable in the range of 48% to 71% (de Moor & de Geus, 2012; Stubbe et al., 2006). Early assessments support rather strong genetic links between personality traits and physical activity. Analysis of a large longitudinal dataset from a sample of 10,105 twins surveyed from 1991 to 2009 indicated common genetic pleiotropy (the existence of a single gene that impacts more than one apparently unrelated or distantly related qualities) between physical activity and Neuroticism, and a combination of genetic pleiotropy and causal effects of Extraversion on physical activity responsible for the small phenotypic associations described in the observational literature (de Moor & de Geus, 2018). In other words, the association between Neuroticism and physical activity was observed to be theresult of a shared genetic source, whereas the association between Extraversion and physical activity was partly due to shared genes, but also partly due to a causal impact of Extraversion on physical activity behavior. For instance, higher levels of Extraversion may predispose individuals to more frequent opportunities for physical activity due to the propensity to seek out stimulating environments. The genetic association between Extraversion and physical activity was again corroborated in a sample (n = 373) of adolescentand young adult twins (Schutte et al., 2019). This cutting-edge research begins the process of teasing apart causal effects and shared genetic variance in the physical activity and personality relationship. Additional research is needed to test the reproducibility and generalizability of these compelling observations in more diverse samples, but early results suggest a common genetic etiology between physical activity behavior and primary traits Neuroticism and Extraversion.

6.3.5. Personality, Physical Activity, and Social Cognitions

Though describing direct relationships between personality and physical activity is an important first step, it is important to specify how personality may affect physical activity behavior. Specifically, the influence of personality is hypothesized to be indirect, working through social cognitions (e.g., perceptions, attitudes, norms, self-efficacy), habits, or social and environmental access to behavioral resources (Ajzen, 1991; Bogg et al., 2008; McCrae & Costa, 1995; Rhodes, 2006). Several studies have examined social cognitive theories as mediators of the personality–physical activity relationship (Rhodes & Pfaeffli, 2012; Rhodes & Wilson, 2020; Wilson, 2019). Most of these investigations examined Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behavior as the intermediary (see Chapter 5;Delli Paoli,2021).

6.3.5.1. Theory of Planned Behavior as a Mediator

Rhodes and Pfaeffli (2012) conducted a systematic review and reported that personality was related to theory of planned behaviorconstructs, and that personality and social cognitive constructs were related to physical activity. However, the test of full mediation (i.e., that the link between personality and physical activity was actually through social constructs) was only supported in two samples (Bryan & Rocheleau, 2002;Hagan et al., 2009). In one case, the effect of Extraversion on physical activity was fully mediated through perceived behavioral control (Bryan & Rocheleau, 2002). A more complex analysis subsequently revealed that asub-trait of Extraversion, the activity trait, accounted for the observed relationship between Extraversion and social cognitive constructs. Hagan et al. (2009) reported that the activity trait mediated the relationship between Extraversion and theory of planned behavior constructs, and that attitude and perceived behavioral control mediated the relationship between the activity trait and physical activity behavior (Hagan et al., 2009). All other studies only supported partial mediation, as personality had significant direct effects on physical activity. The finding is interesting because it shows that personality may have another route on behavior beyond reflective social cognitions (e.g., intention, attitude, perceived control). For example, dual-process theories (Deutsch & Strack, 2006)propose that behavior is the result of a combination of planned “cold” operations and impulsive “hot” drives(also see Chapter 2, Rebar et al., 2021; Chapter 4, Brand & Ekkekakis, 2021). This may help explain why observations vary between investigations examining behavior in the context of social cognitive theories which lack an affective component. It is plausible that the relationship between Extraversion and impulsivity, or Extraversion and the affective response to heightened arousal, for example, partially influences physical activity behavior beyond the observed relationships between Extraversion and social cognitive constructs (Rhodes & Wilson, 2020). More work is needed which integrates a wider range of cognitive and affective theories into our understanding of how personality impacts physical activity. There is too little evidence at present to make conclusive statements about which traits (at primary or facet levels) have the strongest influence on behavioral antecedents, and which social cognitiveand affective factors are best at ultimately transferring the impact of personality differences to predictable differences in behavior (Rhodes & Boudreau, 2017; Wilson, 2019).

6.3.5.2. Personality and Intentions

Much attention has been given specifically to the relationships between primary personality traits and physical activity intention. Given that intention is considered the proximal determinant of behavior in most social cognition models (Conner & Norman, 2015), investigations have examined the possibility of moderation and mediation in the context of multivariate models including personality, social cognitions, and behavioral intention. Cumulative associative evidence points to moderation of the intention-behavior gap by personality traits, specifically Conscientiousness. Two systematic reviews have concluded that Conscientiousness interacts with intention to impact physical activity level (Rhodes & Dickau, 2013; Wilson & Dishman, 2015). A recent meta-analysis examined moderation according to whether or not participants were asked how active they intended to be prior to an impending physical activity measurement, and found that associations between Conscientiousness and physical activity were twice as large in studies that asked about intention compared to those that did not (Wilson & Dishman, 2015). Moreover, a review of moderators of the physical activity intention-behavior gap concluded that Conscientiousness significantly moderates the intention-behavior relationship, such that higher levels of Conscientiousness are associated with stronger positive intention-behavior relationships (Rhodes & Dickau, 2013). Conner and Abraham (2001)were among the first researchers to test this association andtheorized that the disposition toward organization and achievement keeps conscientiousindividuals from slipping in their original physical activity goals.

More recently, Smith et al. (2017) demonstrated that Conscientiousness interactswith competency to set exercise goals (conceptually similar to intentionsetting) to predict objectively measured physical activity over two weeks in a sample (n = 94) of adults aged 21 to 65 years. Those who scored low for Conscientiousness and reported poor goal setting skills appear to be at riskfor inactivity compared to others. Conversely, those scoring low for Conscientiousness who reported excellent goal setting skills were significantly more active than those with poor goal setting skills, and similarly active to those who scored high for Conscientiousness (for whom goal settingskill did not significantly influence physical activity level). These observations indicate that goal setting skills may be particularly important for those scoring low for Conscientiousness, and that strategies targeting goal setting may not be very useful among those scoring high for Conscientiousness.

Less work has been done to understand these relationships in the context of other primary traits, though there is some evidence that Extraversion moderates the intention-behavior relationship with extraverts more likely to follow-through on intentions than introverts (Rhodes & Dickau, 2013). Rhodes and colleagues (2002) have suggested that individuals high on Extraversion may facilitate their intentions through gravitating toward more active environments than introverted individuals. Neuroticism has also been evaluated as a moderator of the intention-behavior relationship though results are mixed (Hoyt et al., 2009; Rhodes, Courneya, & Hayduk, 2002; Rhodes et al., 2005).

It is plausible that mixed results represent the influence of confounding variables. Theorists agree that traits should work through increasingly narrow and contextualized social cognitions to impact proximal determinants of behavior, such as intention (Ajzen, 1991; McCrae & Costa, 1999; Montano & Kasprzyk, 2015). This expectation of mediation has been tested in a few studies (Bogg, 2008; McEachan et al., 2010; Rhodes & Courneya, 2003; Rhodes, Courneya, & Hayduk,2002; Rhodes et al., 2004). In a sample (n = 397) of postgraduate students at a large UK University, Conscientiousness impacted intention directly, and indirectly through affective attitude about physical activity, and perceived behavioral control. Conversely, Extraversion did not significantly contribute to physical activity intention or behavior after controlling for social cognitive variables (McEachan et al., 2010). This is an interesting observation when compared to results of moderator analyses in the Wilson & Dishman (2015) meta-analysis; bivariate associations between Extraversion and physical activity were significantly stronger among North American samples than European, and were significantly stronger for effects observed after participants were asked how active they intended to be over themeasurement period. Taken together with the results from McEachan and colleagues, evidence points to the possibility that the moderating role of Extraversion on the intention-behavior gap may also be dependent on the cultural background of participants (McEachan et al., 2010; Wilson & Dishman, 2015). More research is required before any definitive conclusions about mediation and/or moderation can be drawn.

6.3.5.3. Self-Efficacy

Personality and physical activity have also been examined in the context of their common relationships with self-efficacy. In a population cohort (n = 3,471), general self-efficacy was observed to partially mediate the relationships between all of the Big Five personality factors and self-reported moderate-to-vigorous physical activity andleisure time inactivity (Ebstrup et al., 2013). Observed relationships between personality and physical activity were consistent with previous meta-analyses (Rhodes & Smith, 2006; Wilson & Dishman, 2015), but when general self-efficacy was added to the prediction model a significant relationship between Agreeableness and physical activity, not previously supported, was revealed. Mediation by self-efficacy was also observed in a sample of older adults (n = 876; ≥ 60 years). Again, the direction and strength of relationships between personality and exercise were consistent with the cumulative literature, but Yasunaga and Yaguchi (2014)found that exercise self-efficacy partially mediated the relationships of Extraversion and Openness, and fully mediated the relationships of Neuroticism, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness with exercise participation. There is also some evidence demonstrating that self-efficacy to overcome barriers interacts with Neuroticism to predict physical activity (Smith, Williams, O'Donnell, & McKechnie, 2016). In a sample of 94adults, barrier self-efficacy significantly negatively impacted steps per day (measured by pedometer) to a greater degree among those who scored high for Neuroticism than those who did not. This interaction couldindicate that strategies for increasing low barrierself-efficacy may be particularly important for individuals scoring high on Neuroticism. More work is needed to confirm this interpretation. For more discussion on self-efficacy, especially in the context of sport psychology, see Chapter 26 (Hepler et al., 2021)

6.3.5.4. Motives and Barriers

Another possible explanation for the relationships between personality and physical activityis through its effect upon exercise barriers and motives. Though sparse, existingevidence does indicate that Neuroticism is positively related, and Conscientiousness and Extraversion are negatively related to exercise barriers like fear of embarrassment,lack of motivation, and/or lack of energy (Courneya & Hellsten, 1998). In a multinational sample of adults, personality was observed to differentiate whether motives for exercise were more physical or psychological. Higher levels of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were related to greater physical, rather than psychological,motivation for exercise, whereas higher levels of Emotional Stability (i.e. lower levels of Neuroticism), Extraversion, and Openness were related to greater psychological motivationfor exercise (Courneya & Hellsten, 1998). This is partially in contrast to another report that indicated Neuroticism to be related to exercise motives focused on enhancing physical appearance and/or losing weight, while Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and Openness were reportedly related to exercise motives focused on health and fitness, or stress reduction and enjoyment(Courneya & Hellsten, 1998; Ingledew & Markland, 2008). Work by Lochbaum and colleagues (2013) suggests that the relationship between Extraversion and exercise participation is fully mediated by approach oriented goalsto achieve skill mastery, whereas the relationship between Neuroticism and exercise participation was only partially mediated by approach/avoidance goals related to performance compared to others (Lochbaum et al., 2013). Differences in the way that motivations and barriers are conceptualized across this limited body of evidence make conclusive interpretations difficult and point to a need for strategic approaches to understanding how personality relates to motives and barriers to exercise and physical activity participation.

Photo by Anna Shvets from Pexels

6.3.6. Personality, Physical Activity, and Affect

Another pathway through which personality might impact physical activity participation is through affective responses to exercise itself (see Chapter 4, Brand & Ekkekakis, 2021; Chapter 11, Jones & Zenko, 2021; and Chapter 12, Zenko & Ladwig, 2021). Personalityhas close direct relationships with the propensity to experience positive and negative affect, and to enhance affective responses to a wide range of stimuli. Affective responses to physical activity and expectations of enjoyment are both reliable correlates of future physical activity behavior (Rhodes et al., 2010; Rhodes & Kates, 2015). The fundamental basis for personality development, as discussed previously, lies in temperament (individual differences in tonic arousal, reactivity, and self-regulation). From this perspective, it is intuitive that personality differences might impact how one responds affectively to the uniquely arousing stimulus of exercise. Indeed, there is some evidence to indicate that personality traits are related to physical activity enjoyment. Smith et al. (2016) reported that, in a sample of 94 adults,enjoyment of physical activity has a small negative association with Neuroticism, and a small positive association to Agreeableness. In contrast, Lochbaum & Lutz (2005)reported moderate relationships between exercise enjoyment and Conscientiousness in (ES = .67) and Neuroticism (ES = -.68) in a sample (n= 187) of college-aged females. Another study in a small sample (n = 53) of undergraduates reported a moderate positive relationship between physical activity enjoyment and Extraversion only (Baldwin et al., 2016). These mixed results may be the result of sample characteristics, or differences in the conceptualization and measurement of enjoyment (Williams et al., 2019). More work is needed in larger, more diverse samples to understand how personality relates to enjoyment of physical activity and exercise, and the potential moderators of these relationships. Nevertheless, what evidence does exist points to significant relationships between primary personality traits and physical activity enjoyment.

There is some evidence for the biological plausibility of trait level influence on the affective responses to exercise. As discussed earlier, the underlying biological basis for personality lies in temperamental differences in physiological reactivity and self-regulation in stimulus response. Recent studies among adolescents report high (88% to 91%) heritability of physiological recovery from exercise (Nederend et al., 2016), and low-to-moderate (12% to 37%) heritability of affective responses during and following exercise (Schutte et al., 2016). Some evidence indicates that personality interacts with exercise intensity to influence ratings of affect and perceived exertion during exercise(Hall et al., 2005; Schneider & Graham, 2009), and with motivational state to influence the autonomic responses to exercise(Kuroda et al., 2015). On the other hand, Big Five personality traits have been reported to be unrelated to feeling state during high-intensity exercise in a small (n = 48) international sample of healthy adults, whereas preferences for higher intensity exercise were related(Jones et al., 2018). Unfortunately, there is a relative paucity of research linking psychological and physiological responses to exercise with personality. Too few studies have been reported to make conclusive statements about the possible relationships between personality and the affective response to exercise.

6.3.7. Personality, Physical Activity, and Mental Health

An emerging area of interest is the multivariate relationship between personality, physical activity and mental health. Affective disorders, such as anxiety and depression, have been the focus of exercise psychologists for decades but only recently have scholars begun to examine these relationships in the context of personality differences. Across the recent investigations in this area, scholars have tested whether personality moderates the mental health impact of physical activity, and whether physical activity mediates the relationships between personality and mental health.

One of the earliest investigations in this area examined relationships between physical activity, personality and general symptoms of anxiety and depression in a sample (n = 298) of female undergraduates (Wilson et al., 2016). Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, measured by accelerometry, was observed to interact with Extraversion and Neuroticism to predict symptoms of mental distress such that physical activity had a protective effect among neurotic-introverts, whereas physical activity did not seem to impact mental health symptoms among extraverts. Taken in context of earlier reports that neurotic-introverts are at risk for mental distress (Steel et al., 2008), these results suggest that inactivity may increase risk for mental distress. In contrast, another study examining interactive effects between personality and self-reported physical activity on symptoms of anxiety among undergraduates (n = 200) reported no such interaction (Joyner & Loprinzi, 2017). These effects were more recently examined in the context of subjective well-being in a sample (n = 349) of older adults (>50 years old). Self-reported leisure time physical activity interacted with personality to impact subjective well-being such that higher levels of Extraversion and Openness enhanced the positive effect between physical activity and well-being (Chanet al., 2018). Another study reported that cardiorespiratory fitness moderated the relationship between Neuroticism and depression in a sample of 1,588 adolescents, such that fitness had a protective effect against increased symptoms of depression with increasing levels of Neuroticism (Yeatts et al., 2017). These compelling observations indicate that the relationships between general symptoms of mental distress and physical activity are dependent on personality characteristics, and individuals with personality profiles that put them at higher risk for mental distress may benefit from greater levels of fitness and physical activity participation. It is possible that outcome differences reflect sample or design characteristics influencing observed effects. These discrepancies point to the need for further study.

Examining the relationships between personality, physical activity,and mental health has been limited to non-clinical populations until just recently. An analysis by McDowell et al. (2020)found that physical activity partially mediated the relationships between primary personality and incident generalized anxiety disorder in a large cohort (n =4,582) of adults in the Irish Longitudinal Study on Aging. In contrast to earlier reports, however, physical activity transmitted the positive effect of Extraversion and Conscientiousness to the benefit of reduced clinical incidence, rather than protecting against the negative impact of Neuroticism. Notable distinctions between studies that may account for some of these discriminant findings include characteristics of the sample, the severity of the outcomes (i.e. generalized symptoms vs clinical diagnosis), and the nature of the study design (i.e. cross-sectional vs longitudinal observation). In light of recent advances in mental health practice (i.e., the endorsement of exercise as a frontline strategy for individuals with mild depression; American Psychiatric Association Steering Committee on Practice Guidelines, 2010)and the frequent comorbidity of mental illness with chronic disorders like cancer and cardiovascular disease (Chan et al., 2015; Watkins et al., 2013),investigations among samples with clinical mental health disorders are paramount. Advancing our understanding of the role of personality in the effectiveness of physical activity and exercise for easing mental distress among clinical populations is an important corollary to this effort, and an area ripe for further investigation. For more discussion on exercise and depression, see Chapter 15(Brush & Burani, 2021). For more discussion on exercise and anxiety, see Chapter 16 (Schuch et al., 2021). For more discussion on physical activity and severe mental illness, see Chapter 17 (Fibbins et al., 2021).

6.3.8. Personality and Physical Activity Preferences

Relationships between personality and physical activity are likely confounded by the way physical activity is conceptualized within studies.Indeed, physical activity is a complex concept and cannot be captured comprehensively with any one measurement method. Different physical activities are characterized with different skill requirements and energy expenditure demands (Ainsworth et al., 2011; Pate et al., 1995). Taken together, the body of evidence on individual differences in preferences supports robust relationships between personality traits and specific attributes of physical activities, such as aesthetics and social qualities (e.g., social, outdoor/indoor), structure (exercise vs. spontaneous activity), extreme energy requirements (intensity), competitiveness, and skill. In a landmark study, Courneya & Hellsten (1998) elaborate on relationships between primary personality traits and a wide range of physical activity preferences. For example, they report that Extraversion is related to preferences for exercising with others (e.g., group or supervised exercise). They also observed that increasing increments of trait Openness are related to preferences for outdoor (rather than home or gym), recreational (rather than competitive), unsupervised, and spontaneous (rather than scheduled) exercise, and a preference for walking rather than modes like skating or weight-training. Furthermore, Conscientiousness was related to a preference for scheduled activity, and high-intensityexercise, rather thanmoderate-intensity exercise. Those who preferred high intensity to moderate intensity also scored low for Neuroticism. Finally, those who scored higher for Agreeableness preferred aerobics to weight-training (Courneya & Hellsten, 1998). It is important tonote, however, that these observations are limited to a sample of 264 undergraduate students.

Additional work has been doneto understand how personality relates to preference for differentmodes of activity. For example, in their systematic review of personality and physical activity, Rhodes and Smith (2006)outlined five studies that explored personality with a particular mode or modes of physical activity. They observed that Neuroticism was negatively associated, and Extraversion was positively associated, with participation in aerobic activity. In a more focused assessment of preferences for physical activity modes according to personality, Howard et al. (1987) found that, in a sample (n = 31) of middle-aged men, extraverts were more likely to engage in swimming, aerobic conditioning, dancing, and tennis than introverts; whereas introverts were more inclined to engage in gardening, and home improvement. There was no association between Extraversion and walking, jogging, golf, and cycling. A more recent study replicated and extended these results, reporting no relationship with Neuroticism, Extraversion or Conscientiousness and leisure-time walking (Rhodes et al., 2007). A recent meta-analysis highlighted significant positive relationships between Extraversion, and facet traits impulsivity and sensation seeking, with participation in high-risk sports like skydiving, mountain climbing, surfing, or hang-gliding, among others (McEwan et al., 2019). Participation in these types of activities was also negatively associated with Neuroticism, unsurprisingly. Conversely, self-reported minutes of participation in mindfulness meditation and/or exercise is reported to be positively related to Openness and negatively related to Neuroticism (Barrett et al., 2019). As noted throughout the chapter, studies are needed in larger, more diverse samples to enhance our understanding in this area. Understanding physical activity preferences in the context of personality may help exercise practitioners identify types of activities that new clients may be likely to enjoy, assisting in the effort to promote exercise adherence (e.g., Newsome et al., 2021).

Differences in preferences for exercise intensity are theoretically expected for Extraversion specifically, as extraverts are expected to experience positive hedonic tone at greater stimulus intensities than those who are more introverted (Eysenck et al., 1982). Though not a direct assessment of self-reported intensity preference, perhaps the most robust support for this hypothesis is evident through moderator analyses performed in the Wilson & Dishman meta-analysis (2015). They observed that the relationship between Extraversion and physical activity is weaker in studies that reported physical activity as the amount of mild-to-moderate intensity physical activity than it was when physical activity was conceptualized in any other way. Further, effects were strongest when physical activity was captured as volume of moderate-to-vigorous intensity activity, supporting the postulate that the relationship between Extraversion and physical activity might be intensity dependent. One might expect, based on this finding, that Extraversion predicts naturalistic participation in higher intensity activities, but is less useful for predicting participation in lower intensity activities. Introverted individuals would therefore be less likely to regularly participate in moderate-to-vigorous intensity activities such as those endorsed in national physical activity recommendations (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2018). These observations are in agreement with a more recent report linking more frequent participation in vigorous intensity activity with increasing increments of Extraversion in adult women (Karvonen et al., 2020), though the relationship was not significant among men.

Intensity preference differences according to personality were further elaborated in a large (n = 4,649) sample of Danish adults. Observations supported increasing increments of Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Openness to predict increasing intensities of leisure time physical activity expressed in METs, measured by validated self-report (Petersen et al., 2018). Analyses also demonstrated a significant positive influence of Extraversion on self-reported physical activity duration, and a social-class dependent association between Conscientiousness and duration such that increasing increments of Conscientiousness predicted greater duration only for individuals within a low occupational social class(i.e., “unskilled”workers, or workers in positions requiring 1.5 years of training at most). Beyond these observations, evidence linking personality to physical activity duration preferences and practices is non-existent. Nonetheless, observations on preferences for different qualities of physical activity (i.e., different intensities, modes, durations) highlight the potential importance of physical activity promotion approaches to target preferences according to these salient individual differences. However, to date, personality targeted physical activity promotion efforts have yet to be reported.